Obeying one's superior

[Areopagite]

For a soldier in relation to his commanding officer, or a child in relation to his parent, or even a wife to her husband, should the subordinate obey the superior in all things except sin? I think the answer is yes, but how so exactly. That is, if you are told to do something objectively immoral, you obviously should not do it. However, if a subordinate is told to do something not objectively immoral but the superior tells him/her to do it for the fulfillment of the superior’s evil intent, should one obey? Or should the subordinate just be considered about the objective and not intention aspect of the act to be carried out? But really, the whole action becomes evil even if the action is not objectively evil but the intent is. So what should you do? Obviously, you can’t know one’s intent … but what if you either overhear the superior’s intent … or he tells it to you shamelessly?

I think this might have to do with material cooperation in sin. But maybe not. I’m confused.

 

[Hietanen]

If you by obeying will be sinning against God you shall not obey. If you are under obedience as in religion you must obey unless it is immoral and may cause you to sin.

This exactly is what the mother of God has to say about a priest which lives under obedience, this quote is from the Revelations of Saint Bridget, which can be read at the site below.

"And let him humbly obey all of his superior’s instructions that are not contrary to God and that the friar’s own ability permits him to perform."

prophecyfilm.com/revelations/book7/b7_chapter7.htm

www.prophecyfilm.com

 

[Jack17]

I don’t agree with the wife part.

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you for your responses.

If you by obeying will be sinning against God you shall not obey. If you are under obedience as in religion you must obey unless it is immoral and may cause you to sin.

I agree. But what is the criteria to determine whether you are sinning by obeying? Obviously, we know that if you are told to do something objectively immoral, you should not do it. But what if you are told to do something not objectively immoral, but by doing it, you aid in the fulfillment of your superior’s evil intent … should you do it? Obviously, your superior would be sinning, but would you be sinning? Because, you wouldn’t have an evil intent, but by your participation as a willing instrument for the completion of the intent, would you be at fault?

Would you just apply the principles of material cooperation of sin to determine whether you should obey or not? Or is it more complicated than that? Anyone?

I don’t agree with the wife part.

What do you mean? What aren’t you agreeing to?

But, just FYI, the Bible says “Wives be subordinate to your husbands” (Ephesians 5:22) Is this what your not agreeing with? Just asking.

 

[Hietanen]

I think that you can obey in all that is not against God with a good conscience, regardless of your superiors intention. You by obeying, cannot sin, your superior, for commanding you with an evil intent, will be guilty only. This I have read in the “life of the holy fathers”, among many other saint writings.

St. Francis (I think) commanded his disciple to strip himself naked and go to the town preaching. This would seem immoral and wrong, but he obeyed, and not did he sin by obeying, nay, Francis felt ashamed then for commanding him to do such a thing, that he himself did the same as he commanded the other. There can be read of many other strange things in the life of the holy fathers which was commanded by superiors, which in normal cases would be mortally sinful to do (in my opinion), but these things happened through the inspiration of the holy Spirit to give others an example (as with Abraham), and are not be imitated.

God loves nothing so much as when a person gives up his own will obeying another. For nothing leads a person so easily down to Hell as one’s own will without a leader. This truth was revealed to Saint Bridget by God in the book of questions,

Again the monk appeared on his ladder as before saying: Fifth question. “Why should I obey others, if I have control over my own will?”

Answer to the fifth question. The Judge answered: “Whosoever holds his free choice in his hands should be fearful and should realize in truth that nothing so easily leads to eternal punishment as self-will without a leader. Accordingly, anyone who relinquishes his or her own will to me, his God, in obedience to me, shall have heaven without punishment.”

prophecyfilm.com/revelations/book5/b5_interrogation4.htm

I saw a throne in heaven on which sat the Lord Jesus Christ as Judge. At his feet sat the Virgin Mary. Surrounding the throne was a host of angels and a countless multitude of saints. A certain monk, a great scholar of theology, stood high up on a rung of a ladder that was fixed in the earth and whose top reached up to heaven. With an impatient and agitated bearing, as though full of wickedness and guile, he put questions to the Judge:

 

[Jack17]

But, just FYI, the Bible says “Wives be subordinate to your husbands” (Ephesians 5:22) Is this what your not agreeing with? Just asking.

