The "lesser evil" argument

[Matt_Collins]

In the example given in a previous post, the aim is revenge. Changing the mode from murder to a beating does not change the character of the act, nor the motive of the actor. It remains evil, and therefore persuading the actor to beat, rather than kill his enemy is not moral and not a true example of the principle of double effect.

I never said it changed the nature of the act or that it is OK to beat him instead of killing him. Read carefully.

What I said is that as a last resort, WHILE TRYING TO DISSUADE THE POTENTIAL KILLER, the CONFESSOR may propose a lesser evil than the one the POTENTIAL KILLER HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED A FIRM COMMITMENT TO PERFORM.

Consider the following exchange:

Tom: I’m going to kill Joe. I really am. There is nothing you can do to convince me not to kill him. I hate him and I’m going to kill him to get back at him.

Priest (after strenuous attempts to dissuade Tom from committing murder and admonishing him to love his enemy) : Tom, I know you really hate him, and you intend to kill him. But please, for your sake and your family’s, don’t kill him. If you think you absolutely must hurt him, then consider just beating him up. I’m not saying that beating him up is OK, because it’s not. But it’s not as bad as killing him. So if you’re determined to sin by hurting him, at least don’t kill him.

It is my assertion (and I will try to find the authoritative source) is that in such a situation, the PRIEST has not done anything wrong. He is counseling a determined sinner to do something less evil than the sinner currently intends to do after repeated failed attempts to dissuade him altogether.

BTW, I never said anything about the principle of double effect applying to this situation.

The principle of double effect and the principle of the lesser of two evils are two separate moral principles that may or may not both apply to a given situation. I don’t see how the principle of double effect applies in this situation. I was simply describing what I believe to be a valid application of the principle of the lesser of two evils.

 

[fix]

I think you have raised two issues. One is is it licit to pass out free needles/condoms to addicts and two is it licit for a confessor to tell someone to commit a lesser evil act to prevent a greater evil.

In the needle/condom issue I see it as a matter of double effect. In that case it is actively choosing to participate in intrinsically evil actions. Condomistic intercourse is always wrong. No one has the authority to encourage intrinsically evil acts no matter the circumstance.

As for choosing a lesser evil I cannot see how a confessor could tell someone who wants to commit an intrinsically wrong act it is ok to engage in another intrinsically wrong act? If I am wrong I would like to see the evidence? Thanks.

 

[Matt_Collins]

As for choosing a lesser evil I cannot see how a confessor could tell someone who wants to commit an intrinsically wrong act it is ok to engage in another intrinsically wrong act? If I am wrong I would like to see the evidence? Thanks.

Please see post # 21, above.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

The “well, it’s better than <insert something else more sinful/harmful here>” argument gets on my nerves. No matter what you have done, there is always someone who has done worse. Following that logic, ever act is justifiable, as long as someone else has done something worse than it before you. You can see how it falls apart… One will never improve if one constantly compares oneself to those who are worse than them. To improve, one needs to compare oneself to Jesus and Mary, perfect role-models.

 

[Matt_Collins]

I think there is a general distrust of the principle of the lesser of two evils because it has been misused so frequently lately in the discussion of whether or not condoms should be used in the prevention of AIDS.

The misuse of the principle, however, does not mean that the principle itself is not valid.

There is a world of difference between saying that “it’s OK to use clean needles when taking illegal drugs” and saying “when taking illegal drugs it’s a lesser evil to use a clean needle than a dirty needle.”

In both cases, taking illegal drugs is immoral. Everyone should be admonished not to take them and to get whatever help they need to stop. Telling an addict who is determined to continue taking drugs to use a clean needle does not imply that it is OK to do so. It is simply not as evil as assuming the additional risk of contracting HIV from a dirty needle.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Note that I have avoided the discussion of whether or not this principle can be applied to condoms because I’m not sure it does. I see a qualitative difference between the two that I haven’t yet figured out how to put into words, but it has to do with whether or not having illicit sex with a condom is actually more evil than having illicit sex without a condom. But don’t make me go there. I think I’m going to have difficulty expressing my thoughts on this one clearly enough to post.

