The end never justifies the means?

[hellopeople]

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

OK, I agree with you, but what makes some killing not a murder? THE END! The fact that certain actions can be a grave evil in some situations while in others are perfectly acceptable (the only difference being the end) means that the church does not completely adhere to the end never justifying the means. I don’t really understand how you can see it any other way.

 

[St_Francis]

OK, I agree with you, but what makes some killing not a murder? THE END! The fact that certain actions can be a grave evil in some situations while in others are perfectly acceptable (the only difference being the end) means that the church does not completely adhere to the end never justifying the means. I don’t really understand how you can see it any other way.

Killing is not always evil.

Intending to take the life of an innocent person and doing so is always evil and cannot be justified by the ends. However, killing in self-defense is not evil, and is therefore justified. The two are different actions, one of which is justified and the other evil.

 

[hellopeople]

Killing is not always evil.

Intending to take the life of an innocent person and doing so is always evil and cannot be justified by the ends. However, killing in self-defense is not evil, and is therefore justified. The two are different actions, one of which is justified and the other evil.

It IS the same action though. Killing is the action. You are killing in both cases.

 

[Corki]

OK, I agree with you, but what makes some killing not a murder? THE END! The fact that certain actions can be a grave evil in some situations while in others are perfectly acceptable (the only difference being the end) means that the church does not completely adhere to the end never justifying the means. I don’t really understand how you can see it any other way.

No, the difference is not the end, it’s the intent.

Some things are intrinsically evil and wrong. No “end” will ever justify them. Others are morally neutral. Killing is morally neutral. Murder, abortion, euthanaisa, infanticide are all types of killing that are always evil. No “end” will ever justify committing those acts. Other types of killing are not intrinsically evil such as self-defense, soldiers in battle, accidental killing, etc. Again, it isn’t the “end” that differntiates.

 

[Corki]

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.

Killing someone may or may not be a grave evil depending on the type of killing. Contraception is always a grave evil. The Church uses very precise terms when speaking of moral theology, much more precise than you are using the terms here.

 

[shondrea]

No, the difference is not the end, it’s the intent.

Some things are intrinsically evil and wrong. No “end” will ever justify them. Others are morally neutral. Killing is morally neutral. Murder, abortion, euthanaisa, infanticide are all types of killing that are always evil. No “end” will ever justify committing those acts. Other types of killing are not intrinsically evil such as self-defense, soldiers in battle, accidental killing, etc. Again, it isn’t the “end” that differntiates.

Oh the beautiful messiness that is English, and how one little word can mean a million different things to a million different people.

I do think it’s important to distinguish, though. “Killing” is not a sin. Murder is a sin. Self defense is not. Abortion is. It’s like saying, an ingredient, such as flour, is nutritionally blah, but can be made into something healthy or into a pie of caloric death, depending on how it’s used.

(if flour itself happens to have significant nutritional value, forgive my ignorance. You get my point)

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

I am afraid that I am too busy to contribute anymore to this interesting dicussion. I shall read any developments with interest though.

Here is what I conclude. My examples were just some typical ones where the end seems to justify the means. Faced with such an example there are three alternative answers.

1] The baby example has been considered by Catholic Theologians and some concluded that it was a tragic and unusual case, nevertheless, the evil of killing the baby is not allowed to save the mother. [Even though both will die].

So alternative is to simply say that despite the awful outcome we must not do an evil action to avoid it.

2] We do something else that would avoid the bad outcome. We could say to the man ‘your wife has gone home’ meaning Heaven. How plausible this sort of thing is, is for the reader to judge. Sometimes it might work. In the case just given surely a lie is being told if we know that the man will interpret the word ‘home’ differently?

But speaking generally the proponent of Catholic morality has to be sure that in EVERY case we can find some ‘dodge’ to avoid the problem.

3] Or we can say that there are some cases where we are allowed to do an evil act to achieve a good end.

Personally I think at 3] is the most plausible answer.

But I do thank people who have contributed. Your responses have been enlightening

Laurie

 

[Doc_Keele]

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.

Creating a major risk to someone’s life is morally very close to actually killing them. Or don’t you agree? Is it morally neutral to inflict a major injury on someone that presents a serious risk to their life?

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

My question on the whole subject is: why do some people feel the need to treat scripture and the Church as some legal philosephy problem that they are dead set to “beat”?

Salvation is not a legal exercise that one can argue their way in to. When a Church teaching is not absolutley clear in a given situation, and yes one can manufacture such grey areas with a litttle effort, I find this to be a good passage to keep in mind.

**Romans 14
12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.

14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.

16Let not then your good be evil spoken of:

17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost**

If a stituation really arises, take into account what the Church says, what the Bible say, how the Holy Spirit speaks to you and your own concience. Then remember It’s ultimatly the Lord that will actually judge your actions on that day. He will be judging the truth of it, not you legalese, so do your best to choose wisely. Pray for his guidence and forgiveness should you choose wrong.

