"The end justifies the means"

[Gorgias]

The argument I have heard about the problem of evil is that God allows bad things to happen because it will lead to a greater good. If that’s not the means justifying some (unknown and unknowable) end then I don’t know what is.

It’s a good point. However, the assertion in question has to do with acts, and God does not cause bad things to happen, so it doesn’t quite apply.

(Of course, the retort will be “but… but… but… if God is omnipotent, as ya’ll say, then He has the power to prevent the bad acts! If you have the power, then you must stop them, so He’s still just as guilty!” I think that this argument doesn’t hold up. It doesn’t even hold up for us humans – think about “Good Samaritan” laws, which make it clear that there’s not the obligation to insert oneself into any arbitrary situation. So… is God evil because He allows evil? It would be necessary to prove that assertion; it’s not the manifest slam-dunk that some might suggest it is…)

Under certain circumstances the means AND the end form a justifiable course of action, under some other circumstances it does not. Everything is relative.

Not so. The fact that it’s not one big monolithic situation doesn’t imply that “everything is relative.” And, the way you’ve put it, you’ve misconstrued Church teaching: the means and the end always form a moral case (in fact, sometimes the end itself does!).

As in somethings that were acceptable in another time and/or another place might be acceptable here and now? But no Catholic is going to admit to that.

Oh, hang on…

LOL!

There’s a difference between “acts narrated in the Bible” and “good acts”. There’s a lot of bad human action there! My point was merely that our understanding of what’s going on must be in the context of the time and place, and not merely from our 21st-century western perspective!

Still, though, those passages are called “hard” for a reason…

You might know that I don’t pay attention to religious quotes used as an argument.

Ad hominem much?

 

[kapp19]

The anthropology I accept is based on biology. I still reject the kind of approach which surmises that the brain is just the organ to cool the blood.

Great, me too. There’s also a soul - with powers and principles… It is the form of the body as a living thing. The highest part is the reason, containing the intellect and will.

Humans are both individuals and herd animals. So there can be a conflict between the two aspects.

Who cares? Why does ethics matter at all? Why not just take whatever I feel like having and just be satisfied? We will be dust soon… and you don’t think there’s anything more to it than that. Have you read Ecclesiastes?

 

[Abrosz]

There’s also a soul.

Where? Do you have a soul-o-meter, which you can point at something, and which will display either “no soul” or “material soul” or “rational soul” and finally “immortal soul”. As soon as you develop such a gadget, we can start to speak about the soul in a meaningful manner. And the “form” of Italy is “boot”.

Who cares? Why does ethics matter at all? Why not just take whatever I feel like having and just be satisfied? We will be dust soon… and you don’t think there’s anything more to it than that.

A simple answer. Just because we shall get hungry again tomorrow, it is still a good idea to feed ourselves today. And we have a limited “immortality” in the memories of others. Limited, but still relevant.

Ethics matters even if there is no afterlife, because this life matters for it own sake.

 

[kapp19]

Where? Do you have a soul-o-meter, which you can point at something, and which will display either “no soul” or “material soul” or “rational soul” and finally “immortal soul”. As soon as you develop such a gadget, we can start to speak about the soul in a meaningful manner. And the “form” of Italy is “boot”.

In every part of the body that lives. Same with plants and brute animals. To be a living body simply is to have a soul, in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense. It is the first actual principle of life in a body potentially living. So no, I do not need a “soul-o-meter” - it’s called plain observation.

If you are wholly unaware of what “form” is in scholastic metaphysics, well, it would behoove you to take a gander at some introductory material. The soul makes the body what it is - a living body. It’s the specifying principle… It is not just a bunch of matter, it is a unity with an inner logic.

Also, I detect a hint of logical positivism - is it your opinion that only empirically verifiable and quantifiable entities hold epistemic significance? In other words, does it only make sense to talk about what you can see and touch, at least potentially see and touch?

A simple answer. Just because we shall get hungry again tomorrow, it is still a good idea to feed ourselves today. And we have a limited “immortality” in the memories of others. Limited, but still relevant.

Ethics matters even if there is no afterlife, because this life matters for it own sake.

You have not grappled with the Ring of Gyges, I’m afraid. I don’t dispute that we in fact want things, I am disputing your view that we can have anything like morals on your anthropology and metaphysics.

