Teleological suspension of the ethical?

[ThomasToo]

It is always morally illicit to kill an innocent human being** in normal circumstances** but the principle of choosing the lesser of two or more evils must always take priority. To allow 50 people to die rather than kill one person is, in my opinion, a greater evil because it implies that the life of that person is more valuable than that of the 50.

It is not our fault if we are obliged to make such a decision but according to the Church our ultimate authority is our conscience. Even if we disagree on this issue we cannot be blamed for making the wrong decision - provided we do so after consultation and careful consideration of the views of others.

Tony, I say this respectfully and because I think you’ll believe the opposing argument from someone who’s, frankly, not me. Ask your priest about it.

 

[tonyrey]

If the standard for describing God as good is God himself then saying that God is good is just to say God is God.

You are right but the problem disappears when you realise that God is Love. Goodness is an abstraction but love is goodness in action. Love is not static but dynamic and creative. Love does not tell us what God is like but what God does.

To believe God loves Himself is clearly the apotheosis of egoism! That is why it is reasonable to believe God is not one Person but a Community of Persons - reflected in the love of a father, mother and child. They are united when they exist for one another and not just for themselves. It is only by dying to ourselves through love that we are liberated from ourselves. Perfect love entails unselfishness and total identification with others. That is why Jesus prayed to the Father that “they may be one as we are one”. We are commanded to love God, others and ourselves because we can find peace and joy only when we become perfect…

 

[Areopagite]

Equating goodness with God’s nature is a good rhetorical move as far as it gets some people to drop the question

Rhetorical move, eh? Well, it’s a good rhetorical move to accuse someone of a rhetorical move … which … is what I’m doing right now.

(kinda like like answerring “where does evil come from” with “Satan” which works as long as you don’t then ask “who created Satan?”)

Are you suggesting that Christians argue that Satan was made intrinsically evil? Because that’s not what we believe. Satan chose to sin on his own. He was perfect to begin with but then fell on his own. Hence, even though God created Satan, that doesn’t mean God created/started evil.

Rational beings can turn to evil either completely on their own or by being tempted by another. Humans, as is portrayed in Scripture, was tempted by a previously fallen rational being (who fell on his own).

To get past this answer and back on point we just have to ask, is goodness essential to God’s nature because it is good, or is goodness good because it is essential to God’s nature?

And once again, God IS goodness. So would that mean goodness is essential to God’s nature? I guess you can say that in a sense. Is goodness good because it is essential to God’s nature? Yeah sure, I guess that works too. They both work, as a consequence of God being the same thing as Goodness.

Now, once again, God is complete/total Goodness. Other things are good insofar as they share in (or are derivatives of) God’s goodness. But if one thing contained all possible goodness, then by definition it would be God.

The problem is that you can’t have an omnipotent God who is unable to do evil. You can say that it is against his nature to do evil, but by that you would have to mean that God is capable of doing evil but always chooses to do good. You can’t say that an omnipotent God is good because he CANnot do evil, you have to say that he is good because he WILL not do evil. But then, how does God recognize what is good so that he can always do it?

Omnipotence in the Scholastic definition is “the ability to do/make any thing.” And “thing” is defined in the Scholastic tradition as any intrinsically possible being. An intrinsically possible being is any being with an essence that does not involve a contradiction (i.e. does not involve going against the principle of non-contradiction). A pink dinosaur is an intrinsically possible being, but it is extrinsically impossible for many people because they don’t have the power to make it. It’s also not extrinsically possible to make build a nuclear reactor for many people … but some some people it is extrinsically possible because they are equipped with the right powers (including materials and knowledge in this case). With omnipotence, all intrinsically possible things are extrinsically possible for God. This is the definition of omnipotence.

Beings that lack intrinsic possibility, as said before, go against the principle of non-contradiction. A square circle of course being a prime example. Omnipotence cannot make such a thing because, Scholastically speaking, it is not a thing (b/c it is not intrinsically possible).

Now, the question is … can God do evil? Does such a thing fly in the face of the principle of non-contradiction? Well, it depends technically how you define evil. In general, “evil” is “the privation/lack of goodness.” The different kinds of evil can thus be expressed by contrasting it to the different kinds of goodness.

