Is suffering always evil?

[Pallas_Athene]

What if God used suffering as a means of developing His LOVE in you? Would you pass on the opportunity to have to suffer a little in order to ignite that love?

Problem number one: there is the teaching that “one cannot commit evil so that something good will come out of it”.

Problem number two: it would be a very inferior method to “ignite” that love in me. It reminds me of the old saying; “the beatings will continue until the morale improves”. To torture someone to create “love” is not the optimal way to go. I would be kind and helpful to someone, and not expect anything in return. The “love” would come much more naturally.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is compatible if apparently unnecessary (gratuitous) pain and suffering are essential for personal development and fulfilment.

Well, certainly. But that would not be unnecessary pain and suffering. Of course the “end does not justify the means”, so you are still between a rock and a hard place. You might deny that there are unnecessary sufferings at all. That the burning of all the critters in a wildfire - magically! - will bring along some greater good, which requires the very painful, fiery death of them.

 

[Aloysium]

If the word “us” includes the animals, then I agree. We have no evidence for other beings which have a nervous system. I don’t know why is this important.
I would prefer to suffer alone. Someone else’s suffering is not comforting, and it does not lessen the suffering I might experience. And I have no “Schadenfreude”.
I think you might be speaking about God. My answer: “not benevolent enough”, even if that eternal happiness would be substantiated… but it is just a pipe-dream. Unfortunately. If the suffering here and now would be a logical prerequisite to that “eternal happiness”, then it MIGHT be acceptable. But there is no logical connection between them, so there is no reason not to intervene and allow the needless suffering to go on.
Not necessarily “paradise”, though it might be nice. Simply getting rid of all the unnecessary pain and suffering would be very welcome. The emphasis is on unnecessary. And why should paradise be “won”? Especially considering that one cannot “earn” admittance to heaven.

The suffering of animals seems to boil down to physical pain and fear. It is the sort of stuff that in human beings allows for the possibility of courage and other virtues.

With us, suffering has more to do with the meaning of suffering, the awareness of the inavoidability of death making it an ever-present possibility, the reality that all we will accomplish will be forgotten, that everything we own will pass on to others. that all pleasures end and that pain may ultimately be a constant daily companion onto our death.

What is important is not the suffering but the source of that suffering which lies in our capacity to see beauty, grasp the meaning of our lives, realize the reality of our personal existence, to know goodness and justice, to love. All religions deal with the mystery of this suffering. Christianity has a clear understanding of its source and how it can be transcended. It is interesting that your god, if he existed, would do away with all suffering. This does seem to be the typical secular consumerist response, to the point where, if all fails, there is suicide, assisted even, to remove any possibility of suffering at all.

We all suffer alone, no one else feels the pain. This is what comes of being unique, individual expressions of human nature. What helps us in these situations is love.
You are probably just wanting to argue. It would be a pity if you truly believed that in the presence of suffering, people feel schadenfreude. You do know compassion, right? It can heal.

When I was a kid, for a while I was afraid of dying. This disappeared forever when I realized that God existed. I still for more than four decades until recent years, believed that when I died I died, but I was not afraid because I knew that the Source of all life was eternal, everywhere and personal. Not really a pipe dream; I can’t prove it, but if you want to know God, you will find Him.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I prefer the astronomical miracle, since we know the physics and mathematics of the celestial bodies, we know them much more than the chemistry and biology of our bodies. . .

Open your heart; this may be provide what you are looking for:
youtube.com/watch?v=oGUlWa2r-bk

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is interesting that your god, if he existed, would do away with all suffering.

This is the most important misunderstanding. I keep repeating it, and it keeps being ignored: “not ALL suffering, only the UNNECESSARY suffering”. Why is it that no one recognizes this incredible difference? Should I use even larger fonts and colors? I don’t like shouting (not even the internet equivalent of it) but sometimes I do feel frustrated by seeing that the most important part of my message is ignored again and again.

Now, of course we could explore if there is any pain and suffering which is necessary to achieve some greater good. I don’t think so, but I am open to suggestions. However you will run into a problem when you realize that “the end does not justify the means”. Even if there is a “greater good” at the end of the suffering, you cannot use it as a justification. (This is one of those rare instances when I actually agree with the church’s teaching.) So you are between a rock and a hard place.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not talking about “evil”, I am talking about “unnecessary pain and suffering”. Here is a simple solution. Instead of creating animals with pain receptors, God could have created intelligent plants, which cannot feel pain. If they lose a branch due to a storm, they will grow new ones.