 

[Matt_Collins]

The “well, it’s better than <insert something else more sinful/harmful here>” argument gets on my nerves. No matter what you have done, there is always someone who has done worse. Following that logic, ever act is justifiable, as long as someone else has done something worse than it before you. You can see how it falls apart… One will never improve if one constantly compares oneself to those who are worse than them. To improve, one needs to compare oneself to Jesus and Mary, perfect role-models.

I’m not saying that, and I don’t see how you can interpret anything I’ve said to imply that I’ve said that. Can you help me make the connection I’m failing to see?

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I’m not saying that, and I don’t see how you can interpret anything I’ve said to imply that I’ve said that. Can you help me make the connection I’m failing to see?

Sorry, I kind of skimmed the thread and posted my own thoughts on the OP’s original scenario (albiet a bit vaguely ^^;; ) I wasn’t commenting on anything else anyone said. I guess I should have read more of the thread before posting. Sorry about the mix-up!

Reading what you’ve posted, I agree with you saying that some things are lesser evils than others, logically, but that doesn’t really contribute much, in the grand scheme of things, because the ultimate aim is to what is good, and nothing bad… in the end, I don’t see the point of figuring out what is ‘less’ evil. If both actions are bad, one should strive to avoid both. If someone else can’t see that, you shouldn’t advise them to do the lesser action, but to do neither. If they are bent on performing one or the other, it’s in their hands. I can’t even think of any situation where there are absolutely no good choices left. God will judge.

 

[fix]

I think there is a general distrust of the principle of the lesser of two evils because it has been misused so frequently lately in the discussion of whether or not condoms should be used in the prevention of AIDS.

The misuse of the principle, however, does not mean that the principle itself is not valid.

There is a world of difference between saying that “it’s OK to use clean needles when taking illegal drugs” and saying “when taking illegal drugs it’s a lesser evil to use a clean needle than a dirty needle.”

In both cases, taking illegal drugs is immoral. Everyone should be admonished not to take them and to get whatever help they need to stop. Telling an addict who is determined to continue taking drugs to use a clean needle does not imply that it is OK to do so. It is simply not as evil as assuming the additional risk of contracting HIV from a dirty needle.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because in Veritatis Splendor it says some acts are intrinsically evil. They may never be done.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never said it changed the nature of the act or that it is OK to beat him instead of killing him. Read carefully.

And that’s where you went wrong. You have your confessor participating in an act of revenge – which is not permissable.

What I said is that as a last resort, WHILE TRYING TO DISSUADE THE POTENTIAL KILLER, the CONFESSOR may propose a lesser evil than the one the POTENTIAL KILLER HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED A FIRM COMMITMENT TO PERFORM.

The confessor cannot morally do that. He can tell the penitent of the gravity of his sin, counsel him to go to the police, to hire a lawyer, and so on. He cannot counsel him to carry out his immoral intention in a different mode.

Consider the following exchange:

Tom: I’m going to kill Joe. I really am. There is nothing you can do to convince me not to kill him. I hate him and I’m going to kill him to get back at him.

Priest (after strenuous attempts to dissuade Tom from committing murder and admonishing him to love his enemy) : Tom, I know you really hate him, and you intend to kill him. But please, for your sake and your family’s, don’t kill him. If you think you absolutely must hurt him, then consider just beating him up. I’m not saying that beating him up is OK, because it’s not. But it’s not as bad as killing him… So if you’re determined to sin by hurting him, at least don’t kill him.

The words in bold are impermissible. If the confessor said that he would be an accessory before the fact.

It is my assertion (and I will try to find the authoritative source) is that in such a situation, the PRIEST has not done anything wrong. He is counseling a determined sinner to do something less evil than the sinner currently intends to do after repeated failed attempts to dissuade him altogether.

