Lesser Evil Dilemma

[fhansen]

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?.

If it’s your opinion against someone else’s differing opinion then someone must already be in error. Obviously room for error exists. Fortunately God would not leave us in this situation, whicH is why He gave us the church.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree wit some verse and disagree with others.

Oh… wait a minute, then! dshix is right! This really is a question of authority! What you’re doing here is simply saying “I disagree with the Scriptures in certain cases”, which is another way of saying, “I have more authority than the Scriptures.”

The problem is the act of killing is either objectively immoral or it is relatively immoral or moral. Do you believe in objective morality?

No – the problem is that one must consider more than just “the act”; Christian moral theology identifies that intent and circumstances come into play when determining the morality and gravity of moral decisions. When considering act, intent, and circumstances, one may reach an objective conclusion regarding the morality of an action.

 

[Vico]

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?

Neither. Jesus gave us a new commandment to love one another. Murder is really what is prohibited rather than killing. Sometimes (but not always) killing is moral, but it conforms to the revealed morality. This revealed morality is better:

The term “revealed morality” is perhaps neither classical nor current. Nevertheless it finds its place within the orbit traced by the Second Vatican Council in the dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. The God of the Bible reveals not primarily a code of conduct but “Himself” in his mystery and “the mystery of his will”. “This pattern of revelation unfolds through deeds and words which are intimately interconnected: the works performed by God in the history of salvation illustrate and confirm the doctrine and realities signified by the words; the words, for their part, proclaim the works, and bring to light the mystery they contain.” (Dei Verbum, I.2). Accordingly, all the deeds through which God manifests himself possess a moral dimension in so far as they invite human beings to conform their thought and their actions to the divine model: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.” (Lev 19.2); “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect”. Mt 5.48)

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20080511_bibbia-e-morale_en.html

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

As a general rule, certainly.

But if you HAVE to choose between two evils and you refuse to choose, you have allowed one of the two evils, very possibly the greater one, to prevail. Is it right to refuse to choose if your decision not to choose allows the greater evil to prevail?

 

[dshix]

But if you HAVE to choose between two evils and you refuse to choose, you have allowed one of the two evils, very possibly the greater one, to prevail. Is it right to refuse to choose if your decision not to choose allows the greater evil to prevail?

Yes, it is. No matter how create the evil threatened, you may not commit evil to prevent it.

If I were told to murder a man, and that if I did not, a whole city would be nuked, I would not murder the man. To do so would be against God’s law.

The culpability for the city’s death is not on me, but on my assailants.

 

[STT]

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.

Why scripture is not in a language that everybody can understand it? Scripture contains words of God who is omniscient so it shouldn’t be difficult for God to convey His message in a language that everybody can understand.

Why there should be any inconsistencies in scripture? Even a human being can write a book which is consistent.

What do you think?

1. 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.

Ok, lets suppose that Thomas Aquinas had errors in his interpretations. You follow him and make errors/sins. Who is responsible for this situation? Aren’t you responsible for following others who are more intelligent than you considering the fact that you are an intellectual being? Are we allowed to follow others who are more intelligent than us blindly?

 

[STT]

If it’s your opinion against someone else’s differing opinion then someone must already be in error. Obviously room for error exists. Fortunately God would not leave us in this situation, which is why He gave us the church.

Wasn’t easier for God to convey Scripture in plain language that everybody can understand rather than establishing the church with the aim to interpret Scripture?

 

[STT]

Oh… wait a minute, then! dshix is right! This really is a question of authority! What you’re doing here is simply saying “I disagree with the Scriptures in certain cases”, which is another way of saying, “I have more authority than the Scriptures.”

I see inconsistencies in the Scripture and Ten Commandment. For example: Why God didn’t judge Moses for killing an Egyptian knowing the fact that God later prohibits killing? The Egyptian was just beating the Hebrew. Was killing a fair act? You can of course have the right to believe Scripture but you are responsible for your choice when you see obvious error, given example.

No – the problem is that one must consider more than just “the act”; Christian moral theology identifies that intent and circumstances come into play when determining the morality and gravity of moral decisions. When considering act, intent, and circumstances, one may reach an objective conclusion regarding the morality of an action.

Ten Commandment is very clear. I don’t think if there is any room for circumstances. The problem is that there is inconsistencies between the Scripture and Ten Commandment. Inconsistencies of course opens room for interpretation when someone persists to believe.