That’s as close to a magic fomula as you’re going to get. The rest of these “what if” scenarios are generaly pointless and counter productive. Not to say I wish to disuade someone from genuanly finding clerification, but eximne your own motivation as to why you ask such fine-line theoretical questions.

 

[JRKH]

Dear JRFK,

Thats’ - JRKH -
Sorry of the delay getting back to you. Been a heck of a day. See there has been a lot of activity. I haven’t read throught he responses yet cause I don’t want to mess up my train of thought. Lets see where were we ----

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.

Your definition of error is obviously narrower than mine. So it seems that from your understanding of “error” you would have to turn them in to avoid a sin where I would not have to turn them in to avoid a sin.
Also, you must not ignore the second part of the catachism that I quoted which wasara 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
By going through this we need to first determine who are the victims. the intent, the circumstances, and what “truth” is being deformed. These are not small matters.

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.

This fundementally changes what you said in your original post that, “The owner is not contactable to ask permission”, but thankfully it does not really change the answer. Regardless of the presence of the owner or the conditions of the written contract, (which no captain would sign), the captian remains the final authority on board ship. He is responsible for Crew, Ship, and Cargo, in that order. The owner knows this when he gets into the shipping busienss. If it is his determination that the cargo goes overboard then it goes overboard.
No “evil” is done - No “sin” incurred.

**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.

Well Id’ have to agree that this would be a highly “exceptional and tragic case”. However, I still believe that no sin is incurred. You state that the doctor was left with only one choice. This is the key. It implies that every known method to salvage the situation (if any) were exhausted, no one wants the baby to die, but something has to be done and done NOW…The Docter performs the ONLY way he can in the given situation.
The intent to Kill is not present - No sin is incurred.

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? **
Thank you - No the example is not painful. Just a bit silly is all, but I see the point.
Anyway - Telling the man that his wife “just stepped out” or whatever is not lieing at all. It is giving the man an answer that fits with his reality. If you have ever been around dementia patients you will know that their reality is very different from ours, you cannot reason with them because their “reasoner is broken”. Therefore it is up to us as caregivers to understand this and fit our reality to theirs. Thus when you say that she just stepped out is giving a response that fits his reality instead of trying to impose your reality on him.
This is not unlike God trying to describe the Glories of Heaven or the torments of hell to us humans. He must resort to analogies and try to fit the descriptions to fit “our reality” rather than his. Yet we know that “Eye has not seen nor ear heard, nor mind comprehend what wonders God has in store for those who Love him.” Does God lie when He uses what we understand? Of course not, He simply fits His answers to what we are able to comprehend. Same with any caregiver when they fit their answers to the realities of their Loved One.

(cont)

 

[JRKH]

(Cont)

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.

Chastity is always an option. His weakness becomes the first sin (Lust) to be overcome. Subsituting ABC for this is only adding a second sin to the first one. Furthermore, compounding his sin of lust by imposing the sin of ABC on his wife, he fairly guarentees that the sins are grave sins and places his soul in jeapordy. Remember, Lust is one of the seven deadly sins.

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?

This gets into a much deeper discussion. If her beliefs are not fallacious then why do you believe the “evidence” is? Jesus once said, “Those who are not against you are for you”.
You tell me that this lady, "she believes in God because of XYZ and would I please confirm the wisdom of her beliefs", You then claim that, "In fact XYZ is well known for being fallacious. Well if the reasons are “wrong” but her conclusion is right, then affirm her conclusion and, as best you can, ignore her reasons. Or better yet, let her give you her line of reasoning and perhaps you[/y] will learn something. This way you don’t lie, but rather open yourself up to new insights. After all one should not be able to draw a “correct” conclusion from “evidence” that is “well known to be fallacious”.

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 key in any of these is the underlying intent and the gravity of the situations involved.

Now if we were to take another approach we could ----- Well I’ll save that for my next post

Peace
James

 

[St_Francis]

I am afraid that I am too busy to contribute anymore to this interesting dicussion. I shall read any developments with interest though.

I’m sorry you won’t be able to get back… maybe later!

Here is what I conclude. My examples were just some typical ones where the end seems to justify the means. Faced with such an example there are three alternative answers.

1] The baby example has been considered by Catholic Theologians and some concluded that it was a tragic and unusual case, nevertheless, the evil of killing the baby is not allowed to save the mother. [Even though both will die].

One cannot perform an action with the intention of killing, or whose only outcome is the death of the other.

So alternative is to simply say that despite the awful outcome we must not do an evil action to avoid it.

Right. Sometimes people die. We cannot perform an evil (directly and intentionally killing an innocent person) to save their lives. Just as we cannot go out and randomly kill someone for an organ to save the life of a person in need of a transplant, so we cannot perform an action with the intention of killing the child.