I guess I am damned to hell then because I don’t want a wife obeying everything (that is just) that I say to do. I tell her to run in place (which is just) for an hour, I don’t suspect her to do that.

 

[Alindawyl]

I guess I am damned to hell then because I don’t want a wife obeying everything (that is just) that I say to do. I tell her to run in place (which is just) for an hour, I don’t suspect her to do that.

How is a demeaning order like “Run in place for an hour” a just command? Is it truly honoring the instruction which comes a few verses later in Ephesians to love your wife as Christ loved the Church?

Or is it simply an immoral command rooted in pride, selfishness and/or anger, and therefore not a command which should be obeyed?

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you for your replies.

I think that you can obey in all that is not against God with a good conscience, regardless of your superiors intention. You by obeying, cannot sin, your superior, for commanding you with an evil intent, will be guilty only. This I have read in the “life of the holy fathers”, among many other saint writings.

Now, this makes sense if you are ignorant of your superior’s evil intent. However, what if you know about your superior’s evil intent? For example, what if you discover it clearly by happening to overhear him talking about it? I’m not quite sure you can obey with a clear conscience anymore.

I guess I am damned to hell then because I don’t want a wife obeying everything (that is just) that I say to do. I tell her to run in place (which is just) for an hour, I don’t suspect her to do that.

Couple things:

If you don’t want your wife to obey certain commands that you give her, why then would you ever give those commands? It seems to be a null and void issue.

Also, you seem to indicate that making her run in place for an hour is unjust … but if it’s not unjust, what’s your objection against making her do that?

I would say that running in place for an hour isn’t objectively immoral. However, the whole act becomes immoral with an evil intent.

Which brings me around to my original question … can you obey an objectively moral command that you know has an evil intent which you will be helping fulfill if you obey it?

 

[selylidne]

Obedience to other humans is never absolute and is limited by natural law and positive law. I do not think there is any justification in our present mode of social organization to suppose that wives owe any special obedience to their husbands. Civil marriage used to be the husband owning the wife; now it is a form of mutual possession. Similarly for other types of obedience: soldiers are not quite the chattel of their commanders that they once were, and the level of submission expected from children has waxed and waned several times in recent history.

I suppose we could argue about what the ideal levels of obedience are for any relationship and any society, and we could also argue about how Christianity applies at the level of society. For my part, I’m a conservative anarchist, in that I think we should be cautious in changing social arrangements that have worked in the past (er, unless they are grossly unjust, in which case rapid abolition is right although highly dangerous), and that community consensus is the appopriate ideal toward which we should aim the changes.

Obedience to God is, on the contrary, obviously absolute and without limit since no one who believes in an All-Good, All-Loving God could suppose his commands to be anything but the best. It seems there are always people saying “God told me to do X”, or worse, “Deus vult!”, so applying the principle of God’s absolute authority can still be hairy.

 

[Areopagite]

Obedience to other humans is never absolute and is limited by natural law and positive law.

I agree. But how is it limited? Does natural law, as my question still stands, prohibit one from carrying out an order with an evil intent behind it (even if the order itself tells you to do nothing objectively evil)?

I do not think there is any justification in our present mode of social organization to suppose that wives owe any special obedience to their husbands. Civil marriage used to be the husband owning the wife; now it is a form of mutual possession. Similarly for other types of obedience: soldiers are not quite the chattel of their commanders that they once were, and the level of submission expected from children has waxed and waned several times in recent history.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “our present mode of social organization.” Does that mean “what society thinks is appropriate now?” I’m not quite sure. If that’s what is meant, that doesn’t apply to the question I’m asking, because I’m referring to what is appropriate in terms of natural law, not what society thinks is okay.

I suppose we could argue about what the ideal levels of obedience are for any relationship and any society, and we could also argue about how Christianity applies at the level of society.

This is a little more what I’m talking about. Hopefully, we can agree that there are some orders issued by some superiors that some subordinates should follow. However, if such orders are given with an evil intent by the superior … should the subordinate follow it?

For my part, I’m a conservative anarchist, in that I think we should be cautious in changing social arrangements that have worked in the past (er, unless they are grossly unjust, in which case rapid abolition is right although highly dangerous), and that community consensus is the appopriate ideal toward which we should aim the changes.

Conservative anarchist?