Very well, if that is your preference. So every TV set and radio would turn itself on and proclaim that tomorrow (date provided) ALL the amputees will have their lost limbs regrown. I prefer the astronomical miracle, since we know the physics and mathematics of the celestial bodies, we know them much more than the chemistry and biology of our bodies. As such we can make a reasonable assessment if that “miracle” is really something that cannot happen in nature without a supernatural intervention. Even the regrowth of the lost limbs might be a natural phenomenon. The planaria is a simple organism with almost unlimited ability to regrow lost parts of its body.

The stars and planets are a different “ball-game”. We know that faster than light travel is impossible in the macro world. As such the visible rearrangement of the stars, much less creating patterns in human languages cannot be explained away, they would point to some supernatural entity.

Your suggestions amount to intellectual coercion with the destruction of our power to choose what to believe and how to live - which is a far greater evil than anything else. Sartre was an atheist but at least he recognised the supreme value of freedom and commitment.

 

[tonyrey]

It is compatible if apparently unnecessary (gratuitous) pain and suffering are essential for personal development and fulfilment.

You need to provide a** feasible** blueprint of a world in which there are no natural disasters whatsoever. Misfortunes are inevitable but they do not outweigh the immense value of life.
There is no such thing as a free lunch…

 

[tonyrey]

This is the most important misunderstanding. I keep repeating it, and it keeps being ignored: “not ALL suffering, only the UNNECESSARY suffering”. Why is it that no one recognizes this incredible difference? Should I use even larger fonts and colors? I don’t like shouting (not even the internet equivalent of it) but sometimes I do feel frustrated by seeing that the most important part of my message is ignored again and again.

Now, of course we could explore if there is any pain and suffering which is necessary to achieve some greater good. I don’t think so, but I am open to suggestions. However you will run into a problem when you realize that “the end does not justify the means”. Even if there is a “greater good” at the end of the suffering, you cannot use it as a justification. (This is one of those rare instances when I actually agree with the church’s teaching.) So you are between a rock and a hard place.

The end does not justify the means but it is subject to the principle that we should choose the lesser evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Problem number one: there is the teaching that “one cannot commit evil so that something good will come out of it”.

So you are** never** entitled to lie, steal or even kill to save a person’s life?

Problem number two: it would be a very inferior method to “ignite” that love in me. It reminds me of the old saying; “the beatings will continue until the morale improves”. To torture someone to create “love” is not the optimal way to go. I would be kind and helpful to someone, and not expect anything in return. The “love” would come much more naturally.

So you are** never** entitled to inflict or permit pain to save a person’s life?

 

[lmelahn]

I would see nothing wrong with that method, but there are other excellent solutions as well. Just one for you to consider. Physical pain usually indicates that something is “wrong”. Instead of pain a much better solution would be instant regeneration of the tissue in question. Or instead of having animals with a pain center, he could have created intelligent plants, which feel no pain.

Good point. He could remove all physical pain, obviously, by a simple act that removes all illnesses and prevents all lesions from having any effect.

However, that would not remove all suffering (which is broader than physical pain), since every sinful act produces suffering, at the very least in the person who commits it.

That is way I said that, in order not to have any suffering, we would have to be in a position not to sin any more, a situation that could only exist in pre-Fall conditions.

Better for whom? Not for those who end up in heaven.

That is debatable. Everyone in Heaven will be enjoying the Beatific Vision, which is incompatible with suffering. However, part of the reason for having a sojourn on earth is to acquire the capacity for that Vision, and one thing that can help that is remaining faithful, even in the face of suffering.

Here is a better analogy: I enjoy climbing mountains. Invariably, the hikes that I have enjoyed the most are the ones that entailed a lot of hard work (sometimes even pain—cramps, tripping and falling, etc.), which is rewarded by the fantastic view on the top. The times that I was able to take a cable car or something like that were not nearly as rewarding.

And definitely not for those who end up in hell to be tortured forever.

Note that those in hell are not exactly “being tortured.” Rather, their problem is that they do not want the Vision—which is, however, the only thing that can make them happy.

And the doctor analogy is problematic, too. If the doctor only causes pain, which is necessary for the healing, then everything is OK. But the amount of pain, which is necessary, is contingent upon the available technology. With God’s power no pain is necessary, a doctor with God-like power could perform any healing without any pain.

Right, but suffering does not reduce to physical suffering, as I mentioned.

