the end doesn't justify the means?

[Blue_Horizon]

So removing a leg is not “an intrinsically evil act of mutilation?”… .

Correct. If you calmed down and re-read what I actually said with a clear, unprejudiced mind you will see how you have misunderstood my comments.

… like killing someone in self-defense - is not intrinsically evil

Correct. There are cases when the taking of another’s life is not an intrinsically evil act. It is, I believe, indeed called “legitimate self-defence” as you say. It is not called “murder” and it is not called “homicide” - at least as so far as the Church defines those moral objects.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

There’s a difference between “an evil” (i.e., something that is undesirable, like Peter’s example of cutting off a leg) and “evil” (something that is intrinsically contrary to the moral law). In the former sense, it is often necessary to choose the “lesser of two evils.” In the latter, it isn’t.

Edwin

You’ve clicked Edwin - it may take PP a while to do so.

“Human acts” (moral) and “human actions” (physical) are different orders of evil.

When we use the phrase “I choose…” that normally (and prorperly) refers to human acts.

 

[Contarini]

Name something that is “intrinsically contrary to the moral law,”

1. Rape
2. Killing an innocent person
3. Worshiping as God that which is not God (idolatry)

Maybe lying too, but that’s more debatable.

Edwin

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. Rape
2. Killing an innocent person
3. Worshiping as God that which is not God (idolatry)

Maybe lying too, but that’s more debatable.

Edwin

I have a longer list for you courtesy of the Catechism, Veritatis Splendor, St. Paul, Augustine, St. Thomas and Jimmy Akin.

Fornication
Lying
Calumny
Condemning an innocent person
Immorality
Idolatry
Adultery
Sexual perversion
Theft
Greed
Drunkenness
Reviling
Robbery
Blasphemy
Any kind of homicide
Genocide
Abortion
Euthanasia
Voluntary suicide
Mutilation
Torments inflicted on the body or mind
Attempts to coerce the spirit
Subhuman living conditions
Arbitrary imprisonment
Deportation
Slavery
Prostitution
Trafficking in women and children
Degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons

There is no such agreement that intrinsically evil acts are those acts where no possible motive or circumstance could possibly mitigate the evil. That notion is not accepted by any of the parties named above.

Notice, too, Blue Horizon, that mutilation is included on the list but is only considered intrinsically evil given the evil intentions of the one committing the mutilation, but evil nonetheless.

To be clear, as Jimmy Akin points out in this article intrinsic evil acts are only those that do bear out as determinably evil after considerations of evil motive and inexcusable circumstance have been included in the account.

In other words, mutilation is intrinsically evil if physical harm is done to the body of another with intent to cause that harm and not for any other motive. However, mutilation would still be considered evil in the sense of harming the normal functioning of a human body, which was my point in the first place.

Bringing up “intrinsic evil” is merely to state that there are some evils that would not be excused under some circumstances and for some reasons. That seems irrelevant to my initial point that a surgeon is doing evil, i.e., causing harm, to the patient, although, to abide by your definition, it isn’t “intrinsically evil” meaning it is “excusably evil,” which adds nothing to the conversation, except that the doctor is doing an excusable evil and not an intrinsic evil after all.

However, that does nothing to support your contention, Blue Horizon, that “Neither should we believe that the Church teaches we may choose the lesser of two evils.” In fact, what you mean is that the Church teaches we should never commit an “intrinsic evil,” which is not the same as never choosing the lesser of two evils, unless you insist that all evils are “intrinsically” so. That will be a difficult notion to accept.

By the way, impugning a lack of a calm disposition, an unclear and prejudiced mind to another poster based on nothing but words on a page would seem a bit odd, given you have no idea concerning my disposition from letters typed in a text field. “Prejudiced” and unclear would seem to reduce to “disagree with Blue Horizon” and “see things differently,” but good on you to not jump to conclusions about me.

Furthermore, Mr. Akin argues against your point specifically in the article…

This is an important point because in the comboxes some appear to have argued that considerations of intent and circumstances are irrelevant to the object of an intrinsically immoral act. In other words, the object of an intrinsically immoral act should be definable without reference to intention or circumstances.

This does not appear to be the case if the items on this list are all intrinsic evils. Let us take the following cases as illustrative since they have clearly worked out definitions: Fornication, adultery, lying, calumny, theft, and abortion.

He then goes on to specifically address a number of the “intrinsic evils” on the list and why they appear on it, even though they are not “intrinsically evil” because they cannot be excused but only after they have not been. Big difference.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You’ve clicked Edwin - it may take PP a while to do so.

“Human acts” (moral) and “human actions” (physical) are different orders of evil.

When we use the phrase “I choose…” that normally (and prorperly) refers to human acts.

I suppose it would be appropriate to be a bit clearer than this regarding types of evil.

1. natural evils - harm to moral agents by non-moral natural causes (earthquakes, severe weather, drought, etc.)
2. physical evils - harm to moral agents through non-moral but dysfunctional physical events (accident, disease, death)
3. moral evils - harm to moral agents by deviation of human volition from the proper moral order
4. intrinsic moral evils - intended harm to moral agents by the inexcusable and willful deviation from the proper moral order by human volition
5. metaphysical evil - the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world

Loosely based upon newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have a longer list for you courtesy of the Catechism, Veritatis Splendor, St. Paul, Augustine, St. Thomas and Jimmy Akin.

