Lesser Evil Dilemma

[Charlemagne_III]

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:

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).

If one was convinced that two presidential candidates were both evil choices, but one was more evil than the other, would this rule still hold? Would you not vote, in order to save the sanctity of your soul, even if it meant that the nation might go down in ruins because the candidate who was the greater evil won, and won because of all the people (like yourself) who would never vote for him/her?

 

[dshix]

If one was convinced that two presidential candidates were both evil choices, but one was more evil than the other, would this rule still hold? Would you not vote, in order to save the sanctity of your soul, even if it meant that the nation might go down in ruins because the candidate who was the greater evil won, and won because of all the people (like yourself) who would never vote for him/her?

In the current situation, with the current two candidates, there is no forced choice between the lesser of two evils.

This is a case where the principle of double effect comes into play. Both candidates have faults. We must vote for the one who has the most good to bring to the table, and we vote for that person INTENDING the good.

No sin. Except if you vote for the wrong candidate, because you’re choosing the good parts of that candidate and not properly weighing the fact that more evil will come of your choice than good. (Hillary)

 

[STT]

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?

I think you misunderstood my question. I asked why Scripture was not conveyed in simple language so everybody can understand it. Of course there would be no branching in Christianity if Scripture was simple to understand. Wasn’t God aware of that?

 

[fhansen]

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.

I understand your question now I think, since reading post #63. There’s absolutely no reason why God wouldn’t establish his church for that very reason, especially since the meaning of the written word can be quite easily distorted. It needs an interpreter. From the CCC:

**107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74**

 

[STT]

I understand your question now I think, since reading post #63. There’s absolutely no reason why God wouldn’t establish his church for that very reason, especially since the meaning of the written word can be quite easily distorted. It needs an interpreter. From the CCC:

**107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74**

I think that you didn’t understand my question yet considering the quotes you cited. Let me explain the problem this way. Church has the authority to explain the Scripture for people in an easy language because it is attached to Holy Spirit since otherwise the interpretation of the Scripture could be erroneous which this questions the infallibility of the church hence its authority. There two question here: (1) Why Jesus didn’t convey his message in simple language that everybody could understand in first place? There was no need for church to interpret the Scripture to people in simple language because everything was written in simple language. (2) Those individuals in church who are interpreting the Scripture must have contact with Holy Spirit otherwise interpretation is erroneous hence church is not infallible. This means that these individual are prophets. I don’t think that they are making such a claim. So we are dealing with a contradiction. In one hand they are not claiming that they are prophet and in another hand they must be prophet since they have contact with Holy Spirit.

 

[fhansen]

I think that you didn’t understand my question yet considering the quotes you cited. Let me explain the problem this way. Church has the authority to explain the Scripture for people in an easy language because it is attached to Holy Spirit since otherwise the interpretation of the Scripture could be erroneous which this questions the infallibility of the church hence its authority. There two question here: (1) Why Jesus didn’t convey his message in simple language that everybody could understand in first place? There was no need for church to interpret the Scripture to people in simple language because everything was written in simple language. (2) Those individuals in church who are interpreting the Scripture must have contact with Holy Spirit otherwise interpretation is erroneous hence church is not infallible. This means that these individual are prophets. I don’t think that they are making such a claim. So we are dealing with a contradiction. In one hand they are not claiming that they are prophet and in another hand they must be prophet since they have contact with Holy Spirit.

I think it’s simpler. The Church is given the authority and ability to understand/interpret Scripture. Her people, IOW, pope and bishops, are gifted to teach without error on matters of faith and morals. The gift is in the office, not the man per se. Regardless of what language Jesus used in the past, without a living voice able to speak in the present, for Him, His words are all too easily twisted or otherwise misunderstood.

 

[STT]

I think it’s simpler. The Church is given the authority and ability to understand/interpret Scripture. Her people, IOW, pope and bishops, are gifted to teach without error on matters of faith and morals. The gift is in the office, not the man per se. Regardless of what language Jesus used in the past, without a living voice able to speak in the present, for Him, His words are all too easily twisted or otherwise misunderstood.

What about Galileo affair? The church can commit another error if she had done once before.

 

[fhansen]

What about Galileo affair? The church can commit another error if she had done once before.

The Church is said to be kept free from error only on matters of faith and morals, those things pertaining to man’s salvation. Her people are neither omniscient nor impeccable nor perfectly holy, and as such can unfortunately fumble at times in other matters, being human and all.

 

[STT]

The Church is said to be kept free from error only on matters of faith and morals, those things pertaining to man’s salvation. Her people are neither omniscient nor impeccable nor perfectly holy, and as such can unfortunately fumble at times in other matters, being human and all.

That is not a good answer to my question.

Why did church get involved in Galileo affair? Because Galileo said something against faith. We know who was right and wrong so the church can do mistake again.