Whatever he suffered it was chosen by him. We do not choose the suffering, and his alleged pain does not lessen our pain.

It was chosen by him, but it was real pain.

Besides, all that alleged pain and suffering was unnecessary. God could have chosen to pardon all our transgressions without the self-sacrifice. Who could have stopped him?

He could have forgiven us in that way, but he considered this way more fitting, since our Fall, in a certain sense, produced a debt to God that we were unable to pay. He became man, because it was fitting for a man to pay the debt, and because only God could pay an infinite debt.

The basic conundrum is still the same: “benevolence is not compatible with any kind of unnecessary (gratuitous) pain and suffering”.

It is fitting for us to participate in the repayment of the debt that Christ payed for us. Hence, it is not really gratuitous.

 

[lmelahn]

So you are** never** entitled to lie, steal or even kill to save a person’s life?

We may never lie or steal under any circumstances.

It might be possible to say something untrue, or to take something that is not ours when it is for the sake of saving someone’s life, but in neither case would that action be lying or stealing.

So you are** never** entitled to inflict or permit pain to save a person’s life?

We cannot inflict pain for its own sake.

We can tolerate producing pain—e.g., do something, even though we know it will cause pain—for the sake of a person’s life, provided we don’t want to inflict that pain, there is no other solution, and the pain produced is proportionate to the good accomplished. (This is commonly called “double effect.”) Doctors do this all the time.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Your suggestions amount to intellectual coercion with the destruction of our power to choose what to believe and how to live - which is a far greater evil than anything else. Sartre was an atheist but at least he recognised the supreme value of freedom and commitment.

I don’t understand what you want. We were talking about “what is a miracle?” so I presented you with an undeniable miracle of rearranging the stars into a readable pattern which is really impossible to happen without supernatural intervention. For some unexplained reason you did not like it, and wanted a more “close-to-Earth”, biological, healing type of miracle. So I produced one, and now you don’t like that one either.

So what do you want now? A doubtable miracle? If a miracle can be doubted, it is not a true miracle.

Of course a real, bona fide, impossible-to-explain-away public miracle would be a huge incentive toward accepting at least the idea of some supernatural, but it would NOT coerce anyone into any specific type of behavior. As the Bible shows, even when the living God mingled with humans it did not take away their freedom to disobey. And while the display of the stars would undoubtedly point to the existence of the Christian God, the healing of ALL the amputees would be inferior in that respect. It would not point to any god, just to some unexplained supernatural.

So what do you want? (By the way, we cannot “choose” what we believe, our beliefs do not reside in the volitional part - grey cells - of the brain. Of course “how to live” is volitional.)

You need to provide a** feasible** blueprint of a world in which there are no natural disasters whatsoever. Misfortunes are inevitable but they do not outweigh the immense value of life.

Feasible according to what criteria, what level of technology? As the believers say: “with God everything is possible”. A usually accepted definition of omnipotence is to be able to do everything except logically impossible states of affairs. To create a stable world without natural disasters is child’s play for an omnipotent being.

One feasible scenario would be a Gaia-type universe, where there is a common, shared consciousness, where even the non-living planets and stars would participate in this consciousness and actively prevent Earthquakes, undesirable distribution of precipitation, where the plants would grow special appendices to feed the animals, where everyone would a vegetarian or vegan, etc… I suggest you read Asimov’s Foundation series, where he describes such a world. Of course I am already suspicious that you will not like this feasible world either, because it describes a “utopia”.

Of course we are playing with a thought experiment here, so anything and everything goes, which is not a logically contradictory event. So let your imagination go wild and imagine whatever you want.

A short remark: the expression “natural evil” has polluted our dictionary. Natural disasters are not “evil”. The real meaning of “evil” or “wicked” is a conscious action which causes or allows unnecessary pain and suffering. The phrase “natural evil” is an oxymoron.

By the way, if God is impotent to create a world without natural disasters, I would be very happy to live in an “inferior” world where there are no “moral evils”.

There is no such thing as a free lunch…

Yes, there is. If you would ever be in the neighborhood, I would invite you to a free lunch. And I am a very good cook, and would not charge you a penny.

The end does not justify the means but it is subject to the principle that we should choose the lesser evil.

I agree with you here. But what is the level of the “lesser” evil, which is permissible? If you have the power to decrease the level of pain and suffering, and fail to do so, then you did not choose the “least possible level of evil”. Do you think that the absolute minimal level of pain and suffering is still a positive number? That not even God can make a world without ANY pain and suffering? Surely not, if you believe that the Garden of Eden was real.