Transcendental Evil
Most Scholastics all agreed there is no such thing as transcendental evil … i.e. there isn’t a universal lack of being that all being has. Surely to say otherwise is against the principle of non-contradiction, for if there was a being (call it A), and all beings lacked that being A … then A (which is a being) would lack A … and that is clearly against the principle of non-contradiction. For this reason, God is incapable of Transcendental Evil.

Natural Evil
Can God bring about something that causes a thing to become less fulfilled in its nature? Certainly. If God can create something, there is no reason I can see why He can’t uncreate it. This is because just as intrinsically possible things can exist, it is also true that intrinsically possible things can not exist as well. Just as it is intrinsically possible for things to have fulfillment, it is intrinsically possible for things to lose it (which would also be called a natural evil). And since God can do all intrinsically possible things, God would be capable of natural evil.

Moral Evil
This pertains to actions of a rational being that lessen the fulfillment of that rational being’s nature. Now, God is by nature fulfilled because, by definition, He is all being, and lacking fulfillment is lacking some kind of positive being. It would thus be against the principle of non-contradiction for an metaphysically necessarily fulfilled being to do something that would cause Him to lose His fulfillment. Hence, God is incapable of moral evil.

So God cannot do Transcendental or Moral Evil but can do Natural Evil.

 

[Areopagite]

You’ve avoided the horn of the dilemma which says that what is good is so because it is commanded by God since that would imply that God could have made anything including rape, or stealing, or dishonoring your father or mother a good thing if he had wanted to.

Now, we are looking at what is good for us (not for God), and whether what is good for us (i.e. what fulfills our nature) can have some conflict (at least sometimes) with the commands of God.

Now, everything I’ve said here (i.e. about Transcendental Evil, Natural Evil, and Moral Evil … and about God’s power with respect to those) are things that can be concluded from natural reason. One thing of note that I mentioned is that God is capable of Natural Evil, i.e. it’s within God’s omnipotence to withdraw fulfillment from a thing’s nature, since it does not conflict with the principle of non-contradiction (for it is possible that a thing’s nature be not fulfilled … right?). Hence, it would seem to follow, through natural reason, that God could do something to a human so as to move him farther away from human fulfillment. One thing, presumably, would be to command the human to do something that would move him farther from his fulfillment. And if that is the case, then the conclusion would be that God is capable of commanding a moral evil. But once again, this would be immoral for humans (to follow it), not for God (to command it), since God is by nature fulfilled and unchangeably so.

Now one may ask, “Wouldn’t it be evil for God to command something that would be evil for humans (i.e. that would bring humans farther from fulfillment)?” If yes, then such an action of God would be in conflict with God’s nature (by definition, because it would be evil for God). Now, for changeable things, such as a human, acting against one’s human nature (in some things) is very possible, for humans can vary in being (and in particular, fulfillment). However, God cannot vary in being by definition (for He is all being), and hence an action of God in conflict with His nature would lead to a contradiction … and thus God cannot act against His nature. And so, if commanding a human to do a moral evil is against God’s nature, then God cannot command a human to do a moral evil.

But why would it be against God’s nature to command a human to do a moral evil? From what can be gathered from natural reason, it would seem that He very much could … for God owes us absolutely nothing. Just as He created everything, He can take things away. There is nothing against His nature, so far as the clear-thinking pagan can tell, that God can even command us to do something that would be evil for us in the worst possible way. The honest pagan would say that God completely has the right and ability to do such a thing. According to natural reason alone, therefore, God can command us to do a moral evil.

However, the Catholic Church claims that divine revelation gives us an insight into God’s nature that is not available to natural reason alone. This particular truth about God’s nature only made possible by divine revelation is that God desires our fulfillment … desires our happiness. This is … somewhat out of the ordinary because it is a completely selfless love. God gains nothing from our fulfillment since He is unchangeable and fully fulfilled already. Revelation also assures us that God is this Divine Love, and it would be contradictory for God to act against it … for it would be acting against Himself. Surely, then, commanding us to do something that is counter-productive to our fulfillment would not be in accordance with this attribute. Hence, *according to the further insights into God’s nature provided by divine revelation, God will always act toward the fulfillment of human nature *(and hence will never command us to do a moral evil).

