The end never justifies the means?

[Laurie_Gibson]

Catholic moral teaching is that you may not do a wrong deed in order to reach a good end.

In some cases this is clearly correct. It would be wrong to cheat in an exam to obtain the good of passing, or to steal from a bank to alleviate sombody’s poverty. However I doubt it is always true. Below are some examples where it seems that the end does justify the means.

1] [Debated elsewhere but very applicable] The Nazi’s ask if Jews are hiding in the house. Anything other than a direct lie will lead to them searching the house and the Jews will die, ditto you for hiding them.

2] In a storm the captain wants to throw the cargoe overboard [evil] so that the ship can be saved [good]. The owner is not contactable to ask permission.

3] A woman giving birth can only be saved by directly killing the child. The alternative is that both the child and woman die.

4] A person with dementia asks every morning where his wife is. If we reply truthfully that she is dead the man is unhappy for most of the day. If we say she has just gone out for a few minutes he is not.

5] By using contraception [which we will assume is an evil] I can have a loving marriage and can afford to care for my kids. The alternative is a large family that I cannot afford, a marriage break-up and many lifes ruined.

5] I am a clever philosopher and a little old lady confides in me that she believes in God because of XYZ and would I please confirm the wisdom of her beliefs. In fact XYZ is well known for being fallacious. Do I destroy her belief by telling her the truth thus he soul is lost or do I lie and she continues to be saved. [By the way, you cannot challenge the story here - for some reason she hangs on my every word, she will not be fobbed off with anything other than a Yes or No from me…]

So in the Nazi case if we follow Catholic teachings the Jews and the family hiding them will die whereas if we lie everyone escapes unharmed.

In the ship case, Catholic teaching will mean - Ship + crew + cargo lost , whereas the wrong of throwing the cargo over would save the crew and ship

In the birth case, Catholic teachings means the woman and child die whereas the alternative is for the child only to die.

In the case of the old man, the Catholics will give him an unhappy morning every morning but the alternative means his ends his life happily

In the contraception example we have to choose between the family being destroyed or the family flourishing.

In the old lady case the truth leads to her damnation but the lie saves her soul.

So what we need is some way to distinguish cases where the end does justify the means and those cases where it does not.

Catholic teaching seems rather rigid here.

Laurie Gibson

 

[JRKH]

Catholic moral teaching is that you may not do a wrong deed in order to reach a good end.

In some cases this is clearly correct. It would be wrong to cheat in an exam to obtain the good of passing, or to steal from a bank to alleviate sombody’s poverty. However I doubt it is always true. Below are some examples where it seems that the end does justify the means.

Lets take a look at each of your examples and see what we have.

1] [Debated elsewhere but very applicable] The Nazi’s ask if Jews are hiding in the house. Anything other than a direct lie will lead to them searching the house and the Jews will die, ditto you for hiding them.

This cunundrum really does not exist because, if you followed the debates elswhere on this you would discover that simply telling someone something that is not true is not necessarily a sin. Otherwise, telling a child that there is a Santa Claus would equally be a sin.
Para 2483 of the catachism states: “…To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error….” Telling a Nazi that there are no Jews in the house, far from leading him into error, actually helps prevent him from the error of arresting innocent people.
Para 2484 goes on to say, "The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims…

Obviously the example you give above holds many mitigating factors.

2] In a storm the captain wants to throw the cargoe overboard [evil] so that the ship can be saved [good]. The owner is not contactable to ask permission.

In this case, no evil occurs. On the high seas a Captain is responsible for ship and crew as well as cargo. The owner knows this and is willing to accept the decisions of the captain. The captain has committed no evil by excerizing his legitimate authority.

3] A woman giving birth can only be saved by directly killing the child. The alternative is that both the child and woman die.

Perhaps I’m ignorant, but I know of circumstance that would require the direct killing of a child “during childbirth” in order to save the mother. However, in any such dire circumstance every effort needs to be made to save both the mother and the child. If one, or the other or both die, then the deaths are incidental and not intentional. Again, no objectively evil act or intent.