So you are** never** entitled to lie, steal or even kill to save a person’s life?

So you are** never** entitled to inflict or permit pain to save a person’s life?

In my neck of the woods, you certainly can lie, or steal or even kill in some very well defined circumstances (for example to save someone else’s life) … but I subscribe to the utilitarian ethics. The Catholic “morality” does not subscribe to the utilitarian ethics, it is strictly deontological. So they need to resort to “redefining” the words “steal” and “lie”, instead of accepting that the end and the means cannot be separated, and evaluating them together we can decide if the combined action is acceptable or not. The concept of “white lie” does not exist for Catholics. For heathens like us, it is perfectly valid.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Good point. He could remove all physical pain, obviously, by a simple act that removes all illnesses and prevents all lesions from having any effect.

So far, so good. And it would be a very welcome first step.

However, that would not remove all suffering (which is broader than physical pain), since every sinful act produces suffering, at the very least in the person who commits it.

You lost me here. I certainly have committed many “sinful” acts (like extramarital sex, or forbidden positions) and they only brought me happiness, and no suffering at all.

That is way I said that, in order not to have any suffering, we would have to be in a position not to sin any more, a situation that could only exist in pre-Fall conditions.

Again, it would be a good solution (maybe the best ), but there are other ones. For example to get rid of the concept of “sin”. This alleged “fall” was the result of some unspecified “disobedience” (if you read Genesis as an allegory) or eating from the “tree” if you read it as a literal description of the events. The simple and logical solution to avoid the “fall” would have been not to order them to avoid that tree, or simply do not place the tree there. No tree, no commandment, no disobedience, no “original sin”, no “fall”. Everyone is happy, we would still live in the Garden.

A simple analogy is due here. A father knows that eating candy is unhealthy for the child. He can place that bowl of nice colorful and desirable candy within easy reach of the child, AND issue a stern order: “do not touch that candy”… OR he simply would lock the candy into the wardrobe, and say nothing. No command, no candy, no disobedience, no “sin”. Which is the better solution?

I can’t help but read the Genesis as a deliberate act of God to make sure that the humans will fall, so he can exercise his “righteous” anger, chase them away from his presence and curse them along with the whole creation. And to add insult to injury - he KNEW all the time that it will happen! If that is not the ultimate cruelty, I don’t know what is. Even if there is a later reconciliation with the unnecessary sacrifice of Jesus, there are all those countless humans, for whom there is no “pardon” because they all lived before the sacrifice happened.

Here is a better analogy: I enjoy climbing mountains. Invariably, the hikes that I have enjoyed the most are the ones that entailed a lot of hard work (sometimes even pain—cramps, tripping and falling, etc.), which is rewarded by the fantastic view on the top. The times that I was able to take a cable car or something like that were not nearly as rewarding.

It is nice analogy - for young and strong people. They enjoy the challenge and the feeling of the victory. As you will grow older, you will appreciate the sight, the end even when you reach it by a cable car, especially if you would be unable to scale that mountainside.

And one more thing. If you had a real accident, like a broken leg and would be trapped halfway up the mountain, there would be no enjoyment left. Only pain and suffering, and probably a slow and painful death.

Note that those in hell are not exactly “being tortured.”

Let’s not go into the empty speculation about the nature of heaven and hell.

It was chosen by him, but it was real pain.

There are some extremist people in the Philippines, who want to emulate Christ’s Passion and have themselves crucified. Their pain and suffering is real, but they elicit no sympathy from me. It is their fault, lets them suffer to their hearts’ content.

He could have forgiven us in that way, but he considered this way more fitting, since our Fall, in a certain sense, produced a debt to God that we were unable to pay. He became man, because it was fitting for a man to pay the debt, and because only God could pay an infinite debt.

That is more empty speculation. The incurred “debt” was his own doing, since he knew up front that the humans will “fall” and there was no reason to let it happen.

It is fitting for us to participate in the repayment of the debt that Christ payed for us. Hence, it is not really gratuitous.

The suffering (which includes pain) of animals and small children is not something they “chose” to endure for the sake of repayment of that “debt”. Their suffering is truly gratuitous.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

We may never lie or steal under any circumstances.

It might be possible to say something untrue, or to take something that is not ours when it is for the sake of saving someone’s life, but in neither case would that action be lying or stealing.

