is a good deed for a bad reason still good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerbear
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You don’t think Jesus was conserned with how we act? With that I disagree. I as a Christian am conserned with Christ’s teachings; therefore, I answered in the form that is best according to the true moral teaching of the Gospel. If you want to explore a governmental legal point of view that’s fine. Just don’t think this discussion is about Christian morality. Since it’s on a Catholic forum it is often assumed you would be; so, I’d like to point out the Catholic point of view for clarity to those seeking Catholic Apologetic Philosophy. So, indeed go your own way, but then you’d be in the wrong forum for this is the Catholic Apologetic Philosophy forum.
 
I addition, maybe your missing that we are reaching the same conclusion from the focus on the actors rather than the act. We can see the bad actors do not profit in in the end from good acts even if he profit on earth all justice is served in the final judgement of Christ.

With a focus on an act the good act seems good, but then the exceptions of intent and other conditions have to be combined with the act in some judgement of how much an act is tainted by someones alterior motives etc. So here we are having to judge the actor anyway, we might as well started there from the beginning.
 
You don’t think Jesus was conserned with how we act? With that I disagree. I as a Christian am conserned with Christ’s teachings; therefore, I answered in the form that is best according to the true moral teaching of the Gospel. If you want to explore a governmental legal point of view that’s fine. Just don’t think this discussion is about Christian morality. Since it’s on a Catholic forum it is often assumed you would be; so, I’d like to point out the Catholic point of view for clarity to those seeking Catholic Apologetic Philosophy. So, indeed go your own way, but then you’d be in the wrong forum for this is the Catholic Apologetic Philosophy forum.
It certainly gives the wrong impression to non-believers to say that saving a person’s life is not good even though it was not intentional. It brings religion into disrepute to ignore the basic principles of philosophy and gives a false impression of Catholic Christianity. The Church has condemned fideism. Non-believers visit this forum in order to discover whether our beliefs have a **rational **basis independent of Revelation. The choice between Catholic Apologetics and the dictates of reason is a false dilemma, as St Thomas Aquinas has amply demonstrated in his Summa. It is not a question of “either…or…” but “both”!

As I pointed out, an evil intention makes the action** wrong **but the consequence is still good. There is no conflict whatsoever between the teaching of Jesus and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On the contrary, the principles of liberty, equality and (above all) fraternity are based on our belief that we have a loving Father who has created us to live in universal harmony. Jesus Himself reduced his enemies’ arguments to absurdity by exposing their inconsistency, e.g.
Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me?
John 8:46
 
"wrong impression to non-believers to say that saving a person’s life is not good "
We converge on the same conclusion.

“ignore the basic principles of philosophy”
False accusation.

“discover whether our beliefs have a rational basis independent of Revelation”
Christ’s focus on the loveing intent of a person to do good is a rational argument not based on fideism.

“choice between Catholic Apologetics and the dictates of reason is a false dilemma”
Yes, exactly the answer comes out the same, but the philosophy is about people and relationships rather than a catagorization of acts plus exceptions.

"It is not a question of “either…or…” but “both”!
WHOO-HOO!!! by golly I think your finally catching up to my Apr 19, '14 7:47 am post!

Of course I’ve agrued the merits of my argument, but I’ve never made this an either/or argument that’s why I’ve constantly talked about all this being agreement that’s taken the form of an argument. I’ve been taking a different view, based on the Sermon on the Mound teaching that many here wish to be critical and without actually addressing the merits or faults of the agruement, but make false accusations often stating the exact opposite of what I have said in support of their accusations.

Your really going to have to learn how to do better than just insist that only one form of rational agrument is valid so that you get to guide it into your familure classical agruments.
 
"wrong impression to non-believers to say that saving a person’s life is not good "
We converge on the same conclusion.
?
“ignore the basic principles of philosophy”
False accusation.

NB: Non-believers visit this forum in order to discover whether our beliefs have a rational basis independent of Revelation.
Christ’s focus on the loveing intent of a person to do good is a rational argument not based on fideism.
Indeed but the basis of your previous argument “it depends on his relationship to the money and God” wouldn’t satisfy an unbeliever. It is a theological view.
“choice between Catholic Apologetics and the dictates of reason is a false dilemma”
Yes, exactly the answer comes out the same, but the philosophy is about people and relationships rather than a catagorization of acts plus exceptions.

Yet another false dilemma!The categories of intention, means and ends are fundamental elements of morality. There are no intentions without persons!
"It is not a question of “either…or…” but “both”!
WHOO-HOO!!! by golly I think your finally catching up to my Apr 19, '14 7:47 am post!
? NB “it depends on his relationship to the money and God”.
Of course I’ve agrued the merits of my argument, but I’ve never made this an either/or argument that’s why I’ve constantly talked about all this being agreement that’s taken the form of an argument. I’ve been taking a different view, based on the Sermon on the Mound teaching that many here wish to be critical and without actually addressing the merits or faults of the agruement, but make false accusations often stating the exact opposite of what I have said in support of their accusations.
Unsubstantiated assertion…
Your really going to have to learn how to do better than just insist that only one form of rational agrument is valid so that you get to guide it into your familure classical agruments.
Irrelevant ad hominem which infringes the forum rule of courtesy. The “familure classical agruments” have not been mentioned or implied.
 
