"The end justifies the means"

[Abrosz]

Not much I suspect!

Actually anything, whatever does not destroy the harmony of the creation. There are three kinds of approach toward freedom of action

1. None at all. The whole creation is deterministic. Everything is planned in advance.
2. Some freedom, but limited to stay within the boundaries decided by the creator.
3. Almost unlimited freedom, which allows significant deviation from the creator’s desires.

This third kind is usually “coupled” with some “commandments”. (Do this! Don’t do that!) This is the worst kind of creation, not just sloppy, but lazy, too. And then, if the created beings go rampant, and destroy some desired features of the world, then this lazy creator, punishes them for disobedience.

And to add insult to injury, the punishment does not happen, when it would be educational, where the created beings could learn from it. Oh, no! The punishments happen in the “afterlife”. What could be more useless and cruel that that? It is pure revenge, nothing else.

This is a simple summary of the existing state of affairs, according to the believers.

The best solution is #2. The created beings have certain built-in limiting factors, but within those limits they can do whatever they want to. Now this only deals with the interpersonal relations of the created beings. The features of the surroundings could be discussed, too. but somewhere else.

 

[Rau]

The best solution is #2. The created beings have certain built-in limiting factors, but within those limits they can do whatever they want to.

Exactly. I cannot fly like Superman.

 

[Abrosz]

Exactly. I cannot fly like Superman.

True, but that is not the point. In that hypothetical world you either would not have ability to cause major harm to others, OR you would have the ability but lack the desire to do it. The limiting factors can be either external of internal.

 

[kapp19]

Can you please define “goodness”? I think that would be helpful.

-K

 

[Abrosz]

Can you please define “goodness”? I think that would be helpful.

Sure. Goodness is a concept, not an ontological entity. It describes some actions which enhance the quality of life for someone (or something) that has a pleasure / pain center in the brain.

 

[kapp19]

Okay. This is very helpful indeed.

What do you mean by “enhance”? That seems rather circular - it seems as if you are saying, “it is good because it makes there be more good.” Can you clarify?

 

[Abrosz]

What do you mean by “enhance”? That seems rather circular - it seems as if you are saying, “it is good because it makes there be more good.” Can you clarify?

More pleasant, more enjoyable, more satisfying, happier, healthier… and so on. Are we to collect synonyms for “good”?

 

[kapp19]

Okay. Very interesting.

So if something makes me feel pleasant, it is good for me to do? Is this the idea?

 

[Abrosz]

So if something makes me feel pleasant, it is good for me to do? Is this the idea?

Generally. As always all the known consequences need to be considered. The quality of life cannot be described in a sound byte. I am sure you know what I mean.

 

[kapp19]

I am sure you know what I mean.

I certainly know what you mean. My question is whether your definition of “goodness” is robust enough to capture this. I do not think that it is.

I also do not think it is possible or even desirable to consider all the known consequences. But we are getting ahead of ourselves.

Would a weather pattern that makes a plant grow be considered “good weather” in relation to the plant?

 

[Abrosz]

I certainly know what you mean. My question is whether your definition of “goodness” is robust enough to capture this. I do not think that it is.

Well, you are most welcome to argue directly about it. No need to beat around the bush.

I also do not think it is possible or even desirable to consider all the known consequences.

To make a decision without considering all the known circumstances is dangerous.

Would a weather pattern that makes a plant grow be considered “good weather” in relation to the plant?

Oh, yes. But the point is that it is not so simple. Using the plant analogy, the weather that is good or beneficial for a cactus, is lethal for the flower of “impatient” and vice versa. It cannot be denied that the balance between competition and cooperation is of utmost importance. What it good for a sociopath, is not good for the victim.

The best way to approach this question is the one borrowed by Jesus: the variants of the golden rule, or in simple terms: “the right of your fist ends where my nose begins” or in German: “Leben and leben lassen.”

 

[AlNg]

No, that’s not true.

Was not torture approved for use during the Inquisition?

 

[Gorgias]

You skipped answering the question about the Samaritan.

Right. Because it was irrelevant to the discussion, which was the point I brought up.

And as for the question as to whether God commanded the killing or not, we are judging the matter on the basis that He did: ‘how in the Bible God commands the killing of innocent people’.

You’re judging it on the presumption that He did? OK… but if He didn’t, then that analysis is erroneous. Why are we going down that route, then?

So whatever ends they achieved, the means did not justify them.

Not sure why this seems to be an ‘a-ha’ moment for you. Catholics all along would say “ends don’t justify the means”…

So slaughtering women and children are presumably out. Whatever the end result. We’ll let Gorgias comment on that.

That’s why they’re called “hard sayings”. If God literally commanded it, then we’re left scratching our heads. If they presume God wanted it, then we are faced with asking “are they doing good or evil?” (which is an easy question) and “to what end are they doing it?”. Would that justify them? No. Would that make them culpable? Maybe, but not necessarily.