4] A person with dementia asks every morning where his wife is. If we reply truthfully that she is dead the man is unhappy for most of the day. If we say she has just gone out for a few minutes he is not.

My answer to question one applies here as well. It has to do with gravity and intent.
And by the way my Dear Wife does have dementia and I can tell you that their “reality” is so different from ours that you can tell them the absolute truth and they will hear a “lie” and you can tell them an absolute lie, and they will hear a “truth”.
So - in this case I commit no sin by telling my impaired wife that which will make her life and mine easier.

5] By using contraception [which we will assume is an evil] I can have a loving marriage and can afford to care for my kids. The alternative is a large family that I cannot afford, a marriage break-up and many lifes ruined.

This scenerio falsely limits the options by eliminating chastity and NFP, both of which are loving alternatives in a Truly “Loving marriage”.

5] I am a clever philosopher and a little old lady confides in me that she believes in God because of XYZ and would I please confirm the wisdom of her beliefs. In fact XYZ is well known for being fallacious. Do I destroy her belief by telling her the truth thus he soul is lost or do I lie and she continues to be saved. [By the way, you cannot challenge the story here - for some reason she hangs on my every word, she will not be fobbed off with anything other than a Yes or No from me…]

If her beliefs are fallacious then how is confirming them going to save her soul?? So you see you already have a problem here to overcome. You have to decide if the God she believes in is the True God based on her “fallacious” reasons, and Her faith is a true and saving faith since her faith is built upon false assumptions.
You rresponse in this case is clearly going to need to be something much more than “yes or no”.

So in the Nazi case if we follow Catholic teachings the Jews and the family hiding them will die whereas if we lie everyone escapes unharmed.

In the ship case, Catholic teaching will mean - Ship + crew + cargo lost , whereas the wrong of throwing the cargo over would save the crew and ship

In the birth case, Catholic teachings means the woman and child die whereas the alternative is for the child only to die.

In the case of the old man, the Catholics will give him an unhappy morning every morning but the alternative means his ends his life happily

In the contraception example we have to choose between the family being destroyed or the family flourishing.

In the old lady case the truth leads to her damnation but the lie saves her soul.

So what we need is some way to distinguish cases where the end does justify the means and those cases where it does not.

Catholic teaching seems rather rigid here.

Laurie Gibson

God has done much more than to give us a bunch of “Rules” to blindly follow. He has given us The Holy Spirit and the Church to guide us. In each of the cases you have given above it can be seen that the particulrs of the situations when weighed against the teachings of Christ and His Church, provide the proper solutions which do not entail incurring sin.

Peace
James

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Dear JRFK,

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. I am not sure though that you manage to save them all. Let’s have a look.

The Nazi example.
Yes a lie is deliberately telling a falsehood with the aim of leading someone into error. I am sure that the error referred to is the error of believing something that is untrue, NOT the error of committing a sin. If it were the latter an employer could lie to an employee about his wages if he knew the employee was going to spend the money on ‘wine, women and song’!

In the Nazi example the idea is to get them to believe a falsehood and hence it is a lie.

The captain
Suppose the owner is present and says that he does not think that the storm justifies the action and points out that nothing in the contract allows the captain to destroy the cargo without permission.

**The mother giving birth **
There is a well known case where the baby is ‘stuck’ and only a craniotomy is possible to save the mother. So there is a choice kill the baby as the only way to save the mother OR both die. Some natural law theorist think there are ways round this others say it is just an exceptional and tragic case.

The person with dementia.
I am so sorry that your wife has dementia and hope this example is not too painful to you. Sometimes a person with dementia can receive information from us that they understand for a while. In this case the man certainly understands that his wife is dead when informed and this makes him unhappy – every morning because he forgets. Surely it is kinder to lie? *

Contraception
In this case chastity etc is not an option for the man concerned. He would like them to be but his will is too weak. So in his case it is a choice as stated.