2] We do something else that would avoid the bad outcome. We could say to the man ‘your wife has gone home’ meaning Heaven. How plausible this sort of thing is, is for the reader to judge. Sometimes it might work. In the case just given surely a lie is being told if we know that the man will interpret the word ‘home’ differently?

But speaking generally the proponent of Catholic morality has to be sure that in EVERY case we can find some ‘dodge’ to avoid the problem.

It is not a “dodge.” It is simply choosing to do something moral rather than something immoral. Sometimes there is no moral option and we are back to #1.

3] Or we can say that there are some cases where we are allowed to do an evil act to achieve a good end.

Personally I think at 3] is the most plausible answer.

Again, you are saying that it is all right to commit an evil deed to get the result you want. But you are choosing evil deeds which do not seem all that evil to you. Consider an evil deed which seems very evil to you. Is it right to rob a bank to get money, even if you need the money very very badly? Would it be right to kill a stranger to get an organ for someone who would otherwise die, even if you really really don’t want that person to die?

 

[JRKH]

As promised, let us take another look at the scenerios - - - From a different "World view"

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.

You do not lie - You tell them yes therre are Jews hiding in the house.
Everyone is arrested and killed. God judges each on their merits and each receives their just reward or punishment. When the executioners die they too are judged and disposed of by Our Just God.
After all - We will all die someday and in some way. It is not important when or how we die. For Christ said, “…do not fear those who can kill the body but can do nothing after that. Better to fear the one who, after killing, can condemn you to the fires of gehenna.”

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 one - there simply no sin incurred by the loss of “stuff” in exchange for the lives of the crew.

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

The Doctor refuses to kill the child - Both mother and child die anyway. The Doctor is heartbroken. Later the Doctor dies and stands before God. He says, “Father - I killed two people because I could not save them”. “I do not deserve to enter heaven”.
The father responds, “Nonsense my son. Both the mother and Child are here with me even now”. “You committed no sin in their death, for it was their time.” “Enter heaven then and meet them - see how happy they are.”

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 will leave this one to you to consider how God would view the alteratives here.

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.

The man insists, the woman refuses, and they seperate.
The woman raises the Children, lives out her life in a chaste manner and dies in grace
The man, continues in his lustful and selfish ways remarries, again insisting on ABC. Eventually he dies, unrepentant in his sin - thinking God unjust in demanding chastity and self control from us.

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…]

You, being “Clever” (at least in your own mind), choose to tell the little old lady the truth.
That she “can’t get there from here”. That her reasoning is faulty.
Now - What is the truth that you need to convey?
That she got to the the correct destination by an “alternate route”? One that you and many other “clever philosophers” have determined is wrong?
If this lady had come to you at the beginning of her journey and asked if XYZ was the right road, you might have given her better directions. But since she comes to you now and says, “Look I came here via XYZ”, and you agree that she has safely arrived (correct belief), she seems to have very cleverly disproven the “clever” theory that, “You can’t get there from here”.

Just some alternatives to consider

Peace
James

 

[o_mlly]

…OMILLY

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

Laurie

In Catholic thinking, the ends often do justify the means; the ends, however, may never justify evil means.

“Means” and “acts” are synonymns. The morality or justification of human acts which are morally indifferent, that is neither good nor evil in themselves, are determined by the circumstances and the intended ends of the actor.

Contrast the above with acts which are evil in themselves, that is intrinsically or inherently evil acts or means. There are no circumstance or intended ends which may ever justify these intrinsically evil acts. Therefore, the correct Cathoic statement regarding ends and means is: The ends never justify evil means.

 

[kage_ar]

What kind of a pervese generation sits around and thinks up reasons to justify killing a baby?

 

[JRKH]

What kind of a pervese generation sits around and thinks up reasons to justify killing a baby?

If you are refering to the scenerio concerning giving birth I don’t think this is the result of being perverse.
Instead it simply represents the same sort of questioning that has always gone on. It is good questioning because it allows us to take the “standard rules” and apply them to “non-standard” situations. This prevents us from becoming so “bound by law” that we cannot see the Love, the sacrifice, the reasons behind the rules.
Remember that this is one of the things that Christ was concerned about with the pharasees - How they were so tied up with the letter of the law that they missed the whole point of Love God and Love neighbor.

Peace
James

 

[Doc_Keele]

What kind of a pervese generation sits around and thinks up reasons to justify killing a baby?

What kind of person stifles debate by considering discussion of the issues as evidence of perversity?

 

[kage_ar]

What kind of person stifles debate by considering discussion of the issues as evidence of perversity?

One who knows murder of a child is not something to speculate about doing.

 

[Doc_Keele]

One who knows murder of a child is not something to speculate about doing.

Apart from circular arguments, do you have any other reason to stifle debate?

 

[kage_ar]

Apart from circular arguments, do you have any other reason to stifle debate?

Murder is not something that us up for debate.