Lesser of two evils?

[twoangels]

I just realized I don’t know if the principal of the lesser of two evils is included in Catholic doctrine or not. I looked up the phrase in the online Catechism search and nothing pulls up. Maybe the Catechism calls it something else. I asked my husband and he suggested the Principle of Double Effect, but I think that is a different ethical theory than the lesser of two evils.

 

[Bookcat]

Choose the good…avoid evil.

 

[thistle]

I just realized I don’t know if the principal of the lesser of two evils is included in Catholic doctrine or not. I looked up the phrase in the online Catechism search and nothing pulls up. Maybe the Catechism calls it something else. I asked my husband and he suggested the Principle of Double Effect, but I think that is a different ethical theory than the lesser of two evils.

Double Effect does not involve two evils. It involves a good and an evil.

 

[twoangels]

Uh,

Ok, so you’ve got a train that is headed on a track and is about to run over three people tied to the track. You only have available to you one of two choices. Within your power is the power to switch the train to another track where only one person is died to the track and will be run over. Do you choose the active action to directly cause the death of the one person on the track to save the three lives? Do you commit an act of omission to avoid causing the one person to die and thus allow the 3 people to be run over?

According to the “The Lesser of Two Evil” the morally right choice is to switch the tracks and have the one person run over rather than the three.

My question is whether this principal is a Catholic principal or not because I can’t find where it is mentioned in the Catechism. So any knowledgable Catechism person who knows where it might be addressed in the Catechism or elsewhere would be of great help.

 

[twoangels]

Double Effect does not involve two evils. It involves a good and an evil.

Well I suppose the moral question about the trains would be answered by the principal of double effect since the good is that the lives are saved and the unintentional side effect is that one person dies, while switching the tracks is morally neutral.

Perhaps the principal of double effect is a more complete theory than the “lesser of two evils.” and thus the Church does not promote the theory of the lesser of two evils. I just want to know if this “perhaps it doesn’t” is an actual “No the Church doesn’t teach this.”

Anyone?

 

[stevekehl]

I would throw the brakes.

 

[MrJaundicedEye]

The inclusion of the “switch” in this example is a sophisticated distractor. Consider a pilot whose plane suddenly loses power near a heavily populated area. Is it moral for him to steer his stricken craft away from the population center and toward a more sparsely populated area? Of course. No one would even hesitate, given this non-binary example.

 

[thistle]

Uh,

Ok, so you’ve got a train that is headed on a track and is about to run over three people tied to the track. You only have available to you one of two choices. Within your power is the power to switch the train to another track where only one person is died to the track and will be run over. Do you choose the active action to directly cause the death of the one person on the track to save the three lives? Do you commit an act of omission to avoid causing the one person to die and thus allow the 3 people to be run over?

According to the “The Lesser of Two Evil” the morally right choice is to switch the tracks and have the one person run over rather than the three.

My question is whether this principal is a Catholic principal or not because I can’t find where it is mentioned in the Catechism. So any knowledgable Catechism person who knows where it might be addressed in the Catechism or elsewhere would be of great help.

Oh dear! Not the train scenario for the hundredth time!!! These hypothetical scenarios are ridiculous.
Why not take it further and say the one person is your child. Do you save your child and let three die??

 

[twoangels]

Oh dear! Not the train scenario for the hundredth time!!! These hypothetical scenarios are ridiculous.
Why not take it further and say the one person is your child. Do you save your child and let three die??

My question isn’t about the trains but whether or not the principal of the lesser of two evils is a Catholic principal or not. I gave a classic example of a sinero used to describe a situation where there is not good option available. But thank you everyone. More and more I am entirely losing confidence in these boards.

 

[nodito]

My question isn’t about the trains but whether or not the principal of the lesser of two evils is a Catholic principal or not. I gave a classic example of a sinero used to describe a situation where there is not good option available. But thank you everyone. More and more I am entirely losing confidence in these boards.

Hi Twoangels,

I’ve been following a bunch of your recent posts with interest, especially the one about the unitive purpose of marriage, but haven’t responded yet because I haven’t yet formulated a helpful response. These boards are sometimes helpful, sometimes not. It just kind of depends on who happens to read and respond when you’d like them to.

With regards to the “lesser of two evils”, the Catholic position is that one may never do evil so that good may come of it, if we define evil as “sinful”. There is rarely (ever?) a choice only between two evils, but usually between something evil and something neutral, unpleasant, or difficult. In the train scenario, it’s not evil or sinful to switch tracks to try to save lives, since by doing so, you aren’t intending to kill the single person on the other track. But if, for example, the train is barreling down the tracks and you see your enemy on one track and a stranger on the other and you switch the train because you wish to kill your enemy, that would be evil.