Little old lady
Her beliefs are not fallacious – it is the evidence that supports them that is so. You can believe the right thing for the wrong reasons. Should I destroy her beliefs and send her to Hell or leave tell a lie?

The problem in general
We could go on discussing these cases and I am happy to do so. But you have to be sure that there is NEVER a situation where the end justifies the means and these examples – and lots of others – show this view is unlikely.

Thanks again

Laurie*

 

[Rence]

Catholic moral teaching is that you may not do a wrong deed in order to reach a good end.
In some cases this is clearly correct. It would be wrong to cheat in an exam to obtain the good of passing, or to steal from a bank to alleviate sombody’s poverty. However I doubt it is always true. Below are some examples where it seems that the end does justify the means.

1] [Debated elsewhere but very applicable] The Nazi’s ask if Jews are hiding in the house. Anything other than a direct lie will lead to them searching the house and the Jews will die, ditto you for hiding them.

I agree, I don’t think it is a sin to lie about the whereabouts of Jews in hiding. Here I agree with you.

2] In a storm the captain wants to throw the cargoe overboard [evil] so that the ship can be saved [good]. The owner is not contactable to ask permission.

**There’s probably a policy in place for this. In this case, a policy or protocol would be followed. So, no sin, lie or deception there. This is a judgement call. **

3] A woman giving birth can only be saved by directly killing the child. The alternative is that both the child and woman die.

**That’s not a valid argument. I know of NO medical circumstances for directly killing an unborn in order to save the woman. If you can think of such a medical reason, post your concern so that others may explain to you what the rationale is. Abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. There are many options available these days. **

4] A person with dementia asks every morning where his wife is. If we reply truthfully that she is dead the man is unhappy for most of the day. If we say she has just gone out for a few minutes he is not.

I agree here. I don’t think it’s lying or sinful.

5] By using contraception [which we will assume is an evil] I can have a loving marriage and can afford to care for my kids. The alternative is a large family that I cannot afford, a marriage break-up and many lifes ruined.

This goes against Church teaching in many ways. Contraception is only approved by the Church for medical reasons ONLY, and NEVER to prevent pregnancy. But I’m sure opinions (whether actually posted or not) that vary from one end of the spectrum to the other

5] I am a clever philosopher and a little old lady confides in me that she believes in God because of XYZ and would I please confirm the wisdom of her beliefs. In fact XYZ is well known for being fallacious. Do I destroy her belief by telling her the truth thus he soul is lost or do I lie and she continues to be saved. [By the way, you cannot challenge the story here - for some reason she hangs on my every word, she will not be fobbed off with anything other than a Yes or No from me…]

**But you can prove to her in ways other than XYZ to confirm her belief in God. **

Catholic teaching seems rather rigid here.

Yes, it is

 

[shondrea]

If the ill man is in a nursing home or living somewhere else, couldn’t you just tell him she’s home and he’ll see her again soon? That’s not a lie.

I myself have always been interested in how this teaching stands during war, and Just War.

 

[shondrea]

I kinda don’t get the old lady one. Couldn’t you just say, this bit of evidence is false, I’m sorry, but God’s existance does not hinge on one piece of evidence?

 

[Rence]

**The mother giving birth **
There is a well known case where the baby is ‘stuck’ and only a craniotomy is possible to save the mother. So there is a choice kill the baby as the only way to save the mother OR both die. Some natural law theorist think there are ways round this others say it is just an exceptional and tragic case.

Don’t let this example fool you. This is an example that pro-abortion people like to use. If a baby’s head gets stuck during delivery it will suffocate and die. No oxygen = death. There is no other option when the skull gets stuck like this. A few minutes without air, while stuck in the pelvic cavity, is all it takes. When the baby dies, a craniotomy on the deceased is not a sin because the baby is already dead. The Church is not unreasonable. Remember that an abortion is a direct insult to the fetus. When the primary intention is to kill the fetus, that is an abortion.