 

[Abrosz]

To be a living body simply is to have a soul, in the Aristotelian and Thomistic sense.

Which is discarded an meaningless.

If you are wholly unaware of what “form” is in scholastic metaphysics

I am aware. It is also discarded as another useless concept.

Also, I detect a hint of logical positivism - is it your opinion that only empirically verifiable and quantifiable entities hold epistemic significance?

Incorrect. There are two parts of the reality: the physical part (inductive) and the abstract (conceptual or deductive) part. The physical part can only discovered by the empirical, scientific methods: “observation, hypothesis forming, experimentation, checking if the result conforms with the prediction”. The abstract, deductive part uses the axioms, the rules of transformation to find out if a proposition is correct. Definitely NOT using the empirical method.

The believers hypothesize that there is THIRD part of reality, let’s call it “spiritual”, which is not physical, and as such not physically active, and YET, it interacts with the physical reality in some mysterious manner. And that is where the problem lies. What kind of epistemological method can you suggest to “discover” this spiritual reality?

It is not directly observable by the senses. But we could detect it by indirect means, since this part of reality is alleged to be in constant interaction with the physical. It supposedly affects the physical reality, and we can affect it by certain procedures (prayer, invocation or evocation). the problem (for you) is that none of these methods ever come back with a positive result - not just deterministically, but not even stochastically. No matter how hard we try to develop a “measurement” for detecting the interface, the result is always the same as in the song by Elvis Presley (Return to Sender): “No such address, no such zone”.

As for “life” it is not something mysterious. There is no mystical “life force”. The only coherent definition of life is: “complex responses to complex stimuli”. There is no need for carbon based molecular structures for something that that exhibits life. Viruses, even computer viruses exhibit features we associate with life. And no one says that computer viruses have a “soul”.

 

[kapp19]

Which is discarded an meaningless.

Lol. Okay.

I am aware. It is also discarded as another useless concept.

Double lol. And is it useless, or meaningless? Those are not the same thing.

The abstract, deductive part uses the axioms, the rules of transformation to find out if a proposition is correct. Definitely NOT using the empirical method.

Why don’t you go ahead and distinguish for me between what you are suggesting and what Ayer suggested - and why YOUR version of analytic and synthetic knowledge doesn’t get touched by Quine’s critique.

Look, if you want to just say “that’s meaningless” and then ramble on with ideas you are making up on the spot (i.e., “the spiritual”) and say you are doing philosophy and having a good discussion, count me out. If you want to have a serious conversation, PM me. I’m open to it. I do this stuff full time. But come on, at least be a LITTLE open to the possibility that these “strange ideas” are a BIT more plausible than you are giving them credit for.

-K

 

[Abrosz]

Lol. Okay.

I gave you a summary concerning the epistemological methods. If you wish to pursue it, I am here. But I am not interested Aristotle or Aquinas. They might have been very smart people, but they were limited by their times. They have nothing to offer for the current times.

I asked what kind of epistemological method you suggest for the so called spiritual reality.

 

[kapp19]

I gave you a summary concerning the epistemological methods.

You did not. You said, “You can look at stuff, and you can think about the stuff, and that’s knowledge.” Welcome to the world of Ayer. Guess what, that way of thinking is actually discarded - by EVERYONE in the field of epistemology - including Ayer, who accepted Quine’s critique. (Do you even know what I am referring to? It is one of the most important philosophical treatises written in the 20th century…)

But I am not interested Aristotle or Aquinas. They might have been very smart people, but they were limited by their times. They have nothing to offer for the current times.

This is pretty unfortunate thinking. Pretty much everyone in the Western and Eastern canons have something really important to say - that’s why we even know their names in the first place.

And it does not correspond with a sincere interest in “epistemological methods for the so called spiritual reality.”

 

[goout]

The argument I have heard about the problem of evil is that God allows bad things to happen because it will lead to a greater good. If that’s not the means justifying some (unknown and unknowable) end then I don’t know what is.

God allows bad things to happen is not the same thing as willing or desiring bad things to happen.

But in any case, ultimately God is goodness, and all things work toward God’s purposes, even if human perception and experience cannot comprehend it all. (and human experience can’t, or else human would be God).