 

[Alindawyl]

I agree. But how is it limited? Does natural law, as my question still stands, prohibit one from carrying out an order with an evil intent behind it (even if the order itself tells you to do nothing objectively evil)?

Take it out of the abstract and give a practical example of an order which is not objectively evil in and of itself but which is KNOWN in advance to have an evil intent.

I will place myself under virtual fire and claim that every single example you can think of will be an order which should not be obeyed.

 

[selylidne]

This is a little more what I’m talking about. Hopefully, we can agree that there are some orders issued by some superiors that some subordinates should follow. However, if such orders are given with an evil intent by the superior … should the subordinate follow it?

The reasons I can think of to follow the orders are (1) if the orders simply command the right thing to do, as with God’s commands, (2) for the sake of good order, and (3) out of love or fear of the commander.

In answer to your question, then, I’ll split it into three parts. First, if a good act is commanded for evil reasons, then you should do the act because you are then obeying God rather than your commander. Second, I think it is a contradiction to say that a commander gives a command both for evil reasons and for the sake of good order; and in any case order as distinct from justice is of no moral value. Therefore either the situation won’t arise, or if it does you’re under no moral obligation regarding it. Third, if you fear the commander you should obey for your sake. If you love the commander you should disobey for his sake.

 

[Areopagite]

Take it out of the abstract and give a practical example of an order which is not objectively evil in and of itself but which is KNOWN in advance to have an evil intent.

Yes, good point … some examples would be much appropriate.

Example #1. You are ordered to bomb an enemy military installation that poses a legitimate threat to your side (though there are others that pose equal or perhaps greater threat). However, the commander who makes this call does this not out of motivation of military strategy but because his wife happens to be in that building (for some reason) … and he wants her dead so he can continue his unlawful affair with another woman unpestered. Should you do it?

Example #2. The story of King David, Bathsheba, and Uriah. David impregnates Bathsheba and thus wants to kill her husband Uriah, so he orders him to the front-lines of the battlefield (obviously, someone had to be in the front-lines). If Uriah had known David’s intent, should he have obeyed?

Example #3. A parent raising his child in very healthy and disciplined ways but with the motivation that the child may one day make a lot of money, from which you can benefit. Should the child obey if he knows that this is the only reason the parent is telling him to live a disciplined life?

Example #4. A parent who tells his child to leave the living room and clean up his bedroom (which is legitimately messy), so that the parent can then commit the murder of a guest without the child witnessing it. The child knows that this is what is going to happen but knows that parent will not do it unless the child leaves the room. Should the child obey?

Example #5. A husband tells his wife to throw away his useless baseball card collection (which she has wanted to do for awhile). However, his motivation is to appear to his friends (who knew how much he loved the baseball cards) that he is a heroic and holy person. Should his wife do it … even if it will fuel his ego?

There. I hope these are creative enough.

The reasons I can think of to follow the orders are (1) if the orders simply command the right thing to do, as with God’s commands, (2) for the sake of good order, and (3) out of love or fear of the commander.

Does “for the sake of good order” include “having a duty to obey the commander”? Or are you denying that one has a duty to follow anyone?

First, if a good act is commanded for evil reasons, then you should do the act because you are then obeying God rather than your commander.

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. You should do the act?

Second, I think it is a contradiction to say that a commander gives a command both for evil reasons and for the sake of good order; and in any case order as distinct from justice is of no moral value.

It’s true that if there someone has an evil intent with any action, then the action is evil. However, you can talk of the action’s object, which is the goodness or evil of the act without the consideration of intent. Murder and rape, for example, is always evil no matter what intent you have. Even if you have a good intent, those actions would still be evil. Thus, the morality of an action is determined by: the object, the intent, and also the circumstances. If one of these three are evil, then the whole action is evil.

However, I’m asking if only the object of an commanded action is relevant to the one receiving the order, or whether the intent should be taken into account (which of course is oftentimes not known). I ask this because the intent might simply be a personal thing that isn’t a concern to the person that does not have the intent.

I didn’t make any of that up. It’s fundamental moral theology that has stayed with the Church since the beginning.

 

[selylidne]

Example #1. You are ordered to bomb an enemy military installation that poses a legitimate threat to your side (though there are others that pose equal or perhaps greater threat). However, the commander who makes this call does this not out of motivation of military strategy but because his wife happens to be in that building (for some reason) … and he wants her dead so he can continue his unlawful affair with another woman unpestered. Should you do it?

