"The end justifies the means"

[Rau]

Having a different axiomatic foundation could extend our knowledge, but the Pythagoras theorem will always be true.

So long as space is not curved ever, eh?

 

[Rau]

How could you separate the two?

Courtesy suggests you should respond meaningfully to my question. Why can means and end not be separated?

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.

Agreed. Discarded as useless.

 

[Abrosz]

So long as space is not curved ever, eh?

One of the axioms is the Euclidean space. In an axiomatic system all the axioms must be taken into consideration to decide if a proposition is true or false.

Courtesy suggests you should respond meaningfully to my question. Why can means and end not be separated?

Here is a problem: The physical act is grabbing an axe and chopping of someone’s foot.
Or. The physical act is grabbing a long and sharp needle, and sticking it into someone else’s heart.
How can you evaluate the morality of these and similar acts without knowing the all the circumstances?

 

[Rau]

Here is a problem: The physical act is grabbing an axe and chopping of someone’s foot.
Or. The physical act is grabbing a long and sharp needle, and sticking it into someone else’s heart.
How can you evaluate the morality of these and similar acts without knowing the all the circumstances?

You need more information than merely a description of physical events. Did someone say otherwise? You have still not answered why ends and means can’t be separated.

 

[Abrosz]

You need more information than merely a description of physical events. Did someone say otherwise?

Yes, you did, whenever you asserted that there are intrinsically evil acts.

You have still not answered why ends and means can’t be separated.

Because the circumstances ARE the means.

 

[Rau]

Because the circumstances ARE the means.

Well, that seems an odd use of language. But nevertheless, why can’t they be separated from the end?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy, could you please tell us, what is your position on the subject: “The end justifies the means”?

Thank you for your answer in advance.

God Bless

It means that in some cases one has to do morally questionable acts to reach a satisfactory outcome. The Trolley problem indicates this quite succinctly.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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…

I did say that God allows bad things to happen. Not that He causes them. So the good Samaritan can be used as an example. Would he have been classed as ‘good’ if he hadn’t helped the traveller because a delay in his journey would have caused much greater suffering? Could his refusal to help simply by inaction be classed as being for the greater good?

And if ‘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’ then that is exactly a definition of relative thinking. Apply that to any of God’s commands from biblical times and we can reject any of them.

Homosexuality? Hey, we have to understand that in the context of the time and place, and not merely from our 21st-century western perspective.

Polygamy? Hey, we have to understand that…well, you get the idea.

And stand alone biblical quotes are always ignored by me. I have no problem if they are used as part of an argument but it’s only fair that I point out my position to whoever has used them. One might as well quote the Quran or the Vedas.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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).

So…the end justifies the means.

 

[Abrosz]

Well, that seems an odd use of language. But nevertheless, why can’t they be separated from the end?

I gave you some explicit examples as to why you cannot assess the “morality” of the physical action without knowing the details/circumstances. What else do you need?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Just clarify my position… The discussion is about ends justifying means. And there are passages in the catechism and the bible pertaining to both. Does that mean there is nothing to discuss? Hardly. So if someone has a personal view on the matter then I’m keen to hear it. Qualified by relevant quotes from the catechism or bible.

2 Chronicles 16

Is that a sufficient argument? Or would you like my personal opinion on how that passage relates to the op?

 

[Rau]

I gave you some explicit examples as to why you cannot assess the “morality” of the physical action without knowing the details/circumstances. What else do you need?

Why do you address a matter not in debate?

Several times now you have been asked a simple and narrow question: why you say the end cannot be separated from the means. Perhaps review the dialogue. Or do you in fact agree they can be separated as in this example:

Ends: Ease the suffering of the homeless;
Means: Assist at the soup kitchen.

 

[Rau]

Sorry Fred, no idea where you’re going with that one.

 

[Freddy]

Sorry Fred, no idea where you’re going with that one.

Yeah, it was a bit obscure in re-reading it. I mean that me quoting parts of the bible (or catechism) in isolation is pretty meaningless and doesn’t advance the discussion.

 

[Abrosz]

Why do you address a matter not in debate?

Several times now you have been asked a simple and narrow question: why you say the end cannot be separated from the means. Perhaps review the dialogue. Or do you in fact agree they can be separated as in this example:

Ends: Ease the suffering of the homeless;
Means: Assist at the soup kitchen.

It is easy to find simplistic examples when the means are compatible with the end, so the means and the end form a justifiable sequence. But it is not the end - in and of itself is the one that justifies the means.

Besides it is the official stance of the church - one of those ones that I gladly agree with.

I gave two specific problems to show why the “physical act” cannot be separated from the means:

Here is a problem: The physical act is grabbing an axe and chopping of someone’s foot.
Or. The physical act is grabbing a long and sharp needle, and sticking it into someone else’s heart.
How can you evaluate the morality of these and similar acts without knowing the all the circumstances?

Strangely enough none of these have been answered. Why?

Just for the fun of it, here comes a third question: “All you know that some people engage in cannibalism”. Is this act “moral” or not? Of course I am arguing against the principle of “intrinsically evil acts”. And those examples show that the morality of these acts cannot be decided WITHOUT all the details.

 

[AlNg]

the morality of these acts cannot be decided WITHOUT all the details.

Do you ever have ALL the details?

 

[Rau]

I think the other person was quoting to add to clarity or depth to his own earlier words. I don’t think he was arguing on the basis “CCC says this therefore I’m right…”

 

[Rau]

But it is not the end - in and of itself is the one that justifies the means.

Sure. But who said otherwise - not me. So we agree that the end and the means are distinguishable?

Just for the fun of it, here comes a third question: “All you know that some people engage in cannibalism”. Is this act “moral” or not? Of course I am arguing against the principle of “intrinsically evil acts”. And those examples show that the morality of these acts cannot be decided WITHOUT all the details.

The “human act” is often not adequately captured in a word or in a purely physical rendering. Driving a needle into a Heart and injecting a substance that stops the heart might sound like murder. But that description is inadequate to understand the act and hence to deliver a moral assessment.

 

[Abrosz]

Sure. But who said otherwise - not me. So we agree that the end and the means are distinguishable?

The church does. If you agree with me, that is fine. But then you must disagree with the church.

The “human act” is often not adequately captured in a word or in a purely physical rendering. Driving a needle into a Heart and injecting a substance that stops the heart might sound like murder. But that description is inadequate to understand the act and hence to deliver a moral assessment.

Excellent. That is exactly what I said. That needle could be a hypodermic needle, delivering a medication to keep the person alive. The axe chopping off the foot might save the person’s life if a poisonous snake bit him - AND there is no antidote at hand. If there is an antidote available, then the amputation was “evil”.

Looks like that we are approaching to mutual understanding, which is most gratifying.

 

[Rau]

The church does. If you agree with me, that is fine. But then you must disagree with the church.

I demonstrated they are distinguishable and they are distinguishable according to catholic moral theology.

Looks like that we are approaching to mutual understanding, which is most gratifying.

You appear to change the point in question.