Fornication
Lying
Calumny
Condemning an innocent person
Immorality
Idolatry
Adultery
Sexual perversion
Theft
Greed
Drunkenness
Reviling
Robbery
Blasphemy
Any kind of homicide
Genocide
Abortion
Euthanasia
Voluntary suicide
Mutilation
Torments inflicted on the body or mind
Attempts to coerce the spirit
Subhuman living conditions
Arbitrary imprisonment
Deportation
Slavery
Prostitution
Trafficking in women and children
Degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons

There is no such agreement that intrinsically evil acts are those acts where no possible motive or circumstance could possibly mitigate the evil. That notion is not accepted by any of the parties named above.

Notice, too, Blue Horizon, that mutilation is included on the list but is only considered intrinsically evil given the evil intentions of the one committing the mutilation, but evil nonetheless.

To be clear, as Jimmy Akin points out in this article intrinsic evil acts are only those that do bear out as determinably evil after considerations of evil motive and inexcusable circumstance have been included in the account.

In other words, mutilation is intrinsically evil if physical harm is done to the body of another with intent to cause that harm and not for any other motive. However, mutilation would still be considered evil in the sense of harming the normal functioning of a human body, which was my point in the first place.

Bringing up “intrinsic evil” is merely to state that there are some evils that would not be excused under some circumstances and for some reasons. That seems irrelevant to my initial point that a surgeon is doing evil, i.e., causing harm, to the patient, although, to abide by your definition, it isn’t “intrinsically evil” meaning it is “excusably evil,” which adds nothing to the conversation, except that the doctor is doing an excusable evil and not an intrinsic evil after all.

However, that does nothing to support your contention, Blue Horizon, that “Neither should we believe that the Church teaches we may choose the lesser of two evils.” In fact, what you mean is that the Church teaches we should never commit an “intrinsic evil,” which is not the same as never choosing the lesser of two evils, unless you insist that all evils are “intrinsically” so. That will be a difficult notion to accept.

By the way, impugning a lack of a calm disposition, an unclear and prejudiced mind to another poster based on nothing but words on a page would seem a bit odd, given you have no idea concerning my disposition from letters typed in a text field. “Prejudiced” and unclear would seem to reduce to “disagree with Blue Horizon” and “see things differently,” but good on you to not jump to conclusions about me.

Furthermore, Mr. Akin argues against your point specifically in the article…

He then goes on to specifically address a number of the “intrinsic evils” on the list and why they appear on it, even though they are not “intrinsically evil” because they cannot be excused but only after they have not been. Big difference.

PP your sarcasm only confirms to all the emotionalism I observed in your previous posts.
If you do not see anything of value in my observations wrt your moral theology that is fine.

You may not realise that Jimmy is a “late-comer” to Catholicism and his moral theology at times subtely reflects that. It is not surprising, the theology of the moral act is one of the most difficult areas of theology today and even Catholic moral theologians disagree on the finer points.

 

[Peter_Plato]

PP your sarcasm only confirms to all the emotionalism I observed in your previous posts.
If you do not see anything of value in my observations wrt your moral theology that is fine.

You may not realise that Jimmy is a “late-comer” to Catholicism and his moral theology at times subtely reflects that. It is not surprising, the theology of the moral act is one of the most difficult areas of theology today and even Catholic moral theologians disagree on the finer points.

Yes, of course, cradle Catholics are the ones who know their stuff and late comers are incapable of the subtleties. To simply state that Catholic moral theologians disagree about an issue does nothing to clarify it. It merely leaves it unresolved, AND leaves the thread question unanswered, as well.

Personally, I think Mr. Akin has identified and attempted to resolve an important issue in “moral theology,” (though it really is an issue in moral philosophy more so, even, than in moral theology.)

My sarcasm, at least from where I am sitting, only confirms my twisted sense of humor and NOT my “emotionalism,” but you couldn’t know that, could you, since you don’t reside in my head or heart, nor in my big toe, where “late comers” to Catholicism universally agree is the seat of the emotional faculties - in disagreement with Aquinas and Augustine who both, by the way, seem to agree with Mr. Akin even if he is a “late comer.” (I spoke to them last night ”in my dreams" and they both insisted they bear no overt prejudice against “late comers.”)

Note: I can assure you that this last paragraph is also devoid of negative emotional content. (Except, perhaps, for a little delight in the humour of it.)

 

[Contarini]

I suppose it would be appropriate to be a bit clearer than this regarding types of evil.

1. natural evils - harm to moral agents by non-moral natural causes (earthquakes, severe weather, drought, etc.)
2. physical evils - harm to moral agents through non-moral but dysfunctional physical events (accident, disease, death)
3. moral evils - harm to moral agents by deviation of human volition from the proper moral order
4. intrinsic moral evils - intended harm to moral agents by the inexcusable and willful deviation from the proper moral order by human volition
5. metaphysical evil - the limitation by one another of various component parts of the natural world

Loosely based upon newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm

Exactly. And the prohibition against choosing the lesser of two evils applies only to moral evils.

Edwin

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Exactly. And the prohibition against choosing the lesser of two evils applies only to moral evils.

Edwin

Agreed, you hit it on the head.