NB: Non-believers visit this forum in order to discover whether our beliefs have a rational basis independent of Revelation.
The Marrage of Revelation and the rational need to be seen in concert together, but you teach that the rational is seperate from Revelation.
Indeed but the basis of your previous argument “it depends on his relationship to the money and God” wouldn’t satisfy an unbeliever. It is a theological view.
Yes the "and God portion is, but all should understand the effects of greed and love of money is destructive to the value the person might get from an act absent the desire for money.
Yet another false dilemma!The categories of intention, means and ends are fundamental elements of morality. There are no intentions without persons
Again what I’ve been saying in that we are converging at the same place, the heart is the seat of a person’s intentions.
Irrelevant ad hominem which infringes the forum rule of courtesy. The “familure classical agruments” have not been mentioned or implied
.
You attack with missleading non-believers, irrationality, accusations of false dilemas and I try to warn you to be more accepting of other ideas and you only know how to lash out with more attacks. Also, I’m sorry if giving you a complement of saying you are well versed in classical arguments was so hard on you.

I’ve never wanted to break into any argument. You seem to reject and accuse false intent of every time I even agree with you and I do not want to continue with this contest of finger pointing.
 
I posted this in another section of the forum but thought I’d post it here as well.So I got into a conversation with a few non-denominational friends a little while ago and I wanna see what you guys think. We were on the topic of idolatry and talking about how it’s wrong and selfish to help someone or do good if it’s for monetary value (money, food, etc.), but that you should do it knowing that by doing good, you will be working towards a higher spot in heaven because God will look favorably upon your actions.

The question I have is that they were saying that although it is a good thing to help others or do something good, if you are doing it for some monetary and for selfish reason then it is bad because you have the thought of a reward in mind for doing such actions, making it a good deed but with a bad premise. If you were to do something good or help a person out with the thought of being looked favorably on by God, is this not a selfish act as well? It might not be for anything that we can use here on earth or anything but it’s still the idea of receiving a reward. Is this not a good deed but with a bad premise as well? Is the only true good that someone can do be invoked simply by you doing it for the love of your fellow humans and doing something because it’s the right thing to do?

I appreciate any responses back to my question. Thank you and God bless!
Anything done in a selfish manner may make the spirit dirty.

At the same time don’t doubt yourself from doing a good deed. Just do it.

Don’t focus on reward. Focus on the opportunity in front of you.
 
three things determine the goodness of an act.
  1. the Moral Object, the thing actually done,
  2. the intention
  3. the circumstances
I’ll take your question and set it to a real life situation.
  1. a well known celebrity donates millions to a Charitable organization (good act)
  2. His intention was to get noticed in the media and have attention brought on himself.
  3. circumstances are fine
because #2 is an evil intention it therefore can’t be a good act.

All three must be good in order for it to be considered a moral good.
 
Phillipians
17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19 for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,…
Just as Paul rejoice at “Christ being proclaimed” even in pretense and not in Truth. We can still call a good outcome a good act. While the full intent and circumstances of the human act could determine that the human act is bad.

Here is a good catholic article that also differentiates the “act” from the “human act.”
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0912.htm
 
Just as Paul rejoice at “Christ being proclaimed” even in pretense and not in Truth. We can still call a good outcome a good act. While the full intent and circumstances of the human act could determine that the human act is bad.

Here is a good catholic article that also differentiates the “act” from the “human act.”
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0912.htm
The principle that the end does not justify the means is subordinate to the principle that we should choose the lesser of two evils. For example, we are justified in telling a lie to save a person’s life.
 
The principle that the end does not justify the means is subordinate to the principle that we should choose the lesser of two evils. For example, we are justified in telling a lie to save a person’s life.
This could be a circumstance to consider, but I’d rather call it a lie of charity.
 
The answer to the OP question of whether a particular act is good is completely dependent on whether you are judging the act on its own or the human act. The human act is judged most perfectly according to the Law of the Gospel.

Here is part of the CCC’s development of Law and its high point in the Law of the Gospel. I selected a focus on the sections that relate to reason, to the natural Law that is applicable to all, to the Sermon on the Mound, to being an interior law of charity, it’s being superior over lists of Don’ts or ritual acts, and to its use in deciding right from wrong.
Law, natural and revealed, is declared and established by reason. Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good.
1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2
The natural law is the law for all times in every civil society, not just those who may be theological adherents to a particular religion.
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11
1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1978 The natural law is a participation in God’s wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.
The natural law is written on the hearts of all men, but the perception of this law can be difficult without grace and revelation. It is not something to keep to ourselves as something only understood through a viewpoint of faith.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
The Law of the Gospel is the perfection of both the natural and revealed Law. It is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount and is an interior law of charity (love).
1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19
The Law of the Gospel is the way and commandment of Christ to judge our actions from a relationship of love for others just as we love ourselves and how he has loved us. We are to use it to determine the choices of “the two ways” of right and wrong.
1970 The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between “the two ways” and to put into practice the words of the Lord.26 It is summed up in the Golden Rule, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets."27
The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the “new commandment” of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.28
The New Law of the Gospel is greater than a law of minimal conduct of things to NOT do, but rather leads us on to ever more free and greater acts of love by continued strengthening through grace.
1972 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who “does not know what his master is doing” to that of a friend of Christ - “For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you” - or even to the status of son and heir.31
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top