Just like removing a diseased or cancerous uterus, which is a primary intervention (while a woman is pregnant), is not an abortion, neither is this example.

Just like removing a fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, is not an abortion.

 

[o_mlly]

Catholic moral teaching is that you may not do a wrong deed in order to reach a good end.

…

The title of this thread and the OP’s first sentence are not univocal. If the object of the means (act) is generally indifferent, the justification or morality of the act does depend in part on its intended ends.

 

[St_Francis]

Dear JRFK,

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. I am not sure though that you manage to save them all. Let’s have a look.

The Nazi example.
Yes a lie is deliberately telling a falsehood with the aim of leading someone into error. I am sure that the error referred to is the error of believing something that is untrue, NOT the error of committing a sin. If it were the latter an employer could lie to an employee about his wages if he knew the employee was going to spend the money on ‘wine, women and song’!

In the Nazi example the idea is to get them to believe a falsehood and hence it is a lie.

No… to get someone to believe a falsehood is not necessarily a lie. If I tell the Nazis that there are no Jews here, and he takes that to mean that there are no Jews in the house or on my property, that’s his problem. I just meant in the foyer.

The captain
Suppose the owner is present and says that he does not think that the storm justifies the action and points out that nothing in the contract allows the captain to destroy the cargo without permission.

The captain is in charge of the ship, and human lives have priority over the cargo. There is no evil involved, except that of the greedy owner of the cargo, who wants to save it so badly that he would risk the lives of the others on the ship to do so.

**The mother giving birth **
There is a well known case where the baby is ‘stuck’ and only a craniotomy is possible to save the mother. So there is a choice kill the baby as the only way to save the mother OR both die. Some natural law theorist think there are ways round this others say it is just an exceptional and tragic case.

I think this one was answered (in that the position kills the baby), but in other situations, we have the option of a C-section.

The person with dementia.
I am so sorry that your wife has dementia and hope this example is not too painful to you. Sometimes a person with dementia can receive information from us that they understand for a while. In this case the man certainly understands that his wife is dead when informed and this makes him unhappy – every morning because he forgets. Surely it is kinder to lie? **
Saying that she is not here right now is not a lie.

Contraception

In this case chastity etc is not an option for the man concerned. He would like them to be but his will is too weak. So in his case it is a choice as stated.
If he would like to be a loving husband and continent man, then he would stay with his family no matter what. You’re saying he can’t give up sex for a week each month? Give me a break.

Little old lady

Her beliefs are not fallacious – it is the evidence that supports them that is so. You can believe the right thing for the wrong reasons. Should I destroy her beliefs and send her to Hell or leave tell a lie?
Why would you destroy her beliefs? You would just show her that the evidence on which she relies is wrong, and show her the true evidence.

[qutoe]The problem in general
We could go on discussing these cases and I am happy to do so. But you have to be sure that there is NEVER a situation where the end justifies the means and these examples – and lots of others – show this view is unlikely.

Thanks again

Laurie

The whole point of the saying is that if the means are evil, there is not a situation which would warrant their use. That is the way evil works. It doesn’t mean, well, you can use an evil method so as to get what you want just because you want it *really badly. *With that sort of thinking, pretty much anything could be justified.

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Friends - Here are your answers *

RENCE – Well you agree with me because you think that in some cases the end justifies the mean.

The baby case is unlikely but possible. While the baby is still alive it could be ‘killing’ the mother and by the time the baby has died it might be too late, Of course this example is of something that would be very rare indeed – but if it happened surely the end would justify the means?

Contraception – Yes I said that for the purpose of the example I shall assume contraception is wrong but I claim that it is a wrong that is justified by the end – in this case a happy and successful marriage v marriage breakdown.

The old lady would be so shattered by my demolition of her faith that she would not be able to listen to my reconstruction of it. In any case I do not know of any evidence that is convincing.

