lesser of two evils

[michelleds]

Since this concept of choosing the lesser of two evils has come up in more than a couple of threads recently, I wanted to link to the following blog post. Lesser of Two Evils

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Bottom line, choosing of the lesser of the two evils is still choosing evil.

 

[michelleds]

Bottom line, choosing of the lesser of the two evils is still choosing evil.

absolutely! I just thought that Brother Andre did a great job of laying it out. I was thinking specifically of the posters in the moral vote thread and the poster over in the porn thread who felt that they could in good conscience choose an evil.

I believe as you do, Soldier…we cannot choose evil, except in those very narrow circumstances, as discussed in the linked article.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

absolutely! I just thought that Brother Andre did a great job of laying it out. I was thinking specifically of the posters in the moral vote thread and the poster over in the porn thread who felt that they could in good conscience choose an evil.

I believe as you do, Soldier…we cannot choose evil, except in those very narrow circumstances, as discussed in the linked article.

The problem with the OP in the ‘porn’ thread is that his premise is incorrect. It is his contention that pornography would alleviate hormonal urges and sexual desire. However, pornography, by definition**,** is the presentation of sexually explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of stimulating sexual excitement, which the opposite of the desired effect. Also, there is an assumption that prostitution is a lesser evil, which may not be the case. Pornography can be distrubuted much more widely and accessed far more easily than prostitution. A magazine or video can reach millions of consumers based on a single pornographic session. Would choosing pornography be the lesser of the two evils, especially if it leads to a hardening and reinforcement of sexual deviancy? What about child pornography? Is that the lesser of two evils?

There isn’t any real justification for choosing evil, unless one is absolutely compelled to do so. There is only dissonant rationalization.

 

[michelleds]

The problem with the OP in the ‘porn’ thread is that his premise is incorrect. It is his contention that pornography would alleviate hormonal urges and sexual desire. However, pornography, by definition**,** is the presentation of sexually explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of stimulating sexual excitement, which the opposite of the desired effect. Also, there is an assumption that prostitution is a lesser evil, which may not be the case. Pornography can be distrubuted much more widely and accessed far more easily than prostitution. A magazine or video can reach millions of consumers based on a single pornographic session. Would choosing pornography be the lesser of the two evils, especially if it leads to a hardening and reinforcement of sexual deviancy, especially with regards to child pornography?

There isn’t any real justification for choosing evil, unless one is absolutely compelled to do so. There is only dissonant rationalization.

Agreed.

 

[Corki]

absolutely! I just thought that Brother Andre did a great job of laying it out. I was thinking specifically of the posters in the moral vote thread and the poster over in the porn thread who felt that they could in good conscience choose an evil.

I believe as you do, Soldier…we cannot choose evil, except in those very narrow circumstances, as discussed in the linked article.

While many cases of “lesser of two evils” are really false dichotomies, voting really does mean we have to make a choice. I think it was in the Bishop’s Responsible Citizenship document that there is sometimes a legitimate use of the “lesser of two evils” BUT only if by chosing the lesser, you actually limit the harmful effect of the “greater of two evils”.

People forget that last part.

 

[michelleds]

While many cases of “lesser of two evils” are really false dichotomies, voting really does mean we have to make a choice. I think it was in the Bishop’s Responsible Citizenship document that there is sometimes a legitimate use of the “lesser of two evils” BUT only if by chosing the lesser, you actually limit the harmful effect of the “greater of two evils”.

People forget that last part.

Thanks for pointing to that document, Corki. altho I did find the following quotes quite relevant, I did not find what you were referring to re two evils. Can you find a citation for that? thanks!

from page 7 of the Bishop’s document:

For Catholics, the defense of human life and dignity is not a narrow cause, but a
way of life and a framework for action. A key message of the Vatican statement
on public life is that Catholics in politics must reflect the moral values of our faith
with clear and consistent priority for the life and dignity of the human person. 13
This is the fundamental moral measure of their service. The Vatican statement
also points out:

It must be noted also that a well- formed Christian conscience
does not permit one to vote for a political program or an
individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of
faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and
thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the
detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political
commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social
doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the
common good.

14

and from page 9:

These themes anchor our community’s role in public life. They help us to resist excessive
self- interest, blind partisanship, and ideological agendas. They also help us avoid extreme
distortions of pluralism and tolerance that deny any fundamental values and dismiss the
contributions and convictions of believers. As the Vatican’s statement on public life explains,
we cannot accept an understanding of pluralism and tolerance that suggests “every possible
outlook on life [is] of equal value”. 27 However, this insistence that there are fundamental
moral values “has nothing to do with the legitimate freedom of Catholic citizens to choose
among the various political opinions that are compatible with faith and the natural moral law,
and to select, according to their own criteria, what best corresponds to the needs of the
common good”.28

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

 

[meltzerboy]

I recall there was a thread a while back about lying (by commission or omission) for the purpose of saving a human life. I believe several Catholic posters stated that it is still wrong and sinful (venial?) to lie even for this purpose. Is this regarded as official Catholic doctrine?