And this flatly contradicts one of the defenses in the problem of evil, namely that God permits evil so he can bring forth something good from it!

Except that you’re missing the point: God neither causes nor demands the evil. They’re not His means!!! So, your case falls apart.

Since the God of the philosophers “suffers”

blah blah blah… “God of the philosophers” … blah blah blah.

Still not convinced you understand what that means.

Sure. Goodness is a concept, not an ontological entity. It describes some actions which enhance the quality of life for someone (or something) that has a pleasure / pain center in the brain.

Nice try.

Let’s consider a hypothetical person – we’ll call him “John”. John’s quality of life would be enhanced if he beat you up, stole your money and your car, and let you lay by the side of the road, bleeding. Does that mean that his action would be ‘good’ or that it would be an example of ‘goodness’?

I think your definition is seriously malformed.

Was not torture approved for use during the Inquisition?

I’m objecting to your assertion, which is that an evil object can be considered to create a morally good act, based on the intent and/or circumstances. It cannot. (Evil object + good intent → immoral act)

 

[AlNg]

I’m objecting to your assertion, which is that an evil object can be considered to create a morally good act, based on the intent and/or circumstances.

Was not torture approved for interrogation during the Inquisition? What does its approval by the Church signify except that the intent and circumstances made the evil act of torture acceptable?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So slaughtering women and children are presumably out. Whatever the end result. We’ll let Gorgias comment on that.

That’s why they’re called “hard sayings”. If God literally commanded it, then we’re left scratching our heads. If they presume God wanted it, then we are faced with asking “are they doing good or evil?” (which is an easy question) and “to what end are they doing it?”. Would that justify them? No. Would that make them culpable? Maybe, but not necessarily.

You bet it’s hard. Because it directly contradicts the claim that the end does not justify the means.

Slaughtering women and children is evil. But if God commanded it (as you suggested) then it must have been for a greater good. And God cannot do evil. So slaughtering them cannot be described as evil. Because there must have been a greater good.

Ipso facto, doing something that to all intents is evil is permitted if it leads to a greater good.

 

[Latin]

Catholic Encyclopedia : Evil
“But we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence, that another equally perfect universe could not be created in which evil would have no place.”

If God would willed, He could create us with the privilege of immunity from sin and in this world would be no one commit even a single act of sin.
.
CCC 310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world in a state of journeying towards its ultimate perfection, 314 through the dramas of evil and sin. – God created the dramas of evil and sin for our benefit.

.
THE REASON GOD CREATED THE DRAMAS OF EVIL AND SIN.

Life without suffering would produce spoiled brats, not joyful saints.

Our struggle and tribulation while journeying towards our ultimate perfection through the dramas of evil and sin is the cost which in-prints the virtue/ nobility into our souls – the cost of our road to nobility and perfection.

In this world man has to learn by experience and contrast, and to develop by the overcoming of obstacles (Lactantius, “De ira Dei”, xiii, xv in “P.L., VII, 115-24. St. Augustine “De ordine”, I, vii, n. 18 in “P.L.”, XXXII, 986).
.
As we see above, we are all sinners because God willed to create us to be sinners for good reason, for the benefit of the entire human race.
.
CCC 312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil , caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, “who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.”
.
CCC 324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

CCC 313; St.Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: “Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.” 182

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;

His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.

God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself, to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:2-10;

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.,” …

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
God bless

 

[Gorgias]

What does its approval by the Church signify except that the intent and circumstances made the evil act of torture acceptable?

Gee… maybe it signifies that leaders of Church can be mistaken in their prudential judgment, as we’ve been saying all along? And that “prudential judgment” =/= “infallible declaration on matters of faith and morals”?

Nah… that couldn’t possibly be it.

 

[Freddy]

Catholic Encyclopedia : Evil
“But we cannot say without denying the Divine omnipotence…

The question is not whether God allows evil. It’s that if he commands something that we would consider evil and He cannot act in an evil way then what we consider to be evil cannot be so because it will lead to a greater good.

Hence the end justifies the means.

 

[AlNg]

maybe it signifies that leaders of Church can be mistaken in their prudential judgment

I am not sure about that. For example, consider the papal bull such as Ad Extirpanda. Is it not an official teaching? Similar to other papal bulls such as Humanae Vitae? A papal bull is usually considered to by somewhat higher than a prudential judgment?

 

[Rau]

What does its approval by the Church signify except that the intent and circumstances made the evil act of torture acceptable?

Since we know with certainty your last statement is wrong, another explanation is required. My lamentable knowledge of history limits my capacity to offer an explanation. But too possibilities that come to mind are:

• the acts sanctioned were not intrinsically evil;
• the sanctioning was a wrong act.

doing something that to all intents is evil is permitted if it leads to a greater good.

The church has always and unambiguously taught that this is not so. Therefore a better understanding of the scripture is required. I have not the knowledge to provide it.