Is there any such thing as a necessary evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark_a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I think there is, since we live in a fallen world and we are ourselves sinners.
 
Example:

Woman with child but there are complications.

Only surgery will save the woman.
Surgery will have the side effect of aborting the child.

Church says: Surgery ok since the intention is to save a life.
An inocent life is harmed (destroyed). I assume this would meet your requirement for evil.

Apply the silver rule: If harm must be done, act in a way such that the least amount of harm possible is done.
 
Evan said:
Example:

Woman with child but there are complications.

Only surgery will save the woman.
Surgery will have the side effect of aborting the child.

Church says: Surgery ok since the intention is to save a life.
An inocent life is harmed (destroyed). I assume this would meet your requirement for evil.

Apply the silver rule: If harm must be done, act in a way such that the least amount of harm possible is done.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Church would not agree with that analysis.

If you have a case where both mother and child will die without surgery (as in an ectopic pregnancy where the child is developing inside the fallopian tube) then surgery is permissible – but this is an example of Double Effect. The death of the child is not willed, but seen as inevitable.

In any case, “evil” requires human intention. Circumstances that are not willed by humans, however painful or unpleasant they may be, are not in themselves “evil.”
 
Hee are some examples that I can think of offhand. A just war. Martyrdom, when only a denial of God would save the person. (In fact too the crucifixion of Christ for the salvation of God’s people.) Putting someone in prison. Killing something living for food. Going on a diet and being hungry. I would be interested in knowing if anyone thinks these are not necessary evils, though.
 
Evan said:
Example:

Woman with child but there are complications.

Only surgery will save the woman.
Surgery will have the side effect of aborting the child.

Church says: Surgery ok since the intention is to save a life.
An inocent life is harmed (destroyed). I assume this would meet your requirement for evil.

Apply the silver rule: If harm must be done, act in a way such that the least amount of harm possible is done.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s called aborting the child unless you kill it directly. Abortion is always wrong, but treatment like chemotherapy that kills the child, but saves the mother, is morally okay.
I don’t think there is any such thing as necessary evil. If it’s necessary, it’s not evil. I think the closest thing we have might be supporting stores that sell condoms or pharmacies that sell morning after pills. We have to eat and i don’t know of ANY food stores that don’t sell objectionable materials. Therefore, it’s a principle of double effect. I seek out brands that don’t support planned parenthood. I buy gas anywhere but Citgo. But until we can afford a farm and live off the land, we’re stuck giving money to companies that, in part, support evil.
I’m no philosopher, so any feedback on this argument would be appreciated.
 
mdgspencer said:
Hee are some examples that I can think of offhand. A just war. Martyrdom, when only a denial of God would save the person. (In fact too the crucifixion of Christ for the salvation of God’s people.) Putting someone in prison. Killing something living for food. Going on a diet and being hungry. I would be interested in knowing if anyone thinks these are not necessary evils, though.
Click to expand...
An, but the evil in the examples you give is not necessary. For example, it was not necessary for Hitler to attack Poland. It was necessary for England and France to fulfil their treaty obligations – but that was not evil.
 
Evil is not necessary since evil is the lack of a good that should be present.
 
Thanks folks.

I asked because someone (a non-Catholic, I presume) on another thread called abortion a necessary evil.
 
mark_a said:
Thanks folks.

I asked because someone (a non-Catholic, I presume) on another thread called abortion a necessary evil.
Click to expand...
And that person has refuted himself (or herself.)

Abortion is evil – but it is never necessary.
 
There is such thing as a necessary evil, it is covered in the Principle of Double Effect.

For instance, it is evil, and contrary to our nature to mutilate your body.
However, there are circumstances where it would be permissable, such as if a leg were gangrenous, or infected, and failure to remove it will result in death.

