The Value of Suffering v. Consequential

[casabolg]

I am making a response to this post here:
catholic.com/magazine/articles/a-pope%E2%80%99s-answer-to-the-problem-of-pain

Generally, while I like these arguments, it mentions using suffering to attain a good. How is this different from consequentialism, which is dismissed by the church?

 

[JamalChristophr]

Can you tell us what consequentalism is? I’m not familiar with the term.

 

[casabolg]

Can you tell us what consequentalism is? I’m not familiar with the term.

The notion of what determines something as good is the end result of something. Through consequentialism, no matter what is done as long as it is to a good end then it was a good action. This denies that there are actions intrinsically bad, which is against Christianity. Granted, you could make an argument all those actions are bad actions because they come with a bad result.

Anyway, the argument of these sufferings have value because they can make good is a deliberate call to saying that suffering is good because of the result.

 

[Rhubarb]

I don’t think a rejection of consequentialism means you must reject that acts have good or bad consequences. It just rejects the idea that those consequences are what make a moral proposition true or false.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Consequentialism: The view that actions are right or wrong SOLELY on the basis of their consequences.

Saying that “suffering can be justified by good consequences” does not suggest that good consequences are the *only *value at play here. Consequences are relevant moral factors in decision-making, as all moral theologians will agree.