Lesser Evil Dilemma

[STT]

You cannot morally choose either, because by either option, you are required to commit an evil act. The ends cannot justify the means.

That I understand, at least within your system of belief, but what if you are forced to choose between two evils.

 

[phil19034]

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments.

I understand THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE EFFECT, yet I think it is separate from the question of choosing the lesser evil when, as phil points out, we are FORCED to choose between two evils. Why the Catechism does not seem to address this directly for the layperson to understand, and by giving concrete examples, mystifies me. I have other issues with the Catechism as an incomplete source on moral questions, but this is one of the more irritating lapses.

Because the average lay person is most likely to never be in a situation where he/she is FORCED to choose between two evils.

If someone can name a viable situation (not a crazy hypothetical), I would love to hear it?

 

[phil19034]

That I understand, at least within your system of belief, but what if you are forced to choose between two evils.

Name a real life example. I would bet that none of us really could.

 

[STT]

Name a real life example. I would bet that none of us really could.

Killing a commit suicide bomber to save lives of many people.

 

[mVitus]

Intended act: Save many people
Unfortunate consequence: Bomber dies

Not a lesser case.

The election can also be viewed like that. Each candidate has good qualities. It’s then a question if their bad outweighs it and makes them unvotable.

If none of the main candidates meet that, vote for a third party or write in that does. You’ve then acted morally and are not responsible for the votes of others.

 

[dshix]

That I understand, at least within your system of belief, but what if you are forced to choose between two evils.

This is a Catholic forum, where we often discuss Catholic Theology. You can expect me to speak of Catholic Theology as fact, then, here.

The hypothetical which you propose (in which I have no choice but to choose between committing two acts of evil) doesn’t exist in the real world. There is no case in which I do not have the third option of declining to choose (and suffering the consequences).

If one were to choose to commit one of the evil acts, one would sin, perhaps mortally, subjecting oneself to risk of Hell, which not worth anything in this world.

 

[STT]

This is a Catholic forum, where we often discuss Catholic Theology. You can expect me to speak of Catholic Theology as fact, then, here.

The hypothetical which you propose (in which I have no choice but to choose between committing two acts of evil) doesn’t exist in the real world. There is no case in which I do not have the third option of declining to choose (and suffering the consequences).

If one were to choose to commit one of the evil acts, one would sin, perhaps mortally, subjecting oneself to risk of Hell, which not worth anything in this world.

Think of killing a commit suicide bomber which is evil with the greater outcome. Would you kill him or not?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Because the average lay person is most likely to never be in a situation where he/she is FORCED to choose between two evils.

If someone can name a viable situation (not a crazy hypothetical), I would love to hear it?

Think about that as you hold your nose voting next Tuesday.

 

[dshix]

Think of killing a commit suicide bomber which is evil with the greater outcome. Would you kill him or not?

Oh, good, an example.

Such an act could be classified as self-defense, which is not an evil act.

Keep in mind that killing, or homicide, is not intrinsically evil. That is, it is not evil in and of itself. Rather, murder is evil because it is homicide of an innocent man, or suicide is evil because it is the killing of oneself, which is a violation of the just love of self.

Killing in cases where the act of killing directly effects the the protection of oneself or others is not evil, but good.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Sometimes in life we are confronted by two choices that are evil, but one is the lesser evil and we must choose it or the greater evil will prevail. I’ve not seen this dilemma mentioned anywhere in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does anyone know if the matter is discussed there or in any of the Church Councils or writings of the popes and theologians?

Thanks for your help.

I believe we,as a general rule, are obligated not to choose evil. You reap what you sow. Galatians 6:7

 

[STT]

Oh, good, an example.

Such an act could be classified as self-defense, which is not an evil act.

Keep in mind that killing, or homicide, is not intrinsically evil. That is, it is not evil in and of itself. Rather, murder is evil because it is homicide of an innocent man, or suicide is evil because it is the killing of oneself, which is a violation of the just love of self.

Killing in cases where the act of killing directly effects the the protection of oneself or others is not evil, but good.

There are two problems here: (1) The act of killing of a human being is against ten commandment and (2) If one can classify the act of killing as self-defense then a commit suicide bomber can classify its act as rebelation against grand power for whatever reason it has in its mind. So we are dealing with two problems here.

 

[dshix]

There are two problems here: (1) The act of killing of a human being is against ten commandment and (2) If one can classify the act of killing as self-defense then a commit suicide bomber can classify its act as rebelation against grand power for whatever reason it has in its mind. So we are dealing with two problems here.