Now there’s a few more things that can be said. But I’m going to halt here for now, since most of you have probably stopped reading …

 

[Areopagite]

That leaves you with the second horn which says that God does not command that something is good but rather recognizes it as such. What is the standard that God uses in this judgment? If God is not the standard of goodness himself, but applies some superior definition of righteousness, then God could not be the ultimate authority as inherently claimed.

God doesn’t employ a “standard of judgment” except only insofar as He only acts in accordance to His nature, as explained above (perhaps in not terribly clear detail)

In other words, if God’s character is righteous because it adheres to some independent standard of goodness, then humanity could judge evil by that standard independently of whether God exists or not, which demonstrates that ethics are not founded upon God.

God’s “standard of goodness” is Himself. Human morality, in a similar way, is judged based off human nature. This is because morality’s purpose is to fulfill human nature (and so thus would logically be based off human nature). Nonetheless, human nature gets its being and goodness from God, as explained many times.

If God himself is thought to be the standard, then goodness is nothing but Godness and it becomes meaningless (a mere tautology) to say that God is good.

I very carefully outlined the different meaningful definitions of the word “good” (which you really didn’t address at all) and showed how it very much can still be said that God is goodness itself because all the different kinds of goodness has their origin in God. If you don’t like my attempts to define what goodness is … then please provide your own.

Theologians, I think, have meant more than that. They are using good to add something as a description to tell us what God is supposed to be like. If the standard for describing God as good is God himself then saying that God is good is just to say God is God.

Please read my last post. I address this very carefully. (hint: I talk about Transcendental Good, Natural Good, and Moral Good … and even that nasty Divine Good) Perhaps I was just unclear. Please inform where exactly I start becoming ambiguous, otherwise I’m not sure what to say to you.

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, I say this respectfully and because I think you’ll believe the opposing argument from someone who’s, frankly, not me. Ask your priest about it.

The Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience is enough for me because it corresponds to the fact that God created us free to choose for ourselves what to believe, how to live and to determine our own destiny. You seem to equate Catholicism with subservience to papal infallibility but you do not realise that the Pope himself does not have the right to interfere with our unique responsibility for our decisions. We alone decide whether we shall go to heaven or hell. That is the essential meaning of being made in the image and likeness of God. We are not here to obey authority blindly but to use our God-given power of reason to love God, others and ourselves to the best of our ability. That is the greatest commandment of all…

 

[ThomasToo]

You seem to equate Catholicism with subservience to papal infallibility but you do not realise that the Pope himself does not have the right to interfere with our unique responsibility for our decisions. We alone decide whether we shall go to heaven or hell. That is the essential meaning of being made in the image and likeness of God. We are not here to obey authority blindly but to use our God-given power of reason to love God, others and ourselves to the best of our ability. That is the greatest commandment of all…

I hardly think Catholicism is the same as subservience to the Pope, I just don’t think I am going to be as effective as a priest at explaining why the deliberate killing of an innocent human person is an intrinsically evil act.

 

[Betterave]

You are right but the problem disappears when you realise that God is Love. Goodness is an abstraction but love is goodness in action. Love is not static but dynamic and creative. Love does not tell us what God is like but what God does.

To believe God loves Himself is clearly the apotheosis of egoism! That is why it is reasonable to believe God is not one Person but a Community of Persons - reflected in the love of a father, mother and child. They are united when they exist for one another and not just for themselves. It is only by dying to ourselves through love that we are liberated from ourselves. Perfect love entails unselfishness and total identification with others. That is why Jesus prayed to the Father that “they may be one as we are one”. We are commanded to love God, others and ourselves because we can find peace and joy only when we become perfect…

…the apotheosis of egoism? Uh, no. You might just as well say that God’s intra-Trinitarian love is grounded in the perfect likeness of nature between the three persons and that this is the (slightly more complex) apotheosis of egoism. Remember: when we see the Son, we see the Father, so when the Father sees the Son, the Father too sees (and loves!) Himself - but egoism? Good grief. With due respect Tony, the very beginning of wisdom (fear of God) is sorely lacking in one who would espouse such a view.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Areopagite,

Bravo!

