intrinsic evil

[mom3]

I’m a student at a Catholic university and enrolled in a class on morality. I’ve always been taught that some actions are simply evil no matter what the circumstances or intentions surrounding them – eg. direct and intentional abortion is never morally acceptable regardless of the situation. However, my professor is having us read a book that denies the existance of intrinsic evil. Yes or no, does intrinsic evil exist or not? If it does, where do I find the teachings to support that in class?

 

[Zahmir]

I’m a student at a Catholic university and enrolled in a class on morality. I’ve always been taught that some actions are simply evil no matter what the circumstances or intentions surrounding them – eg. direct and intentional abortion is never morally acceptable regardless of the situation. However, my professor is having us read a book that denies the existance of intrinsic evil. Yes or no, does intrinsic evil exist or not? If it does, where do I find the teachings to support that in class?

Can you enlighten us as to what university you attend? and what book you’re reading?

There are some intrinsic evils.

And just so you know, sometimes when it comes to the life of the mother, a baby may be “aborted.”

However, especially when it comes to moral ethics, it is important to question everything and find a reason for a moral truth. Maybe this is a good way of abandoning your previous beliefs and find some actual arguments. It’s kinda like faith seeking understanding except that, you know where you’re going and you can understand the truth completely.

 

[AnonymousOne]

And just so you know, sometimes when it comes to the life of the mother, a baby may be “aborted.”

Wrong. At least if you are using the term “aborted” in the sense that 99.9% of people are going to read your response, that in order to save the life of the mother it is OK to kill the innocent baby she carries.

If, on the other hand, you’re talking about a spontaneous miscarriage, or an ectopic pregnancy, then that’s another story. If that’s what you mean, you should be more careful with your words because that isn’t how it sounded.

Catholic doctrine is quite clear on this matter. There is NEVER a situation in which it is moral to intentionally kill an innocent human being to save the life of another. And that’s what abortion is. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

 

[Zahmir]

Wrong. At least if you are using the term “aborted” in the sense that 99.9% of people are going to read your response, that in order to save the life of the mother it is OK to kill the innocent baby she carries.

If, on the other hand, you’re talking about a spontaneous miscarriage, or an ectopic pregnancy, then that’s another story. If that’s what you mean, you should be more careful with your words because that isn’t how it sounded.

Catholic doctrine is quite clear on this matter. There is NEVER a situation in which it is moral to intentionally kill an innocent human being to save the life of another. And that’s what abortion is. It is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

Yeah, sorry about that. It’s late and I’m insane

and yes, I was talking about those difficult cirumstances where it seems one has to choose between the mother and the child, or even one or neither.

But yes, there are intrinsic evils, and the killing of innocent life would be one of them.

I’m sorry for that mix-up, and believe me, I have not persuaded people into thinking abortion is okay. I would hate myself forever if that were true.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I’m a student at a Catholic university and enrolled in a class on morality. I’ve always been taught that some actions are simply evil no matter what the circumstances or intentions surrounding them – eg. direct and intentional abortion is never morally acceptable regardless of the situation. However, my professor is having us read a book that denies the existance of intrinsic evil. Yes or no, does intrinsic evil exist or not? If it does, where do I find the teachings to support that in class?

It is hard to refute what we have not read. It is puzzling that if they refute intrinsic evil they have no evil, or external created evil which did they chose. Sounds like they are on thin ice.

