lesser of two evils?

[Willy_Jose]

In Catholic moral theology, there is no such thing as a moral choice of a lesser evil.
The choice is always between good and evil. Am I right?

There is the principle of double-effect, but in essence this also a choice between good and evil, because its first condition requires that the nature of the act in question must either be morally good or morally indifferent.

And then there is the principle of proportionate reasons as expounded by then Cardinal Ratzinger, but this does not espouse the dissident theology of proportionalism. It simply says remote material cooperation is justified in the presence of proportionate reasons.

It beats me why the secular media and their cohorts always harp upon the “lesser of two evils” when commenting on the Pope’s comments during that interview. In this particular case, the choice is between the humanization of sexuality as against its perversions,
with or without condoms. The choice here is between good and evil, not the lesser of two evils.

What is it with this statement “But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality” that they don’t understand?

 

[Ron_Conte]

In Catholic moral theology, there is no such thing as a moral choice of a lesser evil.
The choice is always between good and evil. Am I right?

There is the principle of double-effect, but in essence this also a choice between good and evil, because its first condition requires that the nature of the act in question must either be morally good or morally indifferent.

And then there is the principle of proportionate reasons as expounded by then Cardinal Ratzinger, but this does not espouse the dissident theology of proportionalism. It simply says remote material cooperation is justified in the presence of proportionate reasons.

It beats me why the secular media and their cohorts always harp upon the “lesser of two evils” when commenting on the Pope’s comments during that interview. In this particular case, the choice is between the humanization of sexuality as against its perversions,
with or without condoms. The choice here is between good and evil, not the lesser of two evils.

What is it with this statement “But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality” that they don’t understand?

There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances.

In order to be good, the intention must be entirely good. A good intended end, but with a bad intended means makes the intention immoral.

In order to be good, the moral object must be entirely good. Any evil in the moral object makes the act intrinsically evil. If there is more than one moral object, all the moral objects of the act must be good.

However, the circumstances can tolerate some bad consequences (evil in the sense of harm – physical evil --, not in the sense of moral evil) if the good consequences outweigh the bad. And that is why the principle of double effect can justify an act with bad consequences (effects). If the intention is entirely good, and the act has a good moral object, then the bad consequences can be tolerated if the good consequences are of greater moral weight.

The first two fonts, intention and moral object, have no proportionality – they must each be entirely good to avoid sin. But in the third font of circumstances the good consequences must have proportionally a greater moral weight with respect to the bad consequences.

 

[Bluegoat]

Most people use the term lesser of two evils in an everyday speech kind of way - not in the way moral philosophers, Catholic or otherwise, do. All they mean most of the time is some acts are worse than others, and sometimes people feel that all the choices are bad. It isn’t very precise, but I would not assume that people are not understanding the point. (That is, I know some are not, but I wouldn’t assume someone who phrased it that way doesn’t.)

 

[Newbie2]

In Catholic moral theology, there is no such thing as a moral choice of a lesser evil.
The choice is always between good and evil. Am I right?

There is the principle of double-effect, but in essence this also a choice between good and evil, because its first condition requires that the nature of the act in question must either be morally good or morally indifferent.

And then there is the principle of proportionate reasons as expounded by then Cardinal Ratzinger, but this does not espouse the dissident theology of proportionalism. It simply says remote material cooperation is justified in the presence of proportionate reasons.

It beats me why the secular media and their cohorts always harp upon the “lesser of two evils” when commenting on the Pope’s comments during that interview. In this particular case, the choice is between the humanization of sexuality as against its perversions,
with or without condoms. The choice here is between good and evil, not the lesser of two evils.

What is it with this statement “But it is not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection. That can really lie only in a humanization of sexuality” that they don’t understand?

The choice can be between a good act and a morally neutral one, a good act and an evil act, or a morally neutral act and an evil one.

 

[Willy_Jose]

Most people use the term lesser of two evils in an everyday speech kind of way - not in the way moral philosophers, Catholic or otherwise, do. All they mean most of the time is some acts are worse than others, and sometimes people feel that all the choices are bad. It isn’t very precise, but I would not assume that people are not understanding the point. (That is, I know some are not, but I wouldn’t assume someone who phrased it that way doesn’t.)

Well I would be more tolerant of the common man on the street, but news outfits should be more responsible. Banner headlines and news should not reflect opinionated bias, not to mention downright erroneous. Look at this banner headline and its subtitle which came out in the most popular newspaper here in the Philippines

‘Condom lesser of 2 evils’

Pope’s stand a seismic shift on Church teachings

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101125-305146/Condom-lesser-of-2-evils

 

[Willy_Jose]

There are three fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances.