Er, why is his wife in an enemy military installation? If we’re assuming she’s innocent, then obviously the commanded action of bombing innocents is absolutely and intrinsically immoral. If she’s joined the enemy, then it would seem appropriate to obey on the basis of maintaining order, unless you intend to debate military strategy with your superior.

Example #2. The story of King David, Bathsheba, and Uriah. David impregnates Bathsheba and thus wants to kill her husband Uriah, so he orders him to the front-lines of the battlefield (obviously, someone had to be in the front-lines). If Uriah had known David’s intent, should he have obeyed?

More to the point, David also ordered the other men to abandon Uriah. If Uriah had known that aspect, then clearly he should have disobeyed, since obeying with that knowledge would have been nothing more than suicide, a mortal sin.

Example #3. A parent raising his child in very healthy and disciplined ways but with the motivation that the child may one day make a lot of money, from which you can benefit. Should the child obey if he knows that this is the only reason the parent is telling him to live a disciplined life?

That parent has a less-than-ideal reason, but not an evil reason. Don’t you hope that your kids will take care of you in your old age?

Example #4. A parent who tells his child to leave the living room and clean up his bedroom (which is legitimately messy), so that the parent can then commit the murder of a guest without the child witnessing it. The child knows that this is what is going to happen but knows that parent will not do it unless the child leaves the room. Should the child obey?

Under these contrived circumstances, the child knows that to leave would constitute being party to murder, a mortal sin, and therefore should not obey.

Example #5. A husband tells his wife to throw away his useless baseball card collection (which she has wanted to do for awhile). However, his motivation is to appear to his friends (who knew how much he loved the baseball cards) that he is a heroic and holy person. Should his wife do it … even if it will fuel his ego?

It’s too late. Whether she obeys or not, his ego is already stoked.

Nice work and creative examples. It does seem that Alindawyl’s hypothesis was correct, and that none of the examples completely survived scrutiny.

Does “for the sake of good order” include “having a duty to obey the commander”?

No, of course not. You have a duty to do good and a duty to not do evil. Order is neither good nor evil in itself, but is a tool that can be pressed into the service of either. We are creatures of habit, and so obedience for the sake of good order is practice for ourselves and setting examples for others. For those reasons, obedience for the sake of good order should thus be willingly offered to righteous leaders and denied to wicked leaders.

Or are you denying that one has a duty to follow anyone?

Yes, that was covered already. There is never an absolute duty to obey a human. Obedience to humans is always limited by natural and positive law. A command is good because its object is good. The converse, that an object is good because it is commanded, is an error in moral reasoning.

selylidne:

First, if a good act is commanded for evil reasons, then you should do the act because you are then obeying God rather than your commander.

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. You should do the act?

Correct. To say the opposite, that one should not do a good deed, is absurd.

Murder and rape, for example, is always evil no matter what intent you have. Even if you have a good intent, those actions would still be evil.

This is only true by definition. Without evil intent, there is no murder, but only manslaughter.

Thus, the morality of an action is determined by: the object, the intent, and also the circumstances. If one of these three are evil, then the whole action is evil.

Here is the key to the whole issue. I tentatively agree with Alindywal that either the intent or the circumstances will transform the whole act into an evil act, and that therefore “obeying a superior in a just or neutral act when the superior’s intentions are evil and you know it” is not something that really happens.

 

[Areopagite]

Er, why is his wife in an enemy military installation? If we’re assuming she’s innocent, then obviously the commanded action of bombing innocents is absolutely and intrinsically immoral. If she’s joined the enemy, then it would seem appropriate to obey on the basis of maintaining order, unless you intend to debate military strategy with your superior.

She’s there either because she was captured or because she’s a spy (for your side) or because she wandered in aimlessly on vacation to that country and they were accepting tours. It doesn’t matter.

Assuming the wife is innocent, you would say that bombing the installation is evil? So, you are completely against any collateral damage? Against the principle of double effect? What if this installation is crawling with enemy soldiers and developing highly destructive nuclear and biological weapons … should you blow it up? Even if a few innocent lives will die?