 

[fhansen]

Wasn’t easier for God to convey Scripture in plain language that everybody can understand rather than establishing the church with the aim to interpret Scripture?

Apparently not, going by the degree of disagreement often seen between people who adhere to SS. Going by Scripture alone, people argue plausibly for and against such matters as the deity of Jesus/the Trinity as well as baptismal regeneration-whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation, while the church of God settled these and other matters centuries ago, if and when they even became controversial. Anyway, the bible can be vague and ambigous; it was never meant to be a catechism, a systematic explanation of the faith. And people even find ways to disagree over those.

 

[dshix]

Why scripture is not in a language that everybody can understand it? Scripture contains words of God who is omniscient so it shouldn’t be difficult for God to convey His message in a language that everybody can understand.

Why there should be any inconsistencies in scripture? Even a human being can write a book which is consistent.

I don’t think I need to say any more than this: it is self-evident by reading the Scriptures. Several other people have said it already.

If you ever read a significant portion of Scripture, you will immediately understand, because there will be an innumerable number of places where the words will surpass your ability to understand.

Another proof is the mere existence of tens of thousands of Protestant sects, many of which have different interpretations of Scripture. If Scripture was so obvious and easy to understand like you seem to think it is, why don’t all Protestants believe the same things?

Ok, lets suppose that Thomas Aquinas had errors in his interpretations. You follow him and make errors/sins. Who is responsible for this situation? Aren’t you responsible for following others who are more intelligent than you considering the fact that you are an intellectual being? Are we allowed to follow others who are more intelligent than us blindly?

You’re full of it. I said nothing about “blind faith” in intelligent persons. Of course we always subject the statements of others to considerations of our own reason. Your twisting of my words demonstrates your unwillingness to admit that these people are more intelligent than you, and in fact have a better understanding of the truth than you.

Thomas Aquinas and others like them are widely considered to have hit the nail on the head in many issues of theology and philosophy, not by “blind followers” but by others who have used their own intelligence to decide that those in question have reached sound conclusions.

I am increasingly convinced that you are less interested in hearing and considering what I have to say than in drawing out a pointless argument. I have made my position clear, and if you have further questions, please ensure that those have not already been answered earlier in the thread.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yes, it is. No matter how create the evil threatened, you may not commit evil to prevent it.

If I were told to murder a man, and that if I did not, a whole city would be nuked, I would not murder the man. To do so would be against God’s law.

The culpability for the city’s death is not on me, but on my assailants.

It seems to me you have oversimplified the dilemma you pose.

You call murdering such a man immoral. I’d call it justified just as the Church regards war against evildoers as justified. On the battlefield of war many “murders” are committed to defend the homeland and its allies for human decency, just as the U.S. went to war against Germany and Japan.

Yes, war is evil in its effects, but it is the greater evil to submit to tyranny.

Why would you prefer the deaths of millions to the death of one?

You would not have lifted a finger to kill Hitler even though you knew he was a mass murderer and might eventually kill you if he ever got the chance?

 

[dshix]

It seems to me you have oversimplified the dilemma you pose.

You call murdering such a man immoral. I’d call it justified just as the Church regards war against evildoers as justified. On the battlefield of war many “murders” are committed to defend the homeland and its allies for human decency, just as the U.S. went to war against Germany and Japan.

Yes, war is evil in its effects, but it is the greater evil to submit to tyranny.

Why would you prefer the deaths of millions to the death of one?

You would not have lifted a finger to kill Hitler even though you knew he was a mass murderer and might eventually kill you if he ever got the chance?

I understand your perspective.

I think it would be helpful to review the Catechism’s teaching on the three elements by which the morality of an act is determined.

(Italicized below is Catechism, bolded mine)

• the object chosen
• the end in view or the intention
• the circumstances of the action

All three of these things must be GOOD, or else the whole act is evil.
*

The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity.

The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts. Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
*

So, let’s look at the example.
The object is the killing of the man.
The end is the saving of the city
The circumstances are the details that the terrorist is forcing this situation, etc.

In this case, the object cannot be justified, because one wills the death of an innocent man, however good the intention may be.
It seems to me that you have said that the killing of the man would be justified because of the circumstances, but the Catechism is very clear that the circumstances cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves.

I know it’s hard, but it’s very clear that all three elements of the act must be good – and one element of this act is evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It seems to me that you have said that the killing of the man would be justified because of the circumstances, but the Catechism is very clear that the circumstances cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves.