…
In order to be good, the moral object must be entirely good. Any evil in the moral object makes the act intrinsically evil. If there is more than one moral object, all the moral objects of the act must be good…The first two fonts, intention and moral object, have no proportionality – they must each be entirely good to avoid sin…

Ron,
In the double-effect principle, the moral object may be morally indifferent. Please clarify.

 

[Willy_Jose]

The choice can be between a good act and a morally neutral one, a good act and an evil act, or a morally neutral act and an evil one.

Yes, when you are only referring to the object of the act. As Ron says, an act has three fonts: the object, the intention, and the circumstances.

 

[Newbie2]

Did anyone see the movie “Master and Commander”? If you did, there was a reference to this very topic in the movie.

youtube.com/watch?v=wnL9i1Wflbg Starts at about 2:15

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ron,
In the double-effect principle, the moral object may be morally indifferent. Please clarify.

There are no morally indifferent or morally neutral acts. Each and every knowingly chosen act (called a ‘human act’ in moral theology) is either moral or immoral. A moral act is an act that is at least morally permissible (licit).

Concerning reward and punishment, there are moral acts that deserve reward in Heaven, and there are acts that deserve punishemnt (in Purgatory or Hell). But there are also acts that deserve neither reward or punishment, such as merely natural acts, done without sin and without coperation with grace: eating a meal, taking a walk, going to sleep, etc. These acts are morally licit, even though they are not virtuous.

But no human act is morally indifferent to one’s conscience or before God.

Concerning the principle of double effect, a knowingly chosen act, in the second font of moral object, is either morally licit or morally illicit. The object of the act is either licit or illicit. Even if the object is not virtuous or deserving of reward, it may still be permissible and therefore a good moral object. All that God created is good – not morally neutral. Therefore, acts that are not illicit are licit; they are morally good. Nothing that God created is neutral; all is good, except the knowing choice of morally disordered acts.

 

[Newbie2]

C’mon, nobody liked the movie clip?

 

[Willy_Jose]

C’mon, nobody liked the movie clip?

“Do you not know, that in the service, one must choose…”

 

[Willy_Jose]

There are no morally indifferent or morally neutral acts. Each and every knowingly chosen act (called a ‘human act’ in moral theology) is either moral or immoral. A moral act is an act that is at least morally permissible (licit).

Concerning reward and punishment, there are moral acts that deserve reward in Heaven, and there are acts that deserve punishemnt (in Purgatory or Hell). But there are also acts that deserve neither reward or punishment, such as merely natural acts, done without sin and without coperation with grace: eating a meal, taking a walk, going to sleep, etc. These acts are morally licit, even though they are not virtuous.

But no human act is morally indifferent to one’s conscience or before God.

Concerning the principle of double effect, a knowingly chosen act, in the second font of moral object, is either morally licit or morally illicit. The object of the act is either licit or illicit. Even if the object is not virtuous or deserving of reward, it may still be permissible and therefore a good moral object. All that God created is good – not morally neutral. Therefore, acts that are not illicit are licit; they are morally good. Nothing that God created is neutral; all is good, except the knowing choice of morally disordered acts.

I had a problem with your semantics, but that is a good clarification. Thanks.

 

[centurionguard]

Well I would be more tolerant of the common man on the street, but news outfits should be more responsible. Banner headlines and news should not reflect opinionated bias, not to mention downright erroneous. Look at this banner headline and its subtitle which came out in the most popular newspaper here in the Philippines

‘Condom lesser of 2 evils’

Pope’s stand a seismic shift on Church teachings

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101125-305146/Condom-lesser-of-2-evils

Your news source is poorly reliable like thousands of global media outlets who act like a bunch of frenzy feeding vultures who enjoy mixing and adding their own false interpretations what they in their mind believe Pope Benedict said. And if you care to search for more viable news sources Pope Benedict XI has already made new clarification to his original statement on condoms which was directed at homosexuals practicing acts of sodomy and using condoms in making a poor attempt to protect themselves from HIV/AIDS. Why is it society believes condoms makes them invincible? Maybe people should ask the Multi-billion dollar condom industry that could give a damn.

The secular global media however would rather sensationalize the Pope’s first statement rather than print his clarification on the matter and of course will choose to mince the sensationalistic side of the fence.

Peace
Chris