Isn't it good to get goodness by any means necessary?

[fakename]

Isn’t it good to get goodness by any means necessary?

I know that it is not, but I have a counter-argument which impedes my understanding:

If the end is virtuous, then aren’t the means to get to it necessarily virtuous since these means are the things which take away the impediments to the good?

And anything that takes away impediments to good are not evil and are in fact, good?

So clearly the means to any good (including virtue) are always good because they attain to the end?

What makes this wrong? I suppose one way it could be wrong is that it implies that good comes from good and never from evil even though it does, but I want a more abstract reason.

Thanks

 

[Justice_Mercy]

<< Romans 3 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible

4 But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged.

5 But if our injustice commend the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who executeth wrath? 6 (I speak according to man.) God forbid: otherwise how shall God judge this world? 7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner? 8 And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just.

9 What then? Do we excel them? No, not so. For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin.

10 As it is written: There is not any man just.

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 All have turned out of the way; they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips.

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet swift to shed blood:

16 Destruction and misery in their ways:

17 And the way of peace they have not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

 

[1ke]

In a word, no.

Catechism:

II. Good Acts and Evil Acts

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Isn’t it good to get goodness by any means necessary?

That would presume any of us always knew what was good.

It is not good, for instance, to force people into a religion or make them profess beliefs. It has no good outcome, even though many in various places through Time have believed it did.

When you ask a question that’s this open-ended, it sounds like a means of justification. I’m not saying it is, I just think an example would focus the discussion better.

 

[JRKH]

See if this is abstract enough…

We are to Love. We are to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect (in Love). All that we do must be from and for Love.

One cannot attain virtue by non-virtuous acts.
If love is our process and our goal, that love will prevent, or at least impede our ability to perform unloving acts, even in an attempt to gain some good.
The ability - even the desire to justify using evil to accomplish good shows that the intent is disordered. The intent is somehow self centered instead of God centered…

I’d need more time to consider this - but the above is a “nutshell” explanation.

peace
James

 

[Trishie]

No it isn’t good to get goodness by any means necessary.
That is Satan’s temptation.

Matthew 4:2-10
2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Even for a promised positive outcome, Jesus refused to sin, refused to bow to evil.

 

[JNdoum]

An evil action used to achieve good entirely invalidates the good itself. If I want to solve world hunger, and I do it by killing everyone who is hungry, I may have reached a “good” goal (no more world hunger), but the evil of my actions invalidates all of that. Even on a smaller scale, this is true. If I cheat to get a good grade on a test, the evil of cheating invalidated the good of a good grade. If the means are themselves evil, they either are incapable of creating good, or invalidate the good achieved by them.

 

[fakename]

That would presume any of us always knew what was good.

It is not good, for instance, to force people into a religion or make them profess beliefs. It has no good outcome, even though many in various places through Time have believed it did.

When you ask a question that’s this open-ended, it sounds like a means of justification. I’m not saying it is, I just think an example would focus the discussion better.

Yeah I think I understand you and TBH I did mean something more tautological.

I was wondering, if something is good, then does that entail that it can only be properly begotten by good means?

That is, is something good just in case it leads to good results?

But again, if we accept that somethings are both means to a good and are themselves bad, and that we cannot do these, then are we saying that there are some things which we consider to be more important than getting virtue since virtue is a good and might be attainable through evil? Isn’t that a contradiction in our love for virtue?

Or is it better to characterize the statement that “we should not do evil to get good” more as “we should not take bad means to an end” that is, “we should not use means that won’t get the end” instead of saying “we should forgo some goods”? That is, are bad means to a good (like virtue) even considered means properly speaking or are they bad means?

 

[JRKH]

*An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me” he said to the boy. “It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego.

The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person too.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, ”which wolf will win?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “the one you feed.”*

I submit the above as a way to say that, every thought entertained, every act undertaken, feeds one of these two wolves.
If you seek some good, that is you think of some good to achieve, you strengthen the good wolf. If, in seeking this good, you choose to do what is NOT good, you take the food away from the good wolf and feed the evil wolf.