Let me give you another example : Pope Benedict XVI, earned the wrath of healthcare professionals, gay rights activists and the United Nations by saying on a visit to Africa that condoms were not the answer to fighting HIV and could actually make it worse.

So as you can see the church intervenes in many social and political aspects of our lives, some are not in the circle of her expertise.

 

[fhansen]

That is not a good answer to my question.

Why did church get involved in Galileo affair? Because Galileo said something against faith. We know who was right and wrong so the church can do mistake again.

Nothing Galileo said or did impacted teachings on salvation. Heliocentricism has nothing to do with our faith. So it wasn’t even an issue that involved infallibility.

Let me give you another example : Pope Benedict XVI, earned the wrath of healthcare professionals, gay rights activists and the United Nations by saying on a visit to Africa that condoms were not the answer to fighting HIV and could actually make it worse.

So as you can see the church intervenes in many social and political aspects of our lives, some are not in the circle of her expertise.

Yes, the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals-that’s exactly what pope Benedict was addressing.

 

[STT]

Nothing Galileo said or did impacted teachings on salvation. Heliocentricism has nothing to do with our faith. So it wasn’t even an issue that involved infallibility.

Yes, the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals-that’s exactly what pope Benedict was addressing.

But he mentioned that using condom could make the Aids epidemic worst. Isn’t that an error?

 

[fhansen]

But he mentioned that using condom could make the Aids epidemic worst. Isn’t that an error?

Condoms were being promoted as a band-aid for aids. But anything that promotes or condones promiscuous non-monogamous sexual relations only glamorizes and supports the life-style that caused aids to flourish to begin with.

 

[ericc]

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.

I have a different twist and it bugs me a lot. HYPOTHETICALLY:

Case 1

1. You are in a room with a clock ticking.
2. You have been informed that at the end of the countdown, bombs will explode in Area A and Area B. Area A contains fewer people than in Area B.
3. However, if you act before the countdown finishes, you are able to defuse only one of the bombs. If you don’t the bombs go off in both Areas. Your life is NOT in danger. Defusing one bomb automatically triggers the other. You actually set it off. Similar to a 2 way switch. It is in the neutral position now. You push button A , A blows up. and vice versa.
4. The bomber is not around.

Morally I should save some versus none. A mortal sin is being committed regardless of any action or inaction I choose to take according to the information you have provided. However, it appears that inaction would appear to be the selfish choice as I wouldn’t want to will the death of any innocent and the subsequent explosions in both A and B are really not of my doing. Where as choosing to save one of two will implicate me as killing the innocent although it is for the “greater good” in terms of lives saved.

Case 2
Same as above but your life is in danger. There is a bomb in your room too tagged as Area C. Defusing your bomb triggers;

a) both bombs in Area A and B.
b) Area A
c) Area B

However, if you choose to defuse the other bomb first will detonate the bomb in the room that you are in. Hence suicide. The 3 way switch now decides which bomb gets defused resulting in the detonation of the other 2 bombs.

1)The maximal good is to save maximum lives. You kill yourself and the occupants in A.
2) You preserve your life at the expense of others. It is not self defense because you are not defending yourself from A and B but self preservation or being unwilling to kill innocents(with proper sarcasm thrown in).

What SHOULD be the proper behaviour in both cases?

 

[Vico]

I have a different twist and it bugs me a lot. HYPOTHETICALLY:

Case 1

1. You are in a room with a clock ticking.
2. You have been informed that at the end of the countdown, bombs will explode in Area A and Area B. Area A contains fewer people than in Area B.
3. However, if you act before the countdown finishes, you are able to defuse only one of the bombs. If you don’t the bombs go off in both Areas. Your life is NOT in danger. Defusing one bomb automatically triggers the other. You actually set it off. Similar to a 2 way switch. It is in the neutral position now. You push button A , A blows up. and vice versa.
4. The bomber is not around.

Morally I should save some versus none. A mortal sin is being committed regardless of any action or inaction I choose to take according to the information you have provided. However, it appears that inaction would appear to be the selfish choice as I wouldn’t want to will the death of any innocent and the subsequent explosions in both A and B are really not of my doing. Where as choosing to save one of two will implicate me as killing the innocent although it is for the “greater good” in terms of lives saved.

Case 2
Same as above but your life is in danger. There is a bomb in your room too tagged as Area C. Defusing your bomb triggers;

a) both bombs in Area A and B.
b) Area A
c) Area B

However, if you choose to defuse the other bomb first will detonate the bomb in the room that you are in. Hence suicide. The 3 way switch now decides which bomb gets defused resulting in the detonation of the other 2 bombs.