BTW, I never said anything about the principle of double effect applying to this situation.

You are in fact in a situation where double effect applies – and you set it up yourself.

The principle of double effect and the principle of the lesser of two evils are two separate moral principles that may or may not both apply to a given situation. I don’t see how the principle of double effect applies in this situation. I was simply describing what I believe to be a valid application of the principle of the lesser of two evils.

It’s simple – it’s not a matter of the lesser of two evils, since there are more than two options. Secondly, it is never moral to do an immoral thing – and advising someone to beat a man is immoral.

 

[Matt_Collins]

You are in fact in a situation where double effect applies – and you set it up yourself.

All other disagreements aside for the moment…

I don’t see the principle of double effect at all. Can you help me out here?

The principle of double effect applies when you can foresee both a good effect and a bad effect as the natural consequence of your morally good or morally neutral action. The principle helps you decide whether or not you can perform the action.

We agree that beating the man and killing him are both immoral, and therefore, by definition, not a “morally good or morally neutral act”.

Is there something I’m not seeing? I don’t mean this by way of disagreeing with you. I’m trying to understand what you see that I don’t.

Thanks.

 

[mark_a]

There is a Catholic organization for the homeless, here where I live in Canada, where clean drug supplies, condoms etc are given to the most desperate drug and alcohol abusers. The argument is that they are at their wits end, many of whom are dying, and in order stop the spread of HIV, AIDS and Hepatits, this “safe drug” program is needed. The Archbishop supports this program. What are your thoughts? Feedback would be helpful. Shalom!

It is not the Church’s responsibility to to help people sin.

 

[vern_humphrey]

All other disagreements aside for the moment…

I don’t see the principle of double effect at all. Can you help me out here?

The principle of double effect applies when you can foresee both a good effect and a bad effect as the natural consequence of your morally good or morally neutral action. The principle helps you decide whether or not you can perform the action.

We agree that beating the man and killing him are both immoral, and therefore, by definition, not a “morally good or morally neutral act”.

Is there something I’m not seeing? I don’t mean this by way of disagreeing with you. I’m trying to understand what you see that I don’t.

Thanks.

Go back and re-read your posts – you’re confusing principles here. The “bad” effect you visualize is a beating. The “good” effect is the man is not killed.

But as I have pointed out, you have fallen afoul of the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives. Those are not the only two choices the confessor has. And he cannot participate in revenge.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Go back and re-read your posts – you’re confusing principles here. The “bad” effect you visualize is a beating. The “good” effect is the man is not killed.

No, actually the principle of double effect takes as its starting point that the action you are contemplating is either morally neutral or morally good.

So it clearly doesn’t apply to the man who is determined to kill. From his perspective it is wrong to kill the man and it is also wrong to beat him. There is no morally neutral or morally good action in the situation.

From the priest’s point of view, you’ve already said that the priest may not counsel the man to commit a lesser evil. You are asserting that it is immoral for him to do so. So by your own reasoning the principle of double effect doesn’t apply to the priest, either.

I, on the other hand, assert that the priest may counsel a lesser evil, under all the conditions we’ve already discussed. But I’m also saying that the beating is immoral, too. So the principle of double effect doesn’t apply.

The principle of double effect is not used to decide which of two options to take. Rather, it is used to determine whether a morally good/neutral action may be performed when it can be foreseen that it will have both a good effect and a bad effect. But it presumes at the start that the action is not morally bad in itself.

What this means is that the principle of double effect can never be used to justify murder. Nor can it be used to choose between murder and assault.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, actually the principle of double effect takes as its starting point that the action you are contemplating is either morally neutral or morally good.

Which is why you’re confused. You have presented “not killing” as a good outcome.

So it clearly doesn’t apply to the man who is determined to kill. From his perspective it is wrong to kill the man and it is also wrong to beat him. There is no morally neutral or morally good action in the situation.