If the answer is: yes, it’s okay to bomb it, even if it indirectly causes the death of an innocent … then, let me ask the question again: let’s say there are multiple installations of this kind (and perhaps even bigger and worse ones), but your commander tells you to bomb this one because his unwanted wife is there. Should you obey because he has an evil intent?

More to the point, David also ordered the other men to abandon Uriah. If Uriah had known that aspect, then clearly he should have disobeyed, since obeying with that knowledge would have been nothing more than suicide, a mortal sin.

So, if David had not ordered that the other men abandon Uriah … would it have been okay to obey David? Soldiers in the frontlines usually die anyway. So, if Uriah knew David was just trying to finish him off by putting him in a very likely position of death, would it be right to obey?

That parent has a less-than-ideal reason, but not an evil reason. Don’t you hope that your kids will take care of you in your old age?

Sure. But, hypothetically, what if the reason was to grow rich and … I don’t know … live a thoroughly indulgent and worldly life … you know, with drugs and stuff … for example.

Under these contrived circumstances, the child knows that to leave would constitute being party to murder, a mortal sin, and therefore should not obey.

Really? Would it constitute being party to murder? Why? All he’s doing is going to clean his room (which he should’ve done).

But, in that case, let’s change the circumstance … what if the parent tells the kid to leave the room so the parent can do some cocaine or something … and he wouldn’t do it unless the kid was gone. Should the kid obey?

It’s too late. Whether she obeys or not, his ego is already stoked.

This was the dumbest example of mine. So, I’ll just let it go.

Nice work and creative examples.

Thank you.

It does seem that Alindawyl’s hypothesis was correct, and that none of the examples completely survived scrutiny.

I don’t think so.

You have a duty to do good and a duty to not do evil.

And the question still is … are you doing evil by helping fulfill an evil intent of another, even though the objective part of the act itself is not evil.

Order is neither good nor evil in itself, but is a tool that can be pressed into the service of either.

I would disagree. Order is good in itself. Just like families are good in themselves, but families can be used for good or evil (e.g. mafia … I guess). Evil can use order, but evil intrinsically tends to chaos.

There is never an absolute duty to obey a human. Obedience to humans is always limited by natural and positive law. A command is good because its object is good. The converse, that an object is good because it is commanded, is an error in moral reasoning.

But this still doesn’t address my question. I’m saying, if the object of a commanded action is good (i.e. the objective part), but the intention of the one ordering it is bad, should one obey? Does this actually contradict natural and positive law? Is natural and positive law indifferent in this matter? I obviously I would agree that there is never an absolute duty to obey a human, but there are some orders given by some superiors that some subordinates should obey. It is a conditional necessity sometimes (not an absolute necessity) of obeying a human.

(Rape and murder is objectively evil) This is only true by definition. Without evil intent, there is no murder, but only manslaughter.

Wrong. If you directly kill an innocent person, regardless of intent, it is still murder.

Here is the key to the whole issue. I tentatively agree with Alindywal that either the intent or the circumstances will transform the whole act into an evil act, and that therefore “obeying a superior in a just or neutral act when the superior’s intentions are evil and you know it” is not something that really happens.

Yeah, I don’t think so. Try to address the updated examples. Once again, to determine the morality of an act, you look at three things: the object, the** intent**, and the** circumstance** (this is basic Catholic moral theology that I did not make up). There are actions whose objects are good or neutral but can be coupled with evil intents. So, if there are such things as that (and there are … according to the Catholic Church and common sense at least) does it apply if you are carrying out the action but under the orders of someone with the evil intent … though you yourself do not have that intent. Does that matter? Is your action okay because YOU don’t have the intent and YOU are the one carrying the action out? I have no idea. There are obviously instances of actions such as these, and denying their possibility will not bring resolve here. But, if you want, we can keep discussing that.

 

[Alindawyl]

Assuming the wife is innocent, you would say that bombing the installation is evil? So, you are completely against any collateral damage? Against the principle of double effect? What if this installation is crawling with enemy soldiers and developing highly destructive nuclear and biological weapons … should you blow it up? Even if a few innocent lives will die?

If the answer is: yes, it’s okay to bomb it, even if it indirectly causes the death of an innocent … then, let me ask the question again: let’s say there are multiple installations of this kind (and perhaps even bigger and worse ones), but your commander tells you to bomb this one because his unwanted wife is there. Should you obey because he has an evil intent?