I’m sorry, that’s incorrect. You misunderstand the meaning of the Ten Commandments. They mean much more than the literal words. For example, the fifth commandment does not only mean we cannot kill others, but also speaks against sins of anger, loathing, self-hurting, gossip, and many other sins. None of those appear in the words “Thou shalt not kill”, yet our theology helps us to understand the nuances.

The fifth commandment does not mean that all killing is immoral. If that were the case, it would be immoral for God to take a man’s life in natural death. That clearly cannot be the case, because God does this all the time, and He is perfect. Therefore, not all killing is immoral. Murder, suicide, and genocide are examples of types of killing that are certainly immoral.

Your second point doesn’t make any sense. Rebellion has nothing to do with self-defense. And self-defense cannot be pre-emptive, that is, I cannot kill someone who I know will try to kill me in 10 years.

 

[STT]

I’m sorry, that’s incorrect. You misunderstand the meaning of the Ten Commandments. They mean much more than the literal words. For example, the fifth commandment does not only mean we cannot kill others, but also speaks against sins of anger, loathing, self-hurting, gossip, and many other sins. None of those appear in the words “Thou shalt not kill”, yet our theology helps us to understand the nuances.

The fifth commandment does not mean that all killing is immoral. If that were the case, it would be immoral for God to take a man’s life in natural death. That clearly cannot be the case, because God does this all the time, and He is perfect. Therefore, not all killing is immoral. Murder, suicide, and genocide are examples of types of killing that are certainly immoral.

I don’t think if I misunderstood Ten Commandments. The message is very clear: Don’t kill. God of course is wiser than us so He wouldn’t leave any place for error and doubt. He could say “Thou shalt not kill unless…” which He didn’t so I think that the message is very clear.

Moreover God as the creator might have authority which we don’t to kill a person.

Your second point doesn’t make any sense. Rebellion has nothing to do with self-defense. And self-defense cannot be pre-emptive, that is, I cannot kill someone who I know will try to kill me in 10 years.

I was trying to say that everyone’s action is justified from its perspective so why blame commit suicide bomber and not the one who kill him. The commit suicide bomber might have a very good reason for his action, liberating his country.

 

[dshix]

I don’t think if I misunderstood Ten Commandments. The message is very clear: Don’t kill. God of course is wiser than us so He wouldn’t leave any place for error and doubt. He could say “Thou shalt not kill unless…” which He didn’t so I think that the message is very clear.

Moreover God as the creator might have authority which we don’t to kill a person.

I’m not merely speaking my own opinion to you; this is Church teaching.

Take a look at what Thomas Aquinas has to say about it: (Question 64, Article 7)
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (II-II:43:3; I-II:12:1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

__

I was trying to say that everyone’s action is justified from its perspective so why blame commit suicide bomber and not the one who kill him. The commit suicide bomber might have a very good reason for his action, liberating his country.

I was not aware we were having a discussion about morality in relative terms.

I don’t think relativistic morality is relevant or true in any way. Acts are either good or evil, according to God’s divine and natural law, regardless of how individuals perceive their own actions.

An act of terrorism cannot be classified as self-defense or any other good action according to this objective standard.

 

[STT]

I’m not merely speaking my own opinion to you; this is Church teaching.

Take a look at what Thomas Aquinas has to say about it: (Question 64, Article 7)
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

I am not talking about opinion. I am making an argument: God could say that “Thou shalt not kill unless…” if He wanted to permit the act of killing for self-defense for example but instead He said “Thou salt not kill”. This means that the act of killing is prohibited.

I was not aware we were having a discussion about morality in relative terms.

I don’t think relativistic morality is relevant or true in any way. Acts are either good or evil, according to God’s divine and natural law, regardless of how individuals perceive their own actions.

“Thou shalt not kill unless…” is a relative moral rule whereas “Thou shalt not kill” is a absolute moral rule. I don’t understand why you deny relative moral rule when you are following it.

An act of terrorism cannot be classified as self-defense or any other good action according to this objective standard.

Suppose an enemy conquers your country. Is the act of killing enemy is allowed or not? If yes, is the act of commit suicide bomber to kill enemy is moral if there is no other option?

 

[dshix]

I am not talking about opinion. I am making an argument: God could say that “Thou shalt not kill unless…” if He wanted to permit the act of killing for self-defense for example but instead He said “Thou salt not kill”. This means that the act of killing is prohibited.

“Thou shalt not kill unless…” is a relative moral rule whereas “Thou shalt not kill” is a absolute moral rule. I don’t understand why you deny relative moral rule when you are following it.