 

[john_doran]

I’ve always been taught that some actions are simply evil no matter what the circumstances or intentions surrounding them – eg. direct and intentional abortion is never morally acceptable regardless of the situation. However, my professor is having us read a book that denies the existance of intrinsic evil. Yes or no, does intrinsic evil exist or not?

the moral character of human action derives from the intention that motivates it: as you say, for example, ***intentional ***killing is “intrinsically evil”, because we are guilty only for what we intend (or intentionally accept). the idea that moral praise- and blame-worthiness is dependent strictly upon what we we **do **- i.e. the states of affairs that result from our actions - is utilitarian, and not traditionally catholic…

so. yes, intrinsic evil does exist. but it is function of the reasons for which individuals act, and NOT (simply) the results of their actions; that is to say, killing is not intrinsically wrong, but killing for the wrong reasons is intrinsically wrong.

mom3:

If it does, where do I find the teachings to support that in class?

as a simple suggestion, i think you should perhaps not think of this stuff in terms of “teachings”. i mean, i realize that the church teaches certain moral facts, and that those doctrines are absolutely certain; but, in a classroom, that isn’t necessarily a profitable way to think or talk about it (at least in my experience)…

i think you’ll have more success if you understand the philosophy behind the moral theology. in which case, check out aquinas (summa theologica, second part of the second part), and anything by germain grisez, joseph boyle, or john finnis. they’ll shoot you straight…

 

[KATA_LOUKAN]

Wrong. At least if you are using the term “aborted” in the sense that 99.9% of people are going to read your response, that in order to save the life of the mother it is OK to kill the innocent baby she carries.

A hypothetical situation - a mother, who conceived the baby using NFP, without using ABC, which might increase her odds of having an ectopic pregnancy, happens to get an ectopic pregnancy.

Is it morally permissable to remove the fetus from the tube, because either the mother and child die, or just the child? What should we do here?

 

[Penguin12345]

What’s with Catholic universities anyway? I’d refuse to read that book (if it were me). Professors just have too much power. They make you read what they want without any balance in perspective. But back to your question. Yes, some things are intrinsically evil. That doesn’t mean the person committing them is sinning though. If they don’t know it’s a sin, they aren’t accountable. Also, there’s a difference between moral relativism and situation ethics. Moral relativism says there is no real moral truth. One thing that is moral for you may not be moral for me. Situation ethics (which is thoroughly Catholic) says that depending upon a given situation, an act may or may not be justifiable. For example, having sex in public is wrong. Having sex in private is good (when married). So depending on the circumstance, having sex may or may not be moral. Just at the top of my head, something intrinsically evil would be neglecting to keep the Sabbath holy. Under no cicumstances is that justifiable. I wish I could help you a little more than that, but as of yet I don’t know any resources to give you.

 

[Ham1]

You are probably reading a book by Curran, McBrien or McCormick - proponents of a concept called proportionalism. It is a view that is condemned in Veritatis Splendor under the section on Human Acts.

If you want to private message me, I can try to help you out. I wrote my philosophy thesis on a topic involving these principles. There is good info out there on this subject. Dr. Janet Smith has written a couple of good papers directly on the subject and they used to be available online.

The answer is yes, certain acts are intrinsically evil. The theologians who try to deny this create a scenario where they claim “more information is needed.” Essentially, they build a system of situational ethics that (not surprisingly) can allow for instances where abortion, contraception, homosexual acts, pre-marital sex, etc are morally permissible.

 

[Ham1]

What’s with Catholic universities anyway? I’d refuse to read that book (if it were me). Professors just have too much power. They make you read what they want without any balance in perspective. But back to your question. Yes, some things are intrinsically evil. That doesn’t mean the person committing them is sinning though. If they don’t know it’s a sin, they aren’t accountable. Also, there’s a difference between moral relativism and situation ethics. Moral relativism says there is no real moral truth. One thing that is moral for you may not be moral for me. Situation ethics (which is thoroughly Catholic) says that depending upon a given situation, an act may or may not be justifiable. For example, having sex in public is wrong. Having sex in private is good (when married). So depending on the circumstance, having sex may or may not be moral. Just at the top of my head, something intrinsically evil would be neglecting to keep the Sabbath holy. Under no cicumstances is that justifiable. I wish I could help you a little more than that, but as of yet I don’t know any resources to give you.

