If two people use each other as a means to an end, can/does the action turn from immoral to moral?

[Bohm_Bawerk]

If two people use each other as a means to an end, does such action turn from immoral to moral? Clearly, if two people are using each other as a means to an end, then they are both giving either implicit/explicit consent that they can be used. For instance, let’s suppose you have a conceptual classroom. In this classroom, you have a nerd and a bully. A nerd “trades” with the bully in the sense that he provides his superior bra(name removed by moderator)ower to help the bully finish his homework. The bully trades with the nerd in the sense that the nerd is given protection from any of his foes. Even though they are both using each other, doesn’t such usage “implode” upon itself, by virtue of consent being given? This stands in stark contrast to a situation where the bully bullies a nerd into doing his homework, without the nerd reaping any benefit whatsoever.

Whilst such example may seem trivial, it has important implications on Church teaching. An example that comes to mind is the issue of birth control, which is often criticized on the grounds that the people involved are “using each other” and the given relationship is a lie manifest. It would also tear asunder the moral foundation of a free-market economy, because people act out of self-interest and exchange with the other party, which for all intents and purposes can be regarded as both parties using each other.

 

[danserr]

If two people use each other as a means to an end, does such action turn from immoral to moral? Clearly, if two people are using each other as a means to an end, then they are both giving either implicit/explicit consent that they can be used. For instance, let’s suppose you have a conceptual classroom. In this classroom, you have a nerd and a bully. A nerd “trades” with the bully in the sense that he provides his superior bra(name removed by moderator)ower to help the bully finish his homework. The bully trades with the nerd in the sense that the nerd is given protection from any of his foes. Even though they are both using each other, doesn’t such usage “implode” upon itself, by virtue of consent being given? This stands in stark contrast to a situation where the bully bullies a nerd into doing his homework, without the nerd reaping any benefit whatsoever.

Whilst such example may seem trivial, it has important implications on Church teaching. An example that comes to mind is the issue of birth control, which is often criticized on the grounds that the people involved are “using each other” and the given relationship is a lie manifest. It would also tear asunder the moral foundation of a free-market economy, because people act out of self-interest and exchange with the other party, which for all intents and purposes can be regarded as both parties using each other.

It depends, at least partly, on whether or not human beings have intrinsic moral value. If so, then any action that reduces another person to an object to be used, (thus denying the person’s intrinsic moral value) is morally wrong. This is still the case even if both parties try to exploit each other, each behaving as if the other person (and themselves) does not have intrinsic moral value.

Since it is still true that persons do have intrinsic moral value, then it follows actions that deny this value are wrong.

ps. by intrinsic worth, I mean that persons have value in themselves, not only as means to an end.

 

[Thankfulness]

Do you basically mean,“do two wrongs make a right”?
No

 

[tonyrey]

Mutual consent does not necessarily justify people’s actions. A suicide pact is an example… Or behaviour which is physically or psychologically harmful.

 

[empther]

If two people use each other as a means to an end, can/does the action turn from immoral to moral?

Sounds like an argument teenagers might use to justify pre-marital sex.

The answer is no. An immoral action is an immoral action.

 

[John21652]

If two people use each other as a means to an end, does such action turn from immoral to moral? Clearly, if two people are using each other as a means to an end, then they are both giving either implicit/explicit consent that they can be used. For instance, let’s suppose you have a conceptual classroom. In this classroom, you have a nerd and a bully. A nerd “trades” with the bully in the sense that he provides his superior bra(name removed by moderator)ower to help the bully finish his homework. The bully trades with the nerd in the sense that the nerd is given protection from any of his foes. Even though they are both using each other, doesn’t such usage “implode” upon itself, by virtue of consent being given? This stands in stark contrast to a situation where the bully bullies a nerd into doing his homework, without the nerd reaping any benefit whatsoever.

Bohm, you haven’t thought this through enough.