VC

 

[Betterave]

The Church’s teaching that our ultimate authority is our conscience is enough for me because it corresponds to the fact that God created us free to choose for ourselves what to believe, how to live and to determine our own destiny.

But the fact is that God does not create us “free to choose for ourselves what to believe, how to live and to determine our own destiny.” God creates us as very unfree beings whose natural good lies in becoming free. We become fully free only in reliance on divine grace (acceptance of a gift, not self-determination of our own destiny) which is mediated by the community we find ourselves in (not that we choose for ourselves), together with its particular beliefs and structural inducements to virtue and vice (we don’t simply ‘freely’ determine for ourselves what to believe and how to live). The appeal to the authority of conscience doesn’t make any sense if conscience understands its own prerogatives in an absolute manner and is not sensitive to the need to cede to legitimate extrinsic authority.

You seem to equate Catholicism with subservience to papal infallibility but you do not realise that the Pope himself does not have the right to interfere with our unique responsibility for our decisions. We alone decide whether we shall go to heaven or hell. That is the essential meaning of being made in the image and likeness of God. We are not here to obey authority blindly but to use our God-given power of reason to love God, others and ourselves to the best of our ability. That is the greatest commandment of all…

God alone determines our destiny; on the basis of our actions, yes, but certainly not simply based on our deciding (“I think I’ll go to heaven” or “I think I’ll go to hell”).

 

[tonyrey]

You seem to equate Catholicism with subservience to papal infallibility but you do not realise that the Pope himself does not have the right to interfere with our unique responsibility for our decisions. We alone decide whether we shall go to heaven or hell. That is the essential meaning of being made in the image and likeness of God. We are not here to obey authority blindly but to use our God-given power of reason to love God, others and ourselves to the best of our ability. That is the greatest commandment of all.

Where have I have disputed the fact that the deliberate killing of an innocent human person is an intrinsically evil act?? I have pointed out that in certain circumstances it is the lesser evil.

 

[tonyrey]

Betterave;6518142

You are right but the problem disappears when you realise that God is Love. Goodness is an abstraction but love is goodness in action. Love is not static but dynamic and creative. Love does not tell us what God is like but what God does.

To believe God loves Himself is clearly the apotheosis of egoism! That is why it is reasonable to believe God is not one Person but a Community of Persons - reflected in the love of a father, mother and child. They are united when they exist for one another and not just for themselves. It is only by dying to ourselves through love that we are liberated from ourselves. Perfect love entails unselfishness and total identification with others. That is why Jesus prayed to the Father that “they may be one as we are one”. We are commanded to love God, others and ourselves because we can find peace and joy only when we become perfect…

…

.the apotheosis of egoism? Uh, no. You might just as well say that God’s intra-Trinitarian love is grounded in the perfect likeness of nature between the three persons and that this is the (slightly more complex) apotheosis of egoism.

Love “grounded in the perfect likeness of nature” implies a static relationship which you concede would be a mutual adoration society!

Remember: when we see the Son, we see the Father, so when the Father sees the Son, the Father too sees (and loves!) Himself - but egoism? Good grief. With due respect Tony, the very beginning of wisdom (fear of God) is sorely lacking in one who would espouse such a view.

You are overlooking the fact that there are three distinct Persons. There is a vast difference between the love of one Person **for Himself **and the love of three Persons for one another. We see the Father when we see the Son but we are not God!
They see one another. We cannot fully understand the nature of God but we do know that perfect love entails total identification with another person..

Do you dispute the fact that a unitarian God would be the apotheosis of egoism? There could hardly be more blatant example of eternal, introverted self-love. Jesus came into the world precisely to show us that we have to love others, identify ourselves with them and die to self in order to be perfect as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are perfect. We have to model our love on divine love. He prayed that we may be one as They are one - and the source of Their unity is unselfish Love.

 

[ThomasToo]

Where have I have disputed the fact that the deliberate killing of an innocent human person is an intrinsically evil act?? I have pointed out that in certain circumstances it is the lesser evil.