Put a different way, there needs to be a recognition that there is no pondered thought or act that is not an end unto itself. Yes we have goals but every goal is made up of smaller steps that must be properly ordered to that goal. Each step along the way - each decision, each thought, each action is an end unto itself.
Our ultimate Goal is heaven. Every thought - every act - either moves us toward or away from that goal.

As another analogy consider those who try to lose weight. As a person pursues the good goal of reaching a healthy weight, they must make multiple decisions every day - even every hour - in order to stay the course. They must decide on options that - while they might help attain the goal, are not really healthy.
If they make good healthy decisions then when they reach their goal weight, they will actually be healthier. If they do NOT make good healthy decisions, even if they do reach their goal weight they are not really any healthier. They sacrificed a greater good (overall health) in the pursuit of a lesser good (quicker weight loss)

Each thought and action effects the quality of the good achieved.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

*An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. “A fight is going on inside me” he said to the boy. “It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil – he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority and ego.

The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you – and inside every other person too.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, ”which wolf will win?” The old Cherokee simply replied, “the one you feed.”*

I submit the above as a way to say that, every thought entertained, every act undertaken, feeds one of these two wolves.
If you seek some good, that is you think of some good to achieve, you strengthen the good wolf. If, in seeking this good, you choose to do what is NOT good, you take the food away from the good wolf and feed the evil wolf.

Put a different way, there needs to be a recognition that there is no pondered thought or act that is not an end unto itself. Each pondered thought and/or act is either holy or sinful in itself.
Yes we have goals but every goal is made up of smaller steps that must be properly ordered to that goal. Each step along the way - each decision, each thought, each action is an end unto itself.
Our ultimate goal is Heaven. Every thought - every act - either moves us toward that goal or away from that goal.

Peace
James

 

[Julia_Mae]

then are we saying that there are some things which we consider to be more important than getting virtue since virtue is a good and might be attainable through evil? Isn’t that a contradiction in our love for virtue?

Virtue Ethics
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.

n.
Read more: answers.com/topic/virtue
1.1 Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.
An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.
Chastity, especially in a woman.
A particularly efficacious, good, or beneficial quality; advantage: a plan with the virtue of being practical.
Effective force or power: believed in the virtue of prayer.
virtues Christianity. The fifth of the nine orders of angels in medieval angelology.
Obsolete. Manly courage; valor.

We’re going to be having enough trouble defining virtue, unless you choose a definition or provide one, much less defining “evil.” So I’ll just make a categorical statement:

**You can neither practice nor attain virtue by means of evil acts. **

 

[Bookcat]

No the end does not “justify” the means.

The ends and means must be both good.

 

[fakename]

We’re going to be having enough trouble defining virtue, unless you choose a definition or provide one, much less defining “evil.” So I’ll just make a categorical statement:

**You can neither practice nor attain virtue by means of evil acts. **

Well virtue means most if not all of the things you provided and I just assumed everyone had the same definition of virtue (since if they didn’t then their Catholicism would be equivocal).

But anyways a good definition of virtue is moral excellence or living according to human nature.

Now the main question, which I couldn’t identify earlier, is how can a thing which gets virtue be itself vicious? Isn’t it more intuitive to believe that the thing which causes x is naturally related to x like how a seed is naturally related to a tree (as a cause)? So that as long as a thing gets x, then that thing is good and vice versa?

So a bad means is impossible and there are only means and non-means? Or is a bad means possible?

 

[fakename]

We’re going to be having enough trouble defining virtue, unless you choose a definition or provide one, much less defining “evil.” So I’ll just make a categorical statement:

**You can neither practice nor attain virtue by means of evil acts. **

Well virtue means most if not all of the things you provided and I just assumed everyone had the same definition of virtue (since if they didn’t then their Catholicism would be equivocal).

But anyways a good definition of virtue is moral excellence or living according to human nature.

Now the main question, which I couldn’t identify earlier, is how can a thing which gets virtue be itself vicious? Isn’t it more intuitive to believe that the thing which causes x is naturally related to x like how a seed is naturally related to a tree (as a cause)? So that as long as a thing gets x, then that thing is good and vice versa?

Is a bad means is impossible and there are only means and non-means? Or is a bad means possible?

 

[Bookcat]

But anyways a good definition of virtue is moral excellence or living according to human nature.