Correct – and that is why it’s wrong for his confessor to advise him to “only” beat his victim.

From the priest’s point of view, you’ve already said that the priest may not counsel the man to commit a lesser evil. You are asserting that it is immoral for him to do so. So by your own reasoning the principle of double effect doesn’t apply to the priest, either.

Correct – which is why you’re confused. You have inadvertently set up a situation where you have a “good” effect – not killing the victim. But you haven’t realized it.

I, on the other hand, assert that the priest may counsel a lesser evil, under all the conditions we’ve already discussed. But I’m also saying that the beating is immoral, too. So the principle of double effect doesn’t apply.

Which is why your proposition doesn’t meet the test of logic. Remember what I said about the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives?

The principle of double effect is not used to decide which of two options to take. Rather, it is used to determine whether a morally good/neutral action may be performed when it can be foreseen that it will have both a good effect and a bad effect. But it presumes at the start that the action is not morally bad in itself.

Correct – and you have concealed that from yourself. You are presenting a false dilemma where the priest can do “good” by persuading the killer to “only” beat his victim.

What this means is that the principle of double effect can never be used to justify murder. Nor can it be used to choose between murder and assault.

Correct. Which is why it’s a fallacy to introduce the False Dilemma or Fallacy of Limited Alternatives in a make-believe situation like this.

 

[Matt_Collins]

Which is why you’re confused. You have presented “not killing” as a good outcome.

Correct – and that is why it’s wrong for his confessor to advise him to “only” beat his victim.

Correct – which is why you’re confused. You have inadvertently set up a situation where you have a “good” effect – not killing the victim. But you haven’t realized it.

Which is why your proposition doesn’t meet the test of logic. Remember what I said about the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives?

Correct – and you have concealed that from yourself. You are presenting a false dilemma where the priest can do “good” by persuading the killer to “only” beat his victim.

Correct. Which is why it’s a fallacy to introduce the False Dilemma or Fallacy of Limited Alternatives in a make-believe situation like this.

You agree completely, it seems, with my discussion of the principle of double effect, and why it can’t be used to analyze the priest’s options, and then you use it to analyze the priest’s options!

I’ve made no attempt to use the principle of double effect to do that, because it can’t be done.

But just because the principle of double effect can’t be used to analyze the situation doesn’t mean that other principles can’t be used.

I relied on the principle of the lesser of two evils, which is independent of the principle of double effect, yet you continue to conflate the two.

You claim that there is no such thing as the principle of the lesser of two evils, contrary to longstanding (way before Vatican II) Catholic moral theology and pastoral practice.

Since we can’t find any common ground to continue this discussion, I don’t see the point in trying to do so anymore.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You agree completely, it seems, with my discussion of the principle of double effect, and why it can’t be used to analyze the priest’s options, and then you use it to analyze the priest’s options!

Wrong. It’s your conclusions that are faulty. And they are faulty because of the way you have constructed your scenario.

I’ve made no attempt to use the principle of double effect to do that, because it can’t be done.

But you have nevertheless confounded double effect and lesser of two evils in a make-believe false dilemma.

But just because the principle of double effect can’t be used to analyze the situation doesn’t mean that other principles can’t be used.

When you use the Fallacy of False Dilemma (or Fallacy of Limited Alternatives) and wrap up a concealed double effect, you have an argument that is useless for demonstrating any priciple.

I relied on the principle of the lesser of two evils, which is independent of the principle of double effect, yet you continue to conflate the two.

No, you conflated them when you put together this False Dilemma scenario.

You claim that there is no such thing as the principle of the lesser of two evils, contrary to longstanding (way before Vatican II) Catholic moral theology and pastoral practice.

Nope. I didn’t say that. I said you have wrapped up a double effect argument in lesser of two evils clothing, and in the process introduced the False Dilemma fallacy.

Since we can’t find any common ground to continue this discussion, I don’t see the point in trying to do so anymore.

Fine with me.