Explanation of Humanae Vitae 14

[StatCrux]

From HV 14: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general."

What is the difference between the two situations described above? It sounds like at first you can tolerate a lesser evil to promote a greater good but then the next sentence says you can’t. Is the difference in the words “tolerate” versus “doing”? What does tolerate mean in this respect?

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.

-SC

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Read about the “Principle of Double Effect”. Google should help.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

I think this probably referring to cases of ectopic pregnancy, where the baby has implanted outside the mother’s uterus and surgery is required to remove the baby to prevent the mother from dying (ie. if the baby has implanted inside her ovary/her fallopian tube, etc and if it ruptured, it would lead to massive internal bleeding that could kill her). Unfortunately, this surgery results in the death of the baby, since we don’t have the wherewithal to implant the baby in the mother’s uterus.

 

[Ron_Conte]

From HV 14: “Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general."

What is the difference between the two situations described above? It sounds like at first you can tolerate a lesser evil to promote a greater good but then the next sentence says you can’t. Is the difference in the words “tolerate” versus “doing”? What does tolerate mean in this respect?

There are three fonts of morality.

1. intention
2. the act itself with its inherent moral meaning, as determined by the moral object
3. consequences

We can tolerate some bad consequences (a type of evil) if the good consequences (the greater good) outweigh the bad. This is in the third font.

But in the second font, if the chosen act is intrinsically evil, then we are not merely tolerating some bad consequences, but rather we are choosing to do what is inherently contrary to the Justice of God. We can never morally choose an act that is intrinsically evil, no matter how good the intention, no matter how dire the circumstances.

 

[StatCrux]

Thanks for the responses. They were all very helpful in helping me understand the difference.

-SC

 

[jokerman]

id also add that choosing the lesser of two evils implies that there is no other option. if there is a non-evil option then this moral principle doesnt apply.

 

[Roman_Army]

Example of tolerating a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil or promote a greater good:

There are 30 terrorists hiding among 100 civilians in a residential structure in a small town in a desert somewhere, in which credible objective intelligence sources indicate they are preparing to attack a heavily populated civilian target with toxic gas or biological weapon inside homemade rockets, and it is reasonably estimated to kill 3,000 civilians surrounding the blasts and there is no way to stop it in time with the use of conventional troops. So, the President decides to authorize an airstrike intended to neutralize the site before the rockets are ready to launch. It kills all 30 terrorists but collaterally kills 100 civilians, but saved 3,000 and successfully brings about peace. It tolerates a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater evil, and promote a greater good. Another example would be when the Pope or a bishop tolerates an obstinate heretic or schismatic, but does so only for fear that they will drag others down with them if they be cut off. Like the parable of the wheat and the chaff. Or how Moses tolerated divorce only to avoid domestic violence.

Example of doing evil in order that good may come of it (which is sinful):

Euthanasia. Someone kills a patient in order to avoid the burden of having to take care of them or for the patient themselves to not feel pain. Abortion: the direct killing of unborn life to avoid future burdens and sufferings associated with caring for the child. The same with contraception. The person deliberately contracepts in order to avoid the possibility of a dangerous pregnancy, pain of child bearing, or future financial troubles. In this case is not tolerating a lesser evil to avoid a greater evil, since a non-evil option already exists: the virtue of continence which is what NFP is all about.