1)The maximal good is to save maximum lives. You kill yourself and the occupants in A.
2) You preserve your life at the expense of others. It is not self defense because you are not defending yourself from A and B but self preservation or being unwilling to kill innocents(with proper sarcasm thrown in).

What SHOULD be the proper behaviour in both cases?

one does not actually cause either bomb to explode because the first statement give that “bombs will explode in Area A and Area B.” “Defusing one bomb automatically triggers the other. You actually set it off.” is not true, the bomb will go off anyway.

 

[ericc]

one does not actually cause either bomb to explode because the first statement give that “bombs will explode in Area A and Area B.” “Defusing one bomb automatically triggers the other. You actually set it off.” is not true, the bomb will go off anyway.

The first statement is conditional upon expiry of time. The second statement by virtue of one’s action to select which one to defuse does trigger them to go off immediately. Of course everyone dies sooner or later. But it is at your hand that he dies prematurely, in this case before the time runs out.

The case really is if one does nothing more will die, but not directly by your hands but on your inaction vs a selection is made that fewer people die but as a result of your direct action. Which one is the lesser evil or greater good depending on how one views it.

We may encounter similar dilemma on a sinking ship or similar scenarios. Is the greater good/less evil lies in saving quantity of lives vs quality of lives (good guys, bad guys e.g. serving life sentence, young, old, famous, heads of state, important scientists, somebody vs nobody etc), my life vs others even if I am rotten to the core.

 

[Vico]

The first statement is conditional upon expiry of time. The second statement by virtue of one’s action to select which one to defuse does trigger them to go off immediately. Of course everyone dies sooner or later. But it is at your hand that he dies prematurely, in this case before the time runs out.

The case really is if one does nothing more will die, but not directly by your hands but on your inaction vs a selection is made that fewer people die but as a result of your direct action. Which one is the lesser evil or greater good depending on how one views it.

We may encounter similar dilemma on a sinking ship or similar scenarios. Is the greater good/less evil lies in saving quantity of lives vs quality of lives (good guys, bad guys e.g. serving life sentence, young, old, famous, heads of state, important scientists, somebody vs nobody etc), my life vs others even if I am rotten to the core.

So the condition is that is it impossible to defuse one just at the same moment that they would both explode on timeout?

 

[Vico]

The first statement is conditional upon expiry of time. The second statement by virtue of one’s action to select which one to defuse does trigger them to go off immediately. Of course everyone dies sooner or later. But it is at your hand that he dies prematurely, in this case before the time runs out.

The case really is if one does nothing more will die, but not directly by your hands but on your inaction vs a selection is made that fewer people die but as a result of your direct action. Which one is the lesser evil or greater good depending on how one views it.

We may encounter similar dilemma on a sinking ship or similar scenarios. Is the greater good/less evil lies in saving quantity of lives vs quality of lives (good guys, bad guys e.g. serving life sentence, young, old, famous, heads of state, important scientists, somebody vs nobody etc), my life vs others even if I am rotten to the core.

Intention: to do good (stop one bomb). The bad effect (early trigger of a bomb) is indirectly voluntary.
Good effect: to stop a bomb flows immediately as does the bad effect of early trigger of a bomb. The good effect (stop a bomb) is sufficiently desirable to compensate for the bad effect (early trigger of a bomb).

New Catholic Encyclopedia:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).

 

[phil19034]

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?

Killing is not objectively immoral. Murder is objectively immoral.

There is a difference.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In the current situation, with the current two candidates, there is no forced choice between the lesser of two evils.

This is a case where the principle of double effect comes into play. Both candidates have faults. We must vote for the one who has the most good to bring to the table, and we vote for that person INTENDING the good.

No sin. Except if you vote for the wrong candidate, because you’re choosing the good parts of that candidate and not properly weighing the fact that more evil will come of your choice than good. (Hillary)

The greatest evil would be to see the Supreme Court go down the tubes.

If that is not seen as the greater evil, I don’t know what is, given the fact that one candidate promised not to appoint culture of death Justices while the other made no such promise and in fact is likely to do just the opposite, exacerbating the holocaust of the unborn.

 

[dshix]

I have a different twist and it bugs me a lot.

(etc.)

Very interesting case. In the case you propose, the principle of double effect can come into full effect. You CAN act to defuse a bomb to save those who will be killed. What’s more, you don’t necessarily have to choose based on which room has more people; you may choose to save a group based on who they are, or some other factor, provided your intentions are pure.

All that is required is that you intend only to save lives, and you act with that intention at the forefront.

The greatest evil would be to see the Supreme Court go down the tubes.

If that is not seen as the greater evil, I don’t know what is, given the fact that one candidate promised not to appoint culture of death Justices while the other made no such promise and in fact is likely to do just the opposite, exacerbating the holocaust of the unborn.

I agree with you. I’m glad the country made the choice they just did.