The “bully”, by definition, has coerced the “nerd” into doing the homework by the use of bullying tactics. He must have, or he wouldn’t be called a “bully” by you. The “nerd” is giving his assent based on fear. Even if the nerd wasn’t threatened directly by the bully, he is astute enough to do an exchange to keep himself out of trouble and the trouble is obviously not of the kind he would ordinarily enter into an agreement over. His workload has gone up and all he gets in return is peace. That is tantamount to blackmail and/or extortion, because he is in a relationship which has the threat of sanction as its foundation.

Now contrast that with two people who willing enter into an exchange of benefits for their mutual advantage, without the threat of sanctions should they refuse to contract. Once they contract, freely and begin to draw mutual benefit, they are then “using each other as a means to an end”, but the connotations are very different, are they not? We can call it “exploitation”. That word carries with it today a sense of “being used”, but if done contractually, where the exploitation is beneficial to both parties, it should not be viewed as being a negative concept.

Whilst such example may seem trivial, it has important implications on Church teaching. An example that comes to mind is the issue of birth control, which is often criticized on the grounds that the people involved are “using each other” and the given relationship is a lie manifest.

It doesn’t alter Church teachings one iota. As long as the contractual obligations are fairly entered into, that is, they have a moral basis, then the foundation is one of mutual benefit. Should one, or both parties decide to change the marital contract’s terms and conditions, then that is another matter. If coercion and bullying is used, then we have the same scenario as the one you originally gave us, which is of one party being unairly coercive and theb other submitting under threat of a sanction. If the couple both agree that contraception is Ok and so change the nature of the contract, they have inserted a clause which is not Catholic and thus the entire contract is no longer a Catholic one.

It would also tear asunder the moral foundation of a free-market economy, because people act out of self-interest and exchange with the other party, which for all intents and purposes can be regarded as both parties using each other.

Nonsense. Sheer and simple. The free market economy is based on contracts freely entered into. There would be no point to any relationship if there was no benefit to either party. In other words, self interest is a vital component to any relationship. Of course, all such relationships require a moral basis and if they don’t, then they can be unfair. To prevent such unfairness, societies put legal sanctions in place should one party disrespect the other and to attempt to exploit another unfairly. Note the coupling of the words “exploit” and “fair”.

Now go a bit deeper, isn’t there even a contract between man and God? A “bargain”, if you like? One of mutual benefit?

 

[jochoa]

If two people use each other as a means to an end, does such action turn from immoral to moral? Clearly, if two people are using each other as a means to an end, then they are both giving either implicit/explicit consent that they can be used. For instance,…

Amazing Question, my friend! Please consider the following instance:
-God wanted to share with other free-willed beings the awesome experiences of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy through the powers of perfect patience, kindness, and motivation, as a society and individually.
-So He created free-willed beings with the desires of peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom. -In order to get the creations to be genuinely free-willed, He had to design an incredibly difficult to understand Word (OT & NT), including some very difficult to understand paradoxes, as well as a universe of which He (the source of worldly existence) can only be known by faith.
-Then, He selflessly came down from heaven and became man, in order to demonstrate to the free-willed creations how to be One with His Holy Spirit: Always be and spread the means to be perfectly patient and kind and motivated for Him with all your body and with all your spirit and with all your thoughts and with all your will equally towards others and yourself, as He taught in His Greatest Commandments and demonstrated during His incredibly unjust Crucifixion.
-Now, recognize that you and I were both created. We both have free-will. We both have the desires for peace, happiness, energy, and wisdom. We both have to have faith as to whether or not God exists. We both have found the Impatient and Selfish God of the OT to be contradictory of the All-Loving God of the NT. We both struggle to be and spread the means to be perfectly patient and kind and motivated for Him in all our being. And we are both learning about Him through His Church.

My friend, we are the fulfillment of the purpose. And seeing as He has done His part, I would say: First, His actions in the OT can be seen as Morally fitting to the Truly Loving Nature of His Holy Spirit, especially in regards to “means to an end.”
Second, I would like to learn from you and with you, as to how we can become One in His Holy Spirit sooner, than later, so that we may both experience and spread the awesomeness of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy!

Thoughts?