I know it’s hard, but it’s very clear that all three elements of the act must be good – and one element of this act is evil.

Self defense, or the defense of others, is not an evil act.

If a policeman has the terrorist in a line of fire, he is right to shoot (kill) the terrorist in order to save the terrorist’s victims.

Do we agree?

If we don’t agree, why is self defense evil in the instance you propose?

 

[STT]

Apparently not, going by the degree of disagreement often seen between people who adhere to SS. Going by Scripture alone, people argue plausibly for and against such matters as the deity of Jesus/the Trinity as well as baptismal regeneration-whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation, while the church of God settled these and other matters centuries ago, if and when they even became controversial. Anyway, the bible can be vague and ambigous; it was never meant to be a catechism, a systematic explanation of the faith. And people even find ways to disagree over those.

So you mean that people listen to Church better than Scripture which is word of God?

Moreover, you didn’t really answer my question.

 

[fhansen]

So you mean that people listen to Church better than Scripture which is word of God?

Moreover, you didn’t really answer my question.

Yes, I did answer your question. Scripture speaks quite unplainly as often as not. That’s just honesty. And even before that, how do you know that Scripture is the word of God? By your authority? In any case the church’s members wrote the New Testament, inspired by the experience of our Lord’s advent, then later she determined which books should be included. There would be no Christian Bible if not for the church, and Christianity itself would be a mere footnote at best in ancient history. The church was established for that very purpuse-to receive and preserve and proclaim God’s revelation-His Word- whether written or oral.

 

[Gorgias]

I see inconsistencies in the Scripture and Ten Commandment.

Ten Commandment is very clear. I don’t think if there is any room for circumstances. The problem is that there is inconsistencies between the Scripture and Ten Commandment.

Sometimes, if you adopt a particular interpretative stance and then find that you’re awash in “inconsistencies”, the problem isn’t in the source material… it’s in your interpretative stance.

You seem to have adopted the stance that all killing is prohibited by the Ten Commandments. In fact (as was mentioned in this very thread!), the word that is used is one that has the connotation of “murder of a human being”. So, your insistence that “thou shalt not kill” prohibits all killing is neither convincing nor the way it’s been interpreted for thousands of years. Take away this particular interpretative stance, and you’ll find the “inconsistencies” disappear.

For example: Why God didn’t judge Moses for killing an Egyptian knowing the fact that God later prohibits killing? The Egyptian was just beating the Hebrew. Was killing a fair act? You can of course have the right to believe Scripture but you are responsible for your choice when you see obvious error, given example.

It’s a problem with your interpretative stance. It’s always been morally licit to defend another.

Inconsistencies of course opens room for interpretation when someone persists to believe.

You’re right! That’s precisely what you’re doing!

 

[dshix]

Self defense, or the defense of others, is not an evil act.

If a policeman has the terrorist in a line of fire, he is right to shoot (kill) the terrorist in order to save the terrorist’s victims.

Do we agree?

If we don’t agree, why is self defense evil in the instance you propose?

In the case you mention, person you are killing is the perpetrator of the danger. Thus, it is in accordance with justice and self-preservation to kill him.

In the case I proposed, the situation was to kill an innocent man. That is the distinction.
That one distinction makes a world of difference.

In my previous post, I mentioned the object, the end, and the circumstances are the elements of a moral act. The case you mentioned does not have an evil object, making the act moral, as opposed to my case, which has an evil object.

 

[o_mlly]

Self defense, or the defense of others, is not an evil act.

If a policeman has the terrorist in a line of fire, he is right to shoot (kill) the terrorist in order to save the terrorist’s victims.

Do we agree?

If we don’t agree, why is self defense evil in the instance you propose?

Self-defense is justified iff the proportionate violence is directed at the offender, not at an innocent person.

CCC# 1753 …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. …

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Self-defense is justified iff the proportionate violence is directed at the offender, not at an innocent person.

CCC# 1753 …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. …

Why would you consider a terrorist to be an innocent person?

 

[o_mlly]

Why would you consider a terrorist to be an innocent person?

A terrorist in the act of terrorizing is not an innocent person. When lethality is justified, the self-defense choice is not a choice between two evils but rather a choice which produces good and evil effects.

Going back to the topic of the thread – choice between two evils:

… Is it right to refuse to choose if your decision not to choose allows the greater evil to prevail?

Yes. One may not do evil even if the proportion is the taking of one innocent life (lesser evil) to save a million lives (greater evil).