Suppose an enemy conquers your country. Is the act of killing enemy is allowed or not? If yes, is the act of commit suicide bomber to kill enemy is moral if there is no other option?

Hmm, I see that we aren’t going to make headway.

It seems that you believe you are capable of interpreting the Ten Commandments correctly. In fact, you are so sure of this that you would contradict the words of an established theologian such as Thomas Aquinas.

Before we continue, let me ask this: by what authority or source do you base your ability to interpret the Ten Commandments, or any other part of Sacred Scripture?

If you have no source to point to, are you basing it just on your own intuition?

Please answer the question truthfully, as I must know the answer before I can know how to progress in this discussion.

 

[Vico]

I am not talking about opinion. I am making an argument: God could say that “Thou shalt not kill unless…” if He wanted to permit the act of killing for self-defense for example but instead He said “Thou salt not kill”. This means that the act of killing is prohibited.

“Thou shalt not kill unless…” is a relative moral rule whereas “Thou shalt not kill” is a absolute moral rule. I don’t understand why you deny relative moral rule when you are following it.

Suppose an enemy conquers your country. Is the act of killing enemy is allowed or not? If yes, is the act of commit suicide bomber to kill enemy is moral if there is no other option?

Murder is prohibited, some killing is not murder.

Exodus 21:12-13
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

Numbers 35:22-25
But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled.

Exodus 22:2
If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed

Exodus 2:11-12
One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Glancing this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. (God did not judge Moses as a murderer because he was protecting the life of the slave)

Genesis 14:14-16
When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people. (God did not judge Abram as a murderer because he was protecting the life of Lot)

 

[STT]

Hmm, I see that we aren’t going to make headway.

I don’t think so.

It seems that you believe you are capable of interpreting the Ten Commandments correctly. In fact, you are so sure of this that you would contradict the words of an established theologian such as Thomas Aquinas.

Why there is any need for interpretation? We are human being and vulnerable to error. So why God should leave any room for our interpretation or human error?

Before we continue, let me ask this: by what authority or source do you base your ability to interpret the Ten Commandments, or any other part of Sacred Scripture?

I am making a valid argument. You skip my argument and bring the issue of authority. I don’t think that this is fair way of discussing.

If you have no source to point to, are you basing it just on your own intuition?

Not on my own intuition but a valid argument based on my own reason.

Please answer the question truthfully, as I must know the answer before I can know how to progress in this discussion.

I think I answer them all.

 

[STT]

Murder is prohibited, some killing is not murder.

Exodus 21:12-13
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate.

Numbers 35:22-25
But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled.

Exodus 22:2
If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed

Exodus 2:11-12
One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Glancing this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. (God did not judge Moses as a murderer because he was protecting the life of the slave)

Genesis 14:14-16
When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people. (God did not judge Abram as a murderer because he was protecting the life of Lot)

I agree wit some verse and disagree with others. The problem is the act of killing is either objectively immoral or it is relatively immoral or moral. Do you believe in objective morality?

 

[dshix]

I don’t think so.

Why there is any need for interpretation? We are human being and vulnerable to error. So why God should leave any room for our interpretation or human error?

I am making a valid argument. You skip my argument and bring the issue of authority. I don’t think that this is fair way of discussing.

Not on my own intuition but a valid argument based on my own reason.

I think I answer them all.

Ok, fair enough.

I will summarily answer your questions.

1. The Sacred Scriptures require interpretation because they often have allegories or unclear passages that require the assistance of an educated understanding to reach the true meaning. God did not write the Scriptures directly, but by giving inspiration to humans, so things that appear to be inconsistencies at first glance often appear. This fact is pretty obvious by a single read-through of Scripture. There are many things that are hard to understand.
2. I did not intend to skip your argument; rather, I realized I needed to back up the level at which I was speaking in order to reach understanding.
3. Since you are basing your arguments on your own reason alone, and not drawing on the knowledge of centuries of Tradition from the theological and philosophical forefathers that have paved the way to understanding Scripture and the commands of God, I think you should reevaluate your trust in your own reasoning. All humans are imperfect, and one’s reason is often clouded. It is wiser to read and consider the writings of others more intelligent than ourselves, than to try to come up with truth independently.

Now, I’m afraid I must give pause:
The OP’s question has been correctly answered, and my purpose here, which was to answer the OP’s question from the Catholic perspective, is complete.
Unfortunately I don’t have the time to post and answer every question you have on the issue. I may return for a few questions, but I may not be able.