Your example on the sexual act is a good one. However, the Church teaches that these acts are fundamentally different. The circumstance alters the object of the act in such a way that the act is designated to one particular moral species. In yoru example the act of having sex in public becomes an act of exhibitionism which we could rightly say is intrinsically evil. Even though the “mechanics” of the act seem to be similar the conditions present render the object of each act distinct and of opposite moral species.

Be careful with what you mean by situational ethics…that name usually designates a moral theology that is out of step with Catholic teaching.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, some things are intrinsically evil. That doesn’t mean the person committing them is sinning though. If they don’t know it’s a sin, they aren’t accountable.

They may be less culpable if they don’t know something is a sin, but maybe not. *CCC 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin. In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. *

And if someone commits a sin due to invincible ignorance, they still commit evil but in such cases they aren’t culpable. CCC 1793 If–on the contrary-the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes or no, does intrinsic evil exist or not? If it does, where do I find the teachings to support that in class?

Yes, it exists. The Catechism uses the term “intrinsic evil” in section 2370 which sites from Humanea Vitae 14. This is just a wild guess, but I bet your professor disagrees with both those Church documents.

 

[setter]

However, my professor is having us read a book that denies the existance of intrinsic evil. Yes or no, does intrinsic evil exist or not? If it does, where do I find the teachings to support that in class?

From the encyclical of John Paul II Veritatis Splendor:

1. As is evident, in the question of the morality of human acts, and in particular the question of whether there exist intrinsically evil acts, we find ourselves faced with the question of man himself, of his truth and of the moral consequences flowing from that truth. By acknowledging and teaching the existence of intrinsic evil in given human acts, the Church remains faithful to the integral truth about man; she thus respects and promotes man in his dignity and vocation. Consequently, she must reject the theories set forth above, which contradict this truth.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[shirleytowers]

whoa, slow down. Just because a professor has you read something doesn’t mean he wants you to believe it. Gee, perhaps he just wants you to think. I might be wrong, but I imagine this is how he is getting you to understand both sides so you can believe whatever you believe in an informed kind of way instead of out of ignorance. And so you can refute the other side more bettah.

 

[Nevarlander]

I’m a student at a Catholic university and enrolled in a class on morality. I’ve always been taught that some actions are simply evil no matter what the circumstances or intentions surrounding them – eg. direct and intentional abortion is never morally acceptable regardless of the situation. However, my professor is having us read a book that denies the existance of intrinsic evil. Yes or no, does intrinsic evil exist or not? If it does, where do I find the teachings to support that in class?

Is he supporting the idea that there is nothing intrinsically evil, or just having you read it to get another viewpoint? I’m at a Catholic university as well, and in a class on moral theology, and my professor had us read Fides et Ratio, and then Max Weber so we could get the “modern” viewpoint on the nature of reason (I think that’s what it was… I space out in that class a lot). Now we’re doing Veritatis Splendor. I think that his intention for having you read it makes all the difference.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Of course intrinsic evil exists.

Those who deny it play a shell game with words. They will use a term in it’s broadest sense or even out of it’s normal use.

For example:

Killing another human being. Church would teach that sometimes it is evil and sometimes it is a grave duty.

Note that this is the broadest sense of the act. They do not use a term which specifies certain conditions. Killing another human being encompasses abortion, murder, self-defense, and war.

But you can specify that abortion means the intentional killing of an unborn baby. By that definition, abortion is intrinsically evil. The operative word is intentional. If the mother has cancer, and the chemotherapy has the secondary effect of killing the fetus - that death was not intentional -* therefore it does not meet the definition of abortion in this sense*. The moral relativists will shy away from agreeing on definition of terms.

Ask your professor if they can think of any case where it would be OK to intentionally kill an innocent human being.

If they say yes and cite the pregnant mother with cancer - just point out that would not be “intentional”.

If they say yes and cite some self-defense situation - that would not be killing an innocent person.

There can be no justification for such an act.

If they say yes and cite some euthanasia situation justifying it with quality of life. Tell them you would rather die than live the life they’re living - ask if it would be OK to euthanize them?