The law of double effect applies here. It is permissible to undertake an action in war which has both a good and evil effect provided three conditions are met:

1. The action itself must not be intrinsically evil
2. The evil effect must not be an end in itself or a means to accomplishing the good effect
3. The evil effect must not outweigh the good effect

Conditions 1 and 3 are met by the scenario but not condition 2. The person giving the order is explicitly desiring the evil effect as an end in itself, and anyone with foreknowledge of that fact cannot carry out the bombing order.

So, if David had not ordered that the other men abandon Uriah … would it have been okay to obey David? Soldiers in the frontlines usually die anyway. So, if Uriah knew David was just trying to finish him off by putting him in a very likely position of death, would it be right to obey?

The law of double effect applies again since this is a war scenario. Uriah’s death was directly desired by David, not an undesired side-effect.

Sure. But, hypothetically, what if the reason was to grow rich and … I don’t know … live a thoroughly indulgent and worldly life … you know, with drugs and stuff … for example.

In this case the immoral command is not made during the raising of the child but afterwards. The child is obligated to obey the parent while being subject to the parent and receiving moral orders. The minute an immoral order is given, such as a request for money which the child knows will be spent on drugs, disobedience is not only justified but required.

Really? Would it constitute being party to murder? Why? All he’s doing is going to clean his room (which he should’ve done).

But, in that case, let’s change the circumstance … what if the parent tells the kid to leave the room so the parent can do some cocaine or something … and he wouldn’t do it unless the kid was gone. Should the kid obey?

Both the original and revised scenario are the same, as will be any scenario you can think up. An order is given with two desired effects. One is that of the order itself. The second is a DIRECTLY intended evil effect. You can’t separate the two. If you obey the order knowing the situation, you permit the good but also permit the evil.

God has the knowledge to permit evil in order to draw forth a greater good. We don’t have God’s knowledge of outcomes in advance. With our limited understanding, the best we can probably do in this case is take into account the consequences the child would suffer for disobedience. Knowingly suffering a beating to prevent murder or prevent a parent from shooting up with drugs would be a noble act. Knowingly suffering a beating when the parent will commit the act of evil anyway is pointless. The child may as well obey in that case, since their action does not condone evil if evil is a constant regardless of the child’s chosen action.

And the question still is … are you doing evil by helping fulfill an evil intent of another, even though the objective part of the act itself is not evil.

If you know in advance with certainty that evil will be the result, then yes you are giving your tacit approval to the creation of evil. The only possible justification is if you have foreknowledge with certainty that a greater good will result from permitting the evil to take place, which is why I don’t believe a plausible scenario exists. We simply don’t know in advance all the ramifications of a given action, and usually don’t know in advance with certainty what’s in the heart of an authority giving us an order.

We have to do the best we can given what we do know when going into any given situation.

 

[Areopagite]

The law of double effect applies here. It is permissible to undertake an action in war which has both a good and evil effect provided three conditions are met:

1. The action itself must not be intrinsically evil
2. The evil effect must not be an end in itself or a means to accomplishing the good effect
3. The evil effect must not outweigh the good effect

Conditions 1 and 3 are met by the scenario but not condition 2. The person giving the order is explicitly desiring the evil effect as an end in itself, and anyone with foreknowledge of that fact cannot carry out the bombing order.

Thank you. You answered my question very clearly (and, I think, gave consistent analyses of my example situations).

The verdict then is: If you are commanded to do something objectively good (or neutral) but the commander has an evil intent behind the order, then you should not obey him (unless, of course, you are unaware of the evil intent).

This seems reasonable enough.

However, I apologize for being annoying, but is there any scholastic treatise of moral theology or (even better) some dogmatic Church ruling that what you say here is true?

Because, the opposite argument looks almost just as reasonable. This is because, even though the commander has an evil intent, it is YOU who are the one who actually is doing the objectively good/neutral act, and thus it seems reasonable that the commander’s intent does not seem to make YOUR act immoral. Surely, the commander’s act of ordering you would be sinful (because of his evil intention), but the act that YOU perform would only be evil if YOUR intent was evil. Right?