SHONDEA

Telling the man his wife is home is a lie. She is not at his home. I think it is a justified lie as I said but it is a case of the end justifying the mean.

The old lady will not listen after I have demolished her faith and in any case I cannot rebuild it if I have to be honest with her.

OMILLY

Sorry but I do not understand – could you explain please.

Laurie*

 

[hellopeople]

Basically, the way I see it is that the church says that the end never justifies the means, but obviously sometimes it does. If the end never justified the means, then any act that is wrong would be wrong in all circumstances.

For example, if I tackle someone on the street, it would definitely be wrong. There is no doubt that this would be a sin. If I tackle someone on the street that is mercilessly beating a child, it would be right. So what is the different? The end. No one in the church will argue with this.

What about the just war theory? Sometimes it is moral to fight a war. Other times it is not. What makes a war moral…the end. The church isn’t as rigid as you think with this.

 

[Doc_Keele]

That’s not a valid argument. I know of NO medical circumstances for directly killing an unborn in order to save the woman. If you can think of such a medical reason, post your concern so that others may explain to you what the rationale is. Abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. There are many options available these days.

Sorry, that’s not true.
Ectopic pregnancy, Eisenmenger’s Syndrome, any number of medical complications of pregnancy that necessitate early delivery which risks the child’s life.

 

[Rence]

Friends - Here are your answers *

RENCE – Well you agree with me because you think that in some cases the end justifies the mean.

I do? How?*

The baby case is unlikely but possible. While the baby is still alive it could be ‘killing’ the mother and by the time the baby has died it might be too late, Of course this example is of something that would be very rare indeed – but if it happened surely the end would justify the means?

Uhm, well there is no other option but to let the baby hang by it’s head there forever. You’ll have to remove it sometime. I don’t know how that equates to an abortion. In fact, it doesn’t. Nor do I know how that is the end justifiying the means. The Church does not deny medical intervention to women in need of medical intervention. It condemns abortions. This case is clearly not an abortion. The baby will not kill the mother in the few minutes it is suffocating

 

[Rence]

*Quote:
That’s not a valid argument. I know of NO medical circumstances for directly killing an unborn in order to save the woman. If you can think of such a medical reason, post your concern so that others may explain to you what the rationale is. Abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. There are many options available these days. *

Sorry, that’s not true.
Ectopic pregnancy, Eisenmenger’s Syndrome, any number of medical complications of pregnancy that necessitate early delivery which risks the child’s life.

Doc, I’ve already listed ectopic pregnancy. Early delivery of the child due to maternal risk is not forbidden by the Church because the goal is to save both. Risk of the child’s life doesn’t equate to abortion.

 

[Rence]

Basically, the way I see it is that the church says that the end never justifies the means, but obviously sometimes it does. If the end never justified the means, then any act that is wrong would be wrong in all circumstances.

For example, if I tackle someone on the street, it would definitely be wrong. There is no doubt that this would be a sin. If I tackle someone on the street that is mercilessly beating a child, it would be right. So what is the different? The end. No one in the church will argue with this.
.

That’s the way I see it too. I don’t even listen to the radicals anymore…being Catholic doesn’t mean throwing your common sense out the window.

 

[St_Francis]

Friends - Here are your answers *

RENCE – Well you agree with me because you think that in some cases the end justifies the mean.

The baby case is unlikely but possible. While the baby is still alive it could be ‘killing’ the mother and by the time the baby has died it might be too late, Of course this example is of something that would be very rare indeed – but if it happened surely the end would justify the means?

Contraception – Yes I said that for the purpose of the example I shall assume contraception is wrong but I claim that it is a wrong that is justified by the end – in this case a happy and successful marriage v marriage breakdown.