This is the time when I start to grin sardonically. To say something untrue IS a lie. To take something that belongs to someone else IS theft. They can be justified in certain circumstances, but not in others. It is NOT that the end justifies the means, it that the means AND the together form a justifiable action. But again, this comes from the utilitarian ethics. Those who subscribe to the deontological ethics MUST redefine “lies” and “thefts” so they can reconcile what they do with their ethics.

Obviously they know that saving someone’s life either by lying or stealing is justified, since the person’s life takes precedence over property, or “telling the truth”. But they are not allowed to look at the whole picture and make rational judgment. As such they must “rape” their own reasoning faculty and declare that a “lie” is NOT a “lie”, and/or a “theft” is NOT a “theft”.

We cannot inflict pain for its own sake.

We can tolerate producing pain—e.g., do something, even though we know it will cause pain—for the sake of a person’s life, provided we don’t want to inflict that pain, there is no other solution, and the pain produced is proportionate to the good accomplished. (This is commonly called “double effect.”) Doctors do this all the time.

That is a little better. The only problem is the hypocrisy of asserting that one is not allowed to “want” to inflict that pain (or killing). If there is a terrorist, who is about to blow up a dirty bomb, and if there is no other way to prevent it, then you are justified to use lethal force to stop him. If you aim a gun at his head, and pull the trigger, then you WANT that person to be stopped, and since there is no other way, you WANT that person to die. Obviously, if there would be another way, then killing would not be justified. But to say that you do not WANT the person die is sheer hypocrisy. You know that the shot is lethal, and you still pull the trigger - as you should.

Nothing wrong with it. What you described is the quintessential “relative morality”. You can do something “bad” if something good (disproportionate good) will come out of it.

 

[tonyrey]

So you are never entitled to lie, steal or even kill to save a person’s life?

To misrepresent is often called a “white lie” and by the same token to misappropriate would be a “white theft”! In both cases the principle of choosing the lesser evil is being applied.

So you are never entitled to inflict or permit pain to save a person’s life?

We cannot inflict pain for its own sake.

That would amount to sadism or masochism.

We can tolerate producing pain—e.g., do something, even though we know it will cause pain—for the sake of a person’s life, provided we don’t want to inflict that pain, there is no other solution, and the pain produced is proportionate to the good accomplished. (This is commonly called “double effect.”) Doctors do this all the time.

Choosing the greater good is subordinate to the principle of choosing the lesser evil because it doesn’t always have such moral urgency. To opt for the lesser good is less likely to amount to a mortal sin - although feathering our own nest rather than help a homeless person would be negligent, or even callous…

 

[lmelahn]

To misrepresent is often called a “white lie” and by the same token to misappropriate would be a “white theft”! In both cases the principle of choosing the lesser evil is being applied.

That would amount to sadism or masochism.

Choosing the greater good is subordinate to the principle of choosing the lesser evil because it doesn’t always have such moral urgency. To opt for the lesser good is less likely to amount to a mortal sin - although feathering our own nest rather than help a homeless person would be negligent, or even callous…

The principle of the “lesser evil” usually means trying to mitigate the effects of an inevitable evil. For example, if a gunman is about to kill 10 people, it is licit to plead with him to kill only 5, if you think that is the best you can do.

The other cases—taking things that aren’t yours, doing things that cause pain in others—can be justified when there is a double effect, i.e., when the moral object is good as such, and when the bad consequence is not disproportionately large.

(In my opinion, misrepresentation also falls into this category, although there is an active debate over it.)

 

[lmelahn]

This is the time when I start to grin sardonically. To say something untrue IS a lie. To take something that belongs to someone else IS theft.

There is a very great difference between misrepresenting the truth in order to protect (in the classic example) the Jews you are are hiding from the Nazis, and lying in order deceive another person.

Likewise, it is very different to take bread when one is starving (and no one will give it to you), as to steal it when one is not is those dire straits.

They are simply different kinds of moral actions, which is why I prefer not to refer to the justifiable actions as “lying” or “stealing.”

They can be justified in certain circumstances, but not in others. It is NOT that the end justifies the means, it that the means AND the together form a justifiable action. But again, this comes from the utilitarian ethics. Those who subscribe to the deontological ethics MUST redefine “lies” and “thefts” so they can reconcile what they do with their ethics.

It is possible to have a eudaemonistic ethics that is not utilitarian, and that is the theory that I subscribe to.

The important point here is that justified “stealing” or “lying” are qualitatively different from true (unjustified) stealing and lying.