It shouldn’t (and in the Catholic moral traditions isn’t) important that it may be a lesser evil. Insofar as it is intrinsically evil no mitigating circumstances can make it licit. What else could intrinsically evil act?

Can we change your scenario slightly? What if it were abort this foetus or I’ll shoot 50 people?

 

[Leela]

I very carefully outlined the different meaningful definitions of the word “good” (which you really didn’t address at all) and showed how it very much can still be said that God is goodness itself because all the different kinds of goodness has their origin in God. If you don’t like my attempts to define what goodness is … then please provide your own.

My definition of moral goodness is whatever contributes to wellbeing and reduces suffering of creatures who can experience wellbeing and suffering. I don’t think any identification of Godness with goodness is at all helpful in learning about what well-being is and how to achieve it.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

It shouldn’t (and in the Catholic moral traditions isn’t) important that it may be a lesser evil. Insofar as it is intrinsically evil no mitigating circumstances can make it licit. What else could intrinsically evil act?

It is a mistake to consider any evil act in isolation from its context. The motive is an vital factor that should not be ignored if one is to make a balanced, rational moral judgment. If the motive is good - to save the lives of fifty people - the act is obviously not in the same category as an act which has a selfish motive. If the result is good - the saving of lives - it is also preferable to not saving lives. So the question remains as to whether the end justifies the means. It is obviously unreasonable to believe the end never justifies the means; otherwise we are not justified in telling a lie to save lives.

The issue here is whether the means is so evil that we are never justified in killing to save lives. It is unreasonable to believe this because we would be obliged to allow millions of people die rather than kill one person - which amounts to regarding one person’s life as more valuable than all the others put together It may **seem **nobler to do nothing and leave them to their fate but in reality the failure to save the lives of so many people is motivated by fear - the fear of committing an irreparable crime. It is ironic that atheists should hold this view because for them life is not sacred anyway. Nothing is sacred in a Godless - and therefore amoral - universe! They may regard life as extremely valuable but value for them is no more than a human concept… and not an adequate foundation for a categorical imperative and a universal law.

We can overlook this inconsistency and agree that to kill an innocent person is a horrendous crime. Does this mean it is never justified? Yes - for an atheist who believes it is an irreparable crime! But for a theist who believes in an afterlife it is not an irreparable crime. The death of a person is not the end which deprives us of any further opportunities to develop. It is the prelude to another life in which we can make and receive reparation for the evil we have caused or permitted. We know we shall be forgiven by the person we were obliged to kill because he or she will understand it was the lesser of two evils and it was the only way to save the lives of others.

Since Jesus Himself knew He would be killed and allowed Himself to be killed when He could have avoided it He was in a sense an accomplice to those who were responsible for His death. But we believe He was justified because He has liberated us with the power of His love. He also knew His followers would be put to death on account of their faith in Him. So He was to some extent responsible for their deaths as well but we do not consider it was wrong for Him to do so. You probably disagree…
.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

You probably disagree…

I disagree, as a Catholic.

VC

 

[tonyrey]

I disagree, as a Catholic.

VC

Why?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Why?

tony,

With respect, I just don’t see how it can be reconciled with my understanding of intrinsically evil acts or with Veritatis splendor.

For instance VS 80:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (“intrinsece malum”): they are such “always and per se,” in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which “per se” and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.

and an example given is

such as any kind of homicide

VC

 

[Betterave]

Betterave;6518142

You are right but the problem disappears when you realise that God is Love. Goodness is an abstraction but love is goodness in action. Love is not static but dynamic and creative. Love does not tell us what God is like but what God does.

I don’t think this makes sense. Love is just as much an abstraction as goodness. “God is love” is no more/no less informative than “God is good” - unless I’m missing something?

To believe God loves Himself is clearly the apotheosis of egoism!

Love your neighbor as yourself. But don’t love yourself (self-love is egoism). Therefore don’t love your neighbor.

Do you dispute the fact that a unitarian God would be the apotheosis of egoism?

Yes!

 

[Betterave]

Thomas,
Any thoughts on Fackenheim’s/my answer to your/Kierdegaard’s questions?