The old lady would be so shattered by my demolition of her faith that she would not be able to listen to my reconstruction of it. In any case I do not know of any evidence that is convincing.*
The problem is that you are setting up *unrealistic *situations… an elderly lady who hangs on someone’s every word and then is too devastated to listen? Well, sure, anyone can dream up an absurd situation to try to justify committing an evil act, but let’s look at it this way…

You think that certain acts which the Church condemns are not *that *evil. You are willing to accept that we think they are wrong, but want to try to tease an admission from us that we actually sort of agree with you.

But let’s look at an act that you would probably agree is really evil. Imagine that a very important and very good person needs an organ transplant. Would that justify killing a homeless person for the organ?

 

[shondrea]

Friends - Here are your answers *

RENCE – Well you agree with me because you think that in some cases the end justifies the mean.

The baby case is unlikely but possible. While the baby is still alive it could be ‘killing’ the mother and by the time the baby has died it might be too late, Of course this example is of something that would be very rare indeed – but if it happened surely the end would justify the means?

Contraception – Yes I said that for the purpose of the example I shall assume contraception is wrong but I claim that it is a wrong that is justified by the end – in this case a happy and successful marriage v marriage breakdown.

The old lady would be so shattered by my demolition of her faith that she would not be able to listen to my reconstruction of it. In any case I do not know of any evidence that is convincing.

SHONDEA

Telling the man his wife is home is a lie. She is not at his home. I think it is a justified lie as I said but it is a case of the end justifying the mean.

The old lady will not listen after I have demolished her faith and in any case I cannot rebuild it if I have to be honest with her.

OMILLY

Sorry but I do not understand – could you explain please.

Laurie*

His wife is at home in heaven. Euphemisms aren’t lies

 

[Corki]

Basically, the way I see it is that the church says that the end never justifies the means, but obviously sometimes it does. If the end never justified the means, then any act that is wrong would be wrong in all circumstances.

For example, if I tackle someone on the street, it would definitely be wrong. There is no doubt that this would be a sin. If I tackle someone on the street that is mercilessly beating a child, it would be right. So what is the different? The end. No one in the church will argue with this.

The Church’s teaching is not that “then end never justifies the means.” That is a misstatement of actual Church teaching. What the Church actually says is that one cannot commit a grave evil just because good may come out of it. In your example, there is no grave evil.

In the OPs examples

1. It is not a grave evil to withhold information from someone who has no right to it
2. Even if the owner is there, the captain is not under his authority. He has no obligation to obey him so no evil is committed if he doesn’t. At worst, it could be an error in judgement if the storm abates.
3. Rencee already answered this thoroughly. I would just add that any surgical intervention (C-section or other) would be appropriate as long as it did not directly kill the child. Killing the child is ALWAYS gravely evil regardless of any illusiary “good” that might come out of it.
4. The person with dementia. Again no grave evil is committed by withholding the information that would hurt him.
5. Contraception - a false dichotomy. There are many choices available to the couple, most of which are perfectly moral. Contraception is not.
6. The little old lady. Again a false dichotomy. So many other choices. You could say you were not prepared to answer that particular proof. You could refer her to another. You could show her where her proof was false while offering a more solid one. There is no reason to crush the lady’s faith in answering the question. To purposely lead her away from her faith would be gravely evil. To anser her question is not.

The whole means/ends debate in Catholic moral theology is in the context of sin. In order for anything to be mortally sinful, it must first be gravely wrong. #1,2, 4, and 6 have no grave matter involved so the construct does not apply.

 

[hellopeople]

The Church’s teaching is not that “then end never justifies the means.” That is a misstatement of actual Church teaching. What the Church actually says is that one cannot commit a grave evil just because good may come out of it. **In your example, there is no grave evil.
**

Killing someone is not a grave evil, but using a condom is? It just seems like the church is defining terms in ways that fit their positions.

 

[kage_ar]

Killing someone is not a grave evil, but using a condom is? It just seems like the church is defining terms in ways that fit their positions.

MURDER is a grave evil. Not all killing is murder.