Now, I don’t blame you if you want to shoot me at this point. I just want to make sure that this is what the Church says (and if it is, then I’ll be satisfied). I apologize again for being annoying.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Example #1. You are ordered to bomb an enemy military installation that poses a legitimate threat to your side (though there are others that pose equal or perhaps greater threat). However, the commander who makes this call does this not out of motivation of military strategy but because his wife happens to be in that building (for some reason) … and he wants her dead so he can continue his unlawful affair with another woman unpestered. Should you do it?

If it is moral under all three fonts, especially if it is moral to attack the target, despite the death of innocents (in the third font), then the soldier should obey. The act itself is moral, and the soldier does not share the evil intent of the commander. The commander’s sin is his own.

Example #2. The story of King David, Bathsheba, and Uriah. David impregnates Bathsheba and thus wants to kill her husband Uriah, so he orders him to the front-lines of the battlefield (obviously, someone had to be in the front-lines). If Uriah had known David’s intent, should he have obeyed?

David did not merely order Uriah to the front lines. He ordered his commander to both place in where the fighting was thickest, and then pull everyone else back so that he would surely be killed. The commander did not obey. He put Uriah in the thick of the fighting, and it is not immoral to put a soldier into the more difficult part of the battle. But he did not pull back the troops. Uriah was not murdered, but died in battle.

This is not a good example of cooperation with evil intent, since the intended act of David was murder, and we cannot cooperate with a murder.

Example #3. A parent raising his child in very healthy and disciplined ways but with the motivation that the child may one day make a lot of money, from which you can benefit. Should the child obey if he knows that this is the only reason the parent is telling him to live a disciplined life?

In this case, the act itself is moral for the child under all three fonts. The parent’s act is only immoral under the first font of intention, and the child does not share that intention. So there is no real cooperation with evil here.

Example #4. A parent who tells his child to leave the living room and clean up his bedroom (which is legitimately messy), so that the parent can then commit the murder of a guest without the child witnessing it. The child knows that this is what is going to happen but knows that parent will not do it unless the child leaves the room. Should the child obey?

In this case, the issue is a sin of omission. Assuming that the child is old enough, the child has a positive obligation to prevent the crime, perhaps by telling another relative, or calling for help. This is not a good example of cooperation with evil. The child has a greater obligation to prevent or report the crime, so he cannot ignore that greater obligation by cleaning his room (it would be a sin of omission).

Example #5. A husband tells his wife to throw away his useless baseball card collection (which she has wanted to do for awhile). However, his motivation is to appear to his friends (who knew how much he loved the baseball cards) that he is a heroic and holy person. Should his wife do it … even if it will fuel his ego?

Her act is moral under all three fonts, because she does not share his intention; his act is only immoral by intention. So, yes, she should obey. She has an obligationt to obey, and the act that is ordered is moral under all three fonts. She does not share the evil intent.

However, if there is an evil intention, one must consider carefully the consequences of the act. Evil intention often is directed at obtaining evil consequences. If the bad consequences outweigh the good, then the act cannot be done.

However, I’m asking if only the object of an commanded action is relevant to the one receiving the order, or whether the intent should be taken into account (which of course is oftentimes not known). I ask this because the intent might simply be a personal thing that isn’t a concern to the person that does not have the intent.

No, the other person’s intent is their own sin. As long as you do not share that intent, and your own act is good under all three fonts, you can cooperate.

 

[selylidne]

This thread had already reached conclusion, but I just wanted to correct a mistold Bible story:

The commander did not obey. He put Uriah in the thick of the fighting, and it is not immoral to put a soldier into the more difficult part of the battle. But he did not pull back the troops. Uriah was not murdered, but died in battle.

The prophet Nathan disagreed. God’s judgment against David began after his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah. See 2 Samuel 11 & 12.

 

[Areopagite]

Thank you, Ron Conte. I think what you said makes a lot of sense.

So the verdict is: If your commander tells you do to something objectively good or neutral, but the commander has an evil intent, you are still obligated to do it (because YOU are the one carrying out the action and it is YOU who do not have the evil intent).

However, there is a common sense exception that I gleamed from Ron Conte’s post … if the circumstances are such that following the command will probably cause much more harm than good, then you should not obey. (This is because the Circumstance is one of the 3 fonts that can turn the whole action to something immoral)

If I got all this right, let this thread rest in peace. Thank you everyone. I now see the light.