The first part is part of it…

The latter part is not per se what virtue is.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well virtue means most if not all of the things you provided

Obviously, since I quoted dictionary entries. But all those definitions are not the same. There is no way to have this discussion unless you, who are the OP and defined the topic, say what you mean when you use the word.

But anyways a good definition of virtue is moral excellence or living according to human nature.

See, I would say that definition doesn’t make sense because “moral excellence” (whatever you mean by that) is often the will to overcome human nature. It is human nature for the male to have as much intercourse as possible with as many females as he can acquire access to. But we don’t usually think of that as morally excellent. It is human nature to hoard goods in times of scarcity. But that is not considered moral excellence, either.

Now the main question, which I couldn’t identify earlier, is how can a thing which gets virtue be itself vicious?

How can anything “get” virtue? (Please let me know if English is a second language for you.)

Isn’t it more intuitive to believe that the thing which causes x is naturally related to x like how a seed is naturally related to a tree (as a cause)? So that as long as a thing gets x, then that thing is good and vice versa?

Seeds and trees have no moral imperatives.

Is a bad means is impossible and there are only means and non-means? Or is a bad means possible?

For example?

 

[thistle]

Well virtue means most if not all of the things you provided and I just assumed everyone had the same definition of virtue (since if they didn’t then their Catholicism would be equivocal).

But anyways a good definition of virtue is moral excellence or living according to human nature.

Now the main question, which I couldn’t identify earlier, is how can a thing which gets virtue be itself vicious? Isn’t it more intuitive to believe that the thing which causes x is naturally related to x like how a seed is naturally related to a tree (as a cause)? So that as long as a thing gets x, then that thing is good and vice versa?

Is a bad means is impossible and there are only means and non-means? Or is a bad means possible?

Catholic definition of virtue:

VIRTUE. A good habit that enables a person to act according to right reason enlightened by faith. Also called an operative good habit, it makes its possessor a good person and his or her actions also good. (Etym. Latin virtus, virility, strength of character, manliness.)

 

[fakename]

Obviously, since I quoted dictionary entries. But all those definitions are not the same. There is no way to have this discussion unless you, who are the OP and defined the topic, say what you mean when you use the word.

See, I would say that definition doesn’t make sense because “moral excellence” (whatever you mean by that) is often the will to overcome human nature. It is human nature for the male to have as much intercourse as possible with as many females as he can acquire access to. But we don’t usually think of that as morally excellent. It is human nature to hoard goods in times of scarcity. But that is not considered moral excellence, either.

How can anything “get” virtue? (Please let me know if English is a second language for you.)

Seeds and trees have no moral imperatives.

For example?

Oops, except the definition of virtue as a type of angel, I would say that the rest of the definitions either directly apply or apply derivatively. But although I mean all of those, I especially mean a type of moral excellence.

Now human nature is to be a rational animal. Now we know that those who want to have too much sex, don’t have good arguments for doing so. So it happens that it is against human nature (the “rational part”) to have too much sex while it is natural to be chaste (although, perhaps the habits of virtue are not natural).

One gets a virtue by getting a habit or acquiring a habit. And trees result from seeds like an effect from its cause and like an act from its potential. And whatever is related in that way is related as similar triangle to similar triangle (proportionately). So I hypothesized that if, from experience, one finds that a single group of causes (of virtue) always and just in that case produces an effect (of virtue) then clearly the causes (the means) must be good like their good effect.

But we find that somethings which mostly or more often produce the good result are evil (like when we recognize that there are more convenient ways to getting the good but that these ways are themselves vicious).
So because of this, I ask, is it true that if we find that something mostly produces the good effect, then it is itself good?

For example we could achieve virtue more quickly, in our presently lustful society, to merely give people an “asexuality pill”. But this action would probably be immoral since it strikes at human nature which is sexual. Ah, but perhaps I have an answer to my question. Virtue can be loved above everything except itself, since nothing can be loved above even itself. So if a means to virtue is itself a corruption of virtue, then it cannot be chosen. Is that right?

 

[Newbie2]

So if a means to virtue is itself a corruption of virtue, then it cannot be chosen. Is that right?

Yep.

Evil can never be morally used to achieve good. Never.