The Jewish perspective on the whole issue is quite different. If committing a sin is part of the definition of evil, then there are permissible–even required–instances in which committing “evil” is viewed as the moral course of action. In point of fact, it would be considered sinful NOT to do so. The prime example is saving a human life. One is required, if necessary, to lie, even steal to do so since preservation of life is the most essential obligation. (Without going into details, abortion is a different issue in Judaism, while Catholicism seems consistent in such extreme cases as when the mother’s life is in imminent danger.) And certainly one can break the Sabbath and eat non-kosher food in this case. Didn’t Jesus say as much?

Another thorny case involving evil. I know that Catholicism’s teaching is that if two conjoined infants are sure to die if not separated, then the weaker one (the infant who will most probably not be able to live through the separation) cannot be sacrificed by separating him/her to save the infant who is most likely to live if separated. Jewish teaching takes a different position. That is, since both infants will die if not separated, then the one who will not be able to live in either case must be sacrificed to enable the other infant to have the chance to live. This may sound harsh to some, and it certainly is an agonizing decision for the parents, but that is the Jewish Law. Probably not all Jewish parents would abide by this, however.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I recall there was a thread a while back about lying (by commission or omission) for the purpose of saving a human life. I believe several Catholic posters stated that it is still wrong and sinful (venial?) to lie even for this purpose. Is this regarded as official Catholic doctrine?

It is wrong to lie, even for the purpose of avoiding another sin, but it would be even more wrong to allow a human life to be sacrificed. In principle, the severity of the wrong is mitigated by the circumstance, so it is possible (to some theologians) it may only be not be a venial sin if the lying avoids a very grave matter and there are no other realistic options. Regardless, we are called upon not to lie and it would be better to be proficient in deflecting or averting the question rather than answer them with an outright lie or perform a lie of omission. Furthermore, we are not morally compelled to answer every question posed to us. However, the Catechism does state the following:

1753: A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lyingand calumny, good or just.

 

[John21652]

It is wrong to lie, even for the purpose of avoiding another sin, but it would be even more wrong to allow a human life to be sacrificed. In principle, the severity of the wrong is mitigated by the circumstance, so it is possible (to some theologians) it may only be not be a venial sin if the lying avoids a very grave matter and there are no other realistic options. Regardless, we are called upon not to lie and it would be better to be proficient in deflecting or averting the question rather than answer them with an outright lie or perform a lie of omission. Furthermore, we are not morally compelled to answer every question posed to us. However, the Catechism does state the following:

1753: A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lyingand calumny, good or just.

The example Meltzerboy was referring to was the situation where the Nazis come knocking on your door looking for Jews. You tell them a lie and say none are hiding in your cupboard. Away go the Nazis and the Jews are saved.

You chose the lesser evil and saved lives.

In the scenario Michelle linked to, the evils to choose from are both strong evils - obviously mortal sins both. Making a choice between the two is still choosing evil and the outcomes from both choices will be evil. Either choice will perpetuate evil.

However, in the Nazi scenario, the act of being honest would lead to the death of innocents. Lying to the Nazis saves the lives of innocents. So then, what is the level of culpability contained in the lie?

For your deliberations I give you with this quote -

“Not to oppose error, is to approve of it, and not to defend truth is to suppress it, and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.” Pope Felix III

Lying to the Nazis confounded evil men, as Pope Felix III says we should do!

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

The example Meltzerboy was referring to was the situation where the Nazis come knocking on your door looking for Jews. You tell them a lie and say none are hiding in your cupboard. Away go the Nazis and the Jews are saved.

You chose the lesser evil and saved lives.

In the scenario Michelle linked to, the evils to choose from are both strong evils - obviously mortal sins both. Making a choice between the two is still choosing evil and the outcomes from both choices will be evil. Either choice will perpetuate evil.

However, in the Nazi scenario, the act of being honest would lead to the death of innocents. Lying to the Nazis saves the lives of innocents. So then, what is the level of culpability contained in the lie?

For your deliberations I give you with this quote -
Lying to the Nazis confounded evil men, as Pope Felix III says we should do!

Lying is considered a *sin * in the Catholic Catechism of the Church. The ‘strength’ of the evil countered is irrelevant. I doubt anyone, however, would dispute lying’s appropriateness in this matter, as saving lives would take precedence over not lying. As you’ve surmised, your culpability is substantially reduced. Only God truly knows what is your level of culpability.

 

[Mark_David]

Apart from certain extreme situations, choosing the lesser evil is often (if not always) a false dilemma - yes?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Apart from certain extreme situations, choosing the lesser evil is often (if not always) a false dilemma - yes?

I would agree. In most instances, it is assumed only two choices are available (as they are the only ones presented) but there are often other choices. For instance, if you are asked to vote for one of two candidates, you could argue that the candidate with the least comptemptible position is the lesser of the two ‘evils.’ However, you can choose not to vote, which would resolve your moral dilemna. Not voting may have the benefit of signalling to the parties/candidates in question that the candidates fielded are not suitable and may endevevour make the requisite adjustments.