Intrinsicly evil acts vs greater good

[Neil_Anthony]

Hypothetical scenario:

You are a politician with the deciding vote on a bill.

This bill will allow one new type of rare abortion, which will happen once per year on average.

But, the bill also includes financial incentives for pregnant mothers which everyone on all sides of the issue agrees will reduce abortion by 80% immediately. The funding for the programs will not come from tax money, it will come from wealthy people who have volunteered to commit the money if the bill is passed.

Is it morally acceptable to approve of this bill which legalizes a new form of abortion?

I vote no, but am curious what others think.

Neil

 

[dcrowmik]

Or this scenario…

This bill will allow one new type of murder, which will happen once per year on average.

But, the bill also includes financial incentives for potential criminals which everyone on all sides of the issue agrees will reduce murder by 80% immediately. The funding for the programs will not come from tax money, it will come from wealthy people who have volunteered to commit the money if the bill is passed.

Is it morally acceptable to approve of this bill which legalizes a new form of murder?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The application of the ethical principle, “one must always do the lesser evil” is applied if and only if there is not a “greater good” to be chosen. The dilemmas are often posed as if another “good” alternative is not among the choosing. But there is. Vote no on the bill, reformulate another bill that includes only those provisions that “all sides” agree would save 80% from abortion.

What are the motives for the bill? To increase abortion or decrease abortion? If the later, then why have a provision to include a “new type of abortion,” no matter how rare? Make them separate bills and vote accordingly.

One may not choose to murder a few in order than others may live.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks for the answers. I’m asking this question to address the idea that “Obama will legalize more abortions, and fund more abortions, but his financial policies will reduce the number of abortions”. Trying to show that this logic is wrong even if it did reduce abortions.

 

[bloke916]

What’s a situation where you must do the lesser evil? Would Jesus choose the lesser evil?

The application of the ethical principle, “one must always do the lesser evil” is applied if and only if there is not a “greater good” to be chosen. The dilemmas are often posed as if another “good” alternative is not among the choosing. But there is. Vote no on the bill, reformulate another bill that includes only those provisions that “all sides” agree would save 80% from abortion.

What are the motives for the bill? To increase abortion or decrease abortion? If the later, then why have a provision to include a “new type of abortion,” no matter how rare? Make them separate bills and vote accordingly.

One may not choose to murder a few in order than others may live.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

What’s a situation where you must do the lesser evil?

My abbreviation of the axiom may have been misleading. The fuller context is:

“the lesser evil or the greater good is always to be chosen in preference; and therefore the constant man is compelled to bear with the lesser evil through fear of the greater evil.”

[St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologica,

supp., 47, 2]
The context is that a “lesser evil” is something “chosen” in the sense that it is something one must “bear” or tolerate to avoid a greater evil.

An example might be to submit to (bear or tolerate) the persecution and torture of an aggressor (lesser evil) in order to avoid the greater evil of renouncing one’s faith in Christ.

Would Jesus choose the lesser evil?

Yes. While God does not commit moral evil, he does choose toleration of moral evil.

According to Leo XIII:

…the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence.
Libertas, 33]

Additionally, distinct form moral evil there is also what theologians call “punitive evil” which clearly God does produce, and does so justly.

For example, “if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to i**t” (Jer 18:8). This is the evil created by God spoken of in Is 45:7 and like passages in Amos and elsewhere. One ought not to confuse this kind of evil for moral evil, that is sin.

See more here: Can God do evil?

 

[LilyM]

Intrinsically evil acts are called so partly to indicate that they are so evil that no amount of ‘good consequences’ can really justify the doing of them, or collusion in the doing of them.

Admittedly killing people (even the unborn) is not an intrinsic evil in this sense - we can kill in self-defence or defence of country, for example.

And a woman may, under certain circumstances and utilising carefully and appropriately the principle of double effect, remove an unborn but living baby from her body even though it will result in its death.

This isn’t a situation where ‘double effect’ would apply. It’s not like anyone has suggested that the only possible alternative would be more abortions.

You could try to negotiate with the billmaker and your fellow politicians to have the permission for that one type of abortion removed and agree to permit the good abortion-reducing measures on that basis.

If not, you could formulate your own bill which incorporates the good measures and not the harmful.

 

[bloke916]

Sorry Dave, but it’s still not clear to me. In the example you give, I do not see the issue of lesser evil solved. If I am being tortured, I can choose to renounce my faith(evil) or not (choose love for God). So it’s not about a lesser evil, it’s about the right thing to do and the wrong thing, bringing in the “lesser evil” issue leads us to justify sins, I think. Just something I’ve been battling with.

An example might be to submit to (bear or tolerate) the persecution and torture of an aggressor (lesser evil) in order to avoid the greater evil of renouncing one’s faith in Christ.
Yes. While God does not commit moral evil, he does choose toleration of moral evil.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Sorry Dave, but it’s still not clear to me. …

It appears you and I don’t share a common vocabulary. I don’t know if you are Catholic or not, but I use the term “evil” in the Catholic sense, which is also commonly used in even secular philosophy texts, which refer to evil as the privation of good. In that context, human suffering is considered evil. An example given by St. Thomas Aquinas of a “lesser evil” is that of a physician who cuts off a limb in order to prevent the whole body from perishing. In applying this ethical principle, when faced between the choice of two evils (cutting of a limb or death), the lesser evil is chosen. You can argue about semantics, but this is the context used by secular ethics, philosophy, as well as Catholic theology.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A politician may morally vote for a bill if all three fonts of morality are good:

1. good intention (he cannot intend any evil or harm done by the bill)
2. the act itself of voting for the bill must not be evil (generally, voting for a bill would not be evil in and of itself, unless the bill/law has the direct effect of doing intrinsic evil.
3. the good done by the bill must outweigh the bad.

So if a bill to one extent or in one way permits abortion, but to another extent or in another way restricts abortion, and if the overall effect of the bill/law would be to decrease abortion, he might vote for it (if it is the most restrictive bill that can be passed at the time).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

A politician may morally vote for a bill if all three fonts of morality are good:

1. good intention (he cannot intend any evil or harm done by the bill)
2. the act itself of voting for the bill must not be evil (generally, voting for a bill would not be evil in and of itself, unless the bill/law has the direct effect of doing intrinsic evil.
3. the good done by the bill must outweigh the bad.

So if a bill to one extent or in one way permits abortion, but to another extent or in another way restricts abortion, and if the overall effect of the bill/law would be to decrease abortion, he might vote for it (if it is the most restrictive bill that can be passed at the time).

In the case of number 2, would voting for a bill that legalizes a form of abortion be evil?

Also, the bill doesn’t restrict abortion, although it does things which influence people to not have abortions. Does that distinction matter?

 

[bloke916]

I appreciate your response, and by no means did I mean to argue with you I was simply asking a question. And with all due respect, whether I am Catholic does not matter. I feel as if you are implying that a Catholic would not ask these questions or would know the exact definitions of things and should already know these answers. Either way, I thank you for the insight.

It appears you and I don’t share a common vocabulary. I don’t know if you are Catholic or not, .

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I appreciate your response, and by no means did I mean to argue with you I was simply asking a question. And with all due respect, whether I am Catholic does not matter. I feel as if you are implying that a Catholic would not ask these questions or would know the exact definitions of things and should already know these answers. Either way, I thank you for the insight.

I wasn’t intending to be argumentative either. The only reason I brought up whether you were Catholic or not was in reference to a common vocabulary. Non-Catholics often don’t consider Catholic sources, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, as having any credibility.