F
fakename
Guest
If you only had a choice to do two things (maybe implicitly three), one evil, the other extremely evil, is it lawful to choose the less evil or should one abstain from choosing?
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
To choose to do nothing is also a choice, with moral ramifications of its own.
1
1ke
Guest
No.
See CCC:
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”). The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Correct. One cannot choose either evil act.
M
michelleds
Guest
this type of dilemma is frequently seen in such movies as Saw where someone is given two horrible choices, both evil. and doing nothing is evil because there’s always someone who says that both horrible things will happen if you don’t choose.
The thought process, however, is not which of these evils is lesser. the thought process is this: you are not choosing any evil by not choosing. you are, in fact, trusting in God and the bad guy is making the choice. you, the innocent, by refusing to play the demented killer’s game, are forcing him to choose to act or not. the guilt then is not yours.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
From 14Humanae Vitae (emphasis added):
Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (see Rom 3:8)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.
Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (see Rom 3:8)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Choose the good 
- Status