Principle of Double Effect
The Principle covers an action which has two effects, one good, and one evil. In such a case the action is acceptable under certain criteria, which I will outline below.
The Principle of Double Effect can be remembered by the acronym LIEE.
Logical- The Action itself must not be intrinisically evil, it must be good or morally nuetral.
Intention- Where the act itself has two effects, you may only intend the good effect.
Execution-You must not achieve the the good effect through the evil effect.
Evaluation-There must be sufficiently grave reason for tolerating the evil effect.

As for abortion, we need to look at the evalutation. It needs to be sufficiently grave reason to take a life. Financial hardship etc do not cut the mustard. Plus, you will notice that the Church teaches that abortion is “direct killing…as a means or an end”(cf.Evangelium Vitae), which is pointing to intention. In abortion you are intending the evil effect, so Double Effect is already breached.
 
cialovesyou said:
There is such thing as a necessary evil, it is covered in the Principle of Double Effect.

For instance, it is evil, and contrary to our nature to mutilate your body.
However, there are circumstances where it would be permissable, such as if a leg were gangrenous, or infected, and failure to remove it will result in death.

Principle of Double Effect
The Principle covers an action which has two effects, one good, and one evil. In such a case the action is acceptable under certain criteria, which I will outline below.
The Principle of Double Effect can be remembered by the acronym LIEE.
Logical- The Action itself must not be intrinisically evil, it must be good or morally nuetral.
Intention- Where the act itself has two effects, you may only intend the good effect.
Execution-You must not achieve the the good effect through the evil effect.
Evaluation-There must be sufficiently grave reason for tolerating the evil effect.

As for abortion, we need to look at the evalutation. It needs to be sufficiently grave reason to take a life. Financial hardship etc do not cut the mustard. Plus, you will notice that the Church teaches that abortion is “direct killing…as a means or an end”(cf.Evangelium Vitae), which is pointing to intention. In abortion you are intending the evil effect, so Double Effect is already breached.
Click to expand...
Words can have subtly different meanings, depending on how they are used. Note that the quoted passage refers to an act in isolation as evil, which in this case would be a synonym for “bad.” There is no intention to do evil, and therefore the act in context is not evil.
 
There is a difference between sin and evil. The death of someone or suffering are evil, and these can happen with no sin involved. War in this way is evil, since of course you are trying to kill the combatants on the other side, even if your fighting is just.
vern_humphrey said:
An, but the evil in the examples you give is not necessary. For example, it was not necessary for Hitler to attack Poland. It was necessary for England and France to fulfil their treaty obligations – but that was not evil.
Click to expand...
 
mdgspencer said:
There is a difference between sin and evil. The death of someone or suffering are evil, and these can happen with no sin involved. War in this way is evil, since of course you are trying to kill the combatants on the other side, even if your fighting is just.
Click to expand...
Now we see how language leads us astray. If impersonal conditions, things caused by no man, are evil, then “evil” simply means “unpleasant.”

This is a normal progression – from a word with a well-accepted meaning, to an expanded meaning, to a Black Hole, where all meaning is swallowed in one word.
 
There is a traditional distinction between natural (physical) evil and moral evil.

Natural evils include: natural disasters, pain, and death.

Moral evils are objects of the will of a free agent such as a man or an angel.
 
jack_hawkins said:
As mentioned, a pregnancy where the mother develops a complication that is life-threatening and the foetus is not viable. Why lose two lives?
Click to expand...
When you say not viable, do you mean that the fetus has died but has not been expelled, or that the fetus survives but will likely or definitely not be brought to term? If the former, I don’t see that removal of the tissue would be problematic theologically. If the latter, the simple fact is that you cannot destroy the child to save the mother. As stated by the CCC:
Catechism of the Catholic Church #1753
Click to expand...
A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
Click to expand...
 
dylanschrader said:
There is a traditional distinction between natural (physical) evil and moral evil.

Natural evils include: natural disasters, pain, and death.

Moral evils are objects of the will of a free agent such as a man or an angel.
Click to expand...
On that we can agree. It is a natural or physical evil to loose a leg. But the doctor who amputates to safe a patient’s life is not evil and does not commit an evil act.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top