Obviously they know that saving someone’s life either by lying or stealing is justified, since the person’s life takes precedence over property, or “telling the truth”. But they are not allowed to look at the whole picture and make rational judgment. As such they must “rape” their own reasoning faculty and declare that a “lie” is NOT a “lie”, and/or a “theft” is NOT a “theft”.

At the end of the day, the important thing is not whether we follow so many moral rules or precepts, but whether we respect each other’s basic rights, the ones that we have just for being human beings.

That is a little better. The only problem is the hypocrisy of asserting that one is not allowed to “want” to inflict that pain (or killing). If there is a terrorist, who is about to blow up a dirty bomb, and if there is no other way to prevent it, then you are justified to use lethal force to stop him. If you aim a gun at his head, and pull the trigger, then you WANT that person to be stopped, and since there is no other way, you WANT that person to die. Obviously, if there would be another way, then killing would not be justified. But to say that you do not WANT the person die is sheer hypocrisy. You know that the shot is lethal, and you still pull the trigger - as you should.

I am not sure how the idea got around that we cannot “want” to inflict pain in order to cure someone, or that we cannot “want” to kill an aggressor. The only thing we can’t do is want it for its own sake. So long as we are willing to use less damaging means, if they are available—in other words, we are only inflicting this kind of effect as a last resort, and there is really no other way to go—then there is no problem.

Nothing wrong with it. What you described is the quintessential “relative morality”. You can do something “bad” if something good (disproportionate good) will come out of it.

Right, though we call that “double effect.” We have to be careful, however, to realize that some goods are incommensurable. For example, a man’s life is worth more than any amount of money, or inconvenience. That way we avoid utilitarianism (which, if taken to its extreme, would lead to a lot of moral disorders).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There is a very great difference between misrepresenting the truth in order to protect (in the classic example) the Jews you are are hiding from the Nazis, and lying in order deceive another person.

Likewise, it is very different to take bread when one is starving (and no one will give it to you), as to steal it when one is not is those dire straits.

They are simply different kinds of moral actions, which is why I prefer not to refer to the justifiable actions as “lying” or “stealing.”

We are in total agreement. Only the words are different. A “justifiable lie” and a “justifiable theft” are still lies and thefts, but the difference that they can be justified. The very minor problem with your wording that there is no simple word for describing a justifiable act. We must use the somewhat cumbersome phrase consisting of two words.

It is possible to have a eudaemonistic ethics that is not utilitarian, and that is the theory that I subscribe to.

Excellent. It is not incompatible with the utilitarian approach, though it can lead to conflict. I also consider the individual happiness and well-being extremely important, but I understand that sometimes there is a need to compromise.

The important point here is that justified “stealing” or “lying” are qualitatively different from true (unjustified) stealing and lying.

Certainly. That is why we prepend the word “justified” to them, to indicate the qualitative difference.

At the end of the day, the important thing is not whether we follow so many moral rules or precepts, but whether we respect each other’s basic rights, the ones that we have just for being human beings.

Words of pure gold!

I am not sure how the idea got around that we cannot “want” to inflict pain in order to cure someone, or that we cannot “want” to kill an aggressor. The only thing we can’t do is want it for its own sake. So long as we are willing to use less damaging means, if they are available—in other words, we are only inflicting this kind of effect as a last resort, and there is really no other way to go—then there is no problem.

Agreed.

Right, though we call that “double effect.” We have to be careful, however, to realize that some goods are incommensurable. For example, a man’s life is worth more than any amount of money, or inconvenience. That way we avoid utilitarianism (which, if taken to its extreme, would lead to a lot of moral disorders).

Anything can lead to problems, if taken to the extreme.

Looks like we say the exact same things while using slightly different wordings.

 

[Robert_Sock]

A little off topic, but I wonder how much we should fear suffering? I fear it greatly given all the suffering I see in the world. In just moment, our life can change to terror. I’m learning to have faith, but I still fear. Whoever cannot see it is blind.

 

[tonyrey]

The principle of the “lesser evil” usually means trying to mitigate the effects of an inevitable evil. For example, if a gunman is about to kill 10 people, it is licit to plead with him to kill only 5, if you think that is the best you can do.

The other cases—taking things that aren’t yours, doing things that cause pain in others—can be justified when there is a double effect, i.e., when the moral object is good as such, and when the bad consequence is not disproportionately large.

(In my opinion, misrepresentation also falls into this category, although there is an active debate over it.)

I’m delighted our different approaches yield the same result. If they didn’t we would need to investigate further.