The Principal of Double Effect is probably what you’d be interested in reading about, in that it allows for the possibility of negative or tragic outcomes when an action isn’t evil but morally neutral.

 

[St_Francis]

The issue in the lesser of two evils is that for Catholics there are two meanings to the word evil. One is sin. The other is physical suffering. so the phrase generally means more the choice between alternatives one doesn’t like than the choice between two sins.

Wrt the train scenario, as long as sin is not added as per the previois poster, neither option is sinful, the evil considered is death.

I suspect that the lesser of two evils would be considered more of a pragmatic or utilitarian principle than a Catholic one.

 

[twoangels]

With regards to the “lesser of two evils”, the Catholic position is that one may never do evil so that good may come of it, if we define evil as “sinful”.

You’re defining evil incorrectly. Evil is the negation or the destruction of the good. Sin is the free choice to deliberately do evil. For instance, the destruction of a woman’s fertility is evil. It is evil because the fertility is good. Health is good. The sexual act is good and our procreative nature is good. The willful choice to thus to use contraceptives is evil because it seeks to destroy good things: fertility, health etc. It is because of concupiscence that we are attracted to what is evil.

There is rarely (ever?) a choice only between two evils, but usually between something evil and something neutral, unpleasant, or difficult.

When you are indeed choosing between what is evil and what is neutral, unpleasant and difficult, moral decisions are fairly easy. However you are very wrong in thinking that moral decisions are almost universally as black and white like that.

When I was younger, people used to talk to me about gray areas. I’d spit back at them “gray is just another shade of black.” But the fact of the matter is that these situations do exist quite frequently. Meanwhile our ability to reason and to make moral decisions is clouded by concupiscence which we all suffer with. So basically in many situations we are a bunch of near sighted people without glasses trying to find our way home in the fog.

Now Christ is the shepherd and the good news is that we are to follow Him, follow His voice. He helps us on this path, and He gave us the Church to help guide us.

I already know that the Church teaches that the ends does not justify the means and I know she teaches the principal of double effect. I am asking if the lesser of two evils is a part of Church doctrine or is the principal flawed. I’m not asking about a situation a moral decision I am currently making. I just realized that I remember learning about this principal and cannot recall if it is opposed to the Catholic faith or not.

My question of the meaning of “unity” in my previous post was an entirely other issue.

Thank you.

 

[twoangels]

The issue in the lesser of two evils is that for Catholics there are two meanings to the word evil. One is sin. The other is physical suffering.

Incorrect. There are three forms of evil, (moral, physical, and metaphysical) not multiple meanings of the word.
newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

The principal of the lesser of two evils assumes we are talking about moral evils.

I wasn’t looking for an explaination as to “why” the Church does not teach this princpal. I was asking DOES the Church teach this principal. Do you actually know that the Church doesn’t teach this or are you assuming she does because you think I’m asking “why”?

 

[1Samuel8]

Ok, so you’ve got a train that is headed on a track and is about to run over three people tied to the track. You only have available to you one of two choices.

This sort of hypothetical analysis is very destructive to the soul, in my opinion. I recommend staying clear from pondering such matters because they move you away from examining personal responsibility.

Nobody magically finds themselves on a run-away train dealing with such moral dilemmas. These hypothetical situations never arise unless there is an underlying more serious evil that brought them there. Thus, it makes no intelligent sense to believe you can isolate Evil #1 from Evil #2 and Evil #3 and Evil #4 etc.

Do you commit an act of omission to avoid causing the one person to die and thus allow the 3 people to be run over?

Who owns the train?
The act of omission is perpetrated by the owner.

According to the “The Lesser of Two Evil” the morally right choice is to switch the tracks and have the one person run over rather than the three.

Says who?
You can never know which is the lesser of two evils because the future is never certain. For all you know, this unlikely scenario is a set up to test you with an artificial track.

My question is whether this principal is a Catholic principal or not because I can’t find where it is mentioned in the Catechism. So any knowledgable Catechism person who knows where it might be addressed in the Catechism or elsewhere would be of great help.

I can not help you there. I am only looking at the matter from a praxeological perspective. The analysis does not seem to stand on its own regardless of what the Church says.

 

[1ke]

The Church has no such principle.

 

[Bookcat]

In looking for references to your question…found these which will be of interest

A snippet from a note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith:

“…the so-called theory of the “lesser evil”. This theory is, however, susceptible to proportionalistic misinterpretation (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis splendor, n. 75-77). An action which is objectively evil, even if a lesser evil, can never be licitly willed.”

For the quoted Papal Document: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

As I noted above…one wills the good… not evil.