 

[goout]

They might have been very smart people, but they were limited by their times. They have nothing to offer for the current times.

So by the time I count to ten, I can completely disregard anything you say, by your own standards. Or by next month.

Did you think that through?

 

[AlNg]

There is some relation between the idea that the end justifies the means and you are supposed to choose the lesser of two evils.
For example : the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
There is the argument that it was a bad means but in the end it saved tens of thousands of American lives. So it was good.
Then there is the argument that it was the lesser of two evils: the first being the death of thousands of people from the bomb and the second being the killing of tens of thousands, if not more, which would have resulted from the invasion.
So which is it? I have seen both arguments given by Roman Catholic bloggers.
Of course, my position is that it was morally wrong to drop the bomb on Japan.

 

[Abrosz]

So by the time I count to ten, I can completely disregard anything you say, by your own standards. Or by next month.

Did you think that through?

It depends. If you say anything about mathematical truths, they are forever. The theorem of Pythagoras will NEVER be proven to be incorrect. Propositions about the objective, physical reality may become incorrect. And propositions about metaphysics are usually not worth the value of the paper they are inscribed.

 

[goout]

goout:

So by the time I count to ten, I can completely disregard anything you say, by your own standards. Or by next month.

Did you think that through?

It depends. If you say anything about mathematical truths, they are forever. The theorem of Pythagoras will NEVER be proven to be incorrect. Propositions about the objective, physical reality may become incorrect. And propositions about metaphysics are usually not worth the value of the paper they are inscribed.

Whaaa?
How can you possibly know that these things are forever correct? Do tell.

 

[Abrosz]

Whaaa?
How can you possibly know that these things are forever correct? Do tell.

Come on. They are forever correct, because they rely on axioms. Having a different axiomatic foundation could extend our knowledge, but the Pythagoras theorem will always be true.

 

[GEddie]

There are two meanings of ‘end,’ where the confusion lies.

An ‘end’ can simply be a termination – e.g. “the end of the line.” The death of a human being is also an end, in that sense.

But when speaking of ends and means, we usually do not mean that sense, as all events or situations do in time come to termination. No means or actions are needed.

Rather, an ‘end’ requiring means is an objective to be achieved. Once that goal is achieved, such as the election in your example, it ceases to be an end; it becomes part of the past. New ends requiring means then surface.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Gorgias]

Which is discarded an meaningless.

I am aware. It is also discarded as another useless concept.

If you keep discarding philosopher after philosopher, you’re gonna end up with only you as the authority on everything, and unwilling to listen to anyone but yourself. Oh, wait…

So which is it? I have seen both arguments given by Roman Catholic bloggers.

It’s neither. They’re both wrong on the moral point. “Bad means → good result” is rejected by the Church, as is “lesser of two evils.”

It’s no skin off our back that there are mistaken bloggers out there, regardless of their faith tradition!

Of course, my position is that it was morally wrong to drop the bomb on Japan.

Yup.

 

[Rau]

One cannot separate the means from the end.

Why not?

Under certain circumstances the means AND the end form a justifiable course of action, under some other circumstances it does not. Everything is relative.

Depends on the moral system to which one holds. How things are “justified” depends on the moral system to which one holds.

 

[Rau]

You might know that I don’t pay attention to religious quotes used as an argument.

I’m not sure he sought to argue but to clarify. Nevertheless, bear in mind that in this area you’ll encounter arguments resting on various premises - some being religious moral principles and some being the the premises of other moral systems Eg consequentialism.

 

[Abrosz]

Why not?

How could you separate the two?

Depends on the moral system to which one holds. How things are “justified” depends on the moral system to which one holds.

I would use the expression of “ethical” system, but your usage is fine, too. The reason is that philosophy consists of several parts:

1. metaphysics
2. epistemology and
3. ethics

Sometimes people add a fourth one:

1. aesthetics

But that is not important right now. Of these parts the metaphysics (what exists?) is inferior to epistemology (how do we know it?) and finally comes ethics (so how should we behave?). The reason that epistemology is superior is that without having a method to decide if a proposition is true or not, the metaphysics degenerates to empty speculation.

 

[Rau]

If you want to have a serious conversation, PM me. I’m open to it.

Just wondering why you routinely propose to take discussions off to a PM? I’ve seen you suggest that to many posters.