Using a questionable means for a good end

[hellopeople]

I keep hearing that you should never use an immoral means for a greater good. I don’t agree with this at all. The philosophical example that seems to come up is always killing 1 person to save 100 or something like that. This has no practical relevance as the situation has probably never happened in all of history…but let me give you a few examples of things how things that are intrinsically “wrong” actually are for the better.

1. You are hanging out with someone that has had far too much to drink. They are continuing to drink despite your pleading with them. They are so drunk that if they keep drinking they will no doubt be out of control and hurt themselves, others, or even yourself. You have the oppurtunity to steal their alcohol from them so they cannot drink anymore. Stealing is something that is wrong, right? Would this be a bad thing to do because you are doing an evil thing for the greater good.
2. I will use an example from a buddhist text entitled the lotus sutra. I will change it a little bit, but still keep in tact the message. A father comes home to see that his house is on fire. His three small children are within the house. They have started the fire and are worried that they will be in trouble, so they stay in the house despite their father’s pleading. He also knows that if he tries to go into the fire and save them, they will run even deeper into the house to try to hide. He realizes this and tells them that there is a special cart for each of them outside. They come running out of the fire excited for their presents, but the carts do not exist. This man was able to save his children from the fire by lying. Is this wrong? Should he have not lied to them?
3. This one will be the most contreversial. Suggesting that a prostitute infected with HIV in Africa makes all of her clients wear condoms. There is no way that you can convince this protitute to pick another type of work. She has to eat and selling her body is the only way to make it happen. If you convince her to make her clients wear condoms, it will prevent hundreds of people a year from contracting HIV and dying in horrible agony. Also, one must consider that the act of being a prostitute or going to a prostitute is a mortal sin and using a condom while doing so could be considered another mortal sin, but it only takes one to send someone to hell, right? So either they confess two mortal sins, or confess none, and they are in the same exact boat if they didn’t use the condom (either forgiven or not forgiven for a mortal sin depending on if they go to confession) except they haven’t contracted HIV because of the condom.

What are your opinions on these three things? Would you let your friend jeapordize lives, would you let your children die in a fire, and would you prevent the spreading of HIV?

 

[Hlafdige]

Legislators in framing laws attend to what commonly happens: although if the law be applied to certain cases it will frustrate the equality of justice and be injurious to the common good, which the law has in view. Thus the law requires deposits to be restored, because in the majority of cases this is just. Yet it happens sometimes to be injurious–for instance, if a madman were to put his sword in deposit, and demand its delivery while in a state of madness, or if a man were to seek the return of his deposit in order to fight against his country. On these and like cases it is bad to follow the law, and it is good to set aside the letter of the law and to follow the dictates of justice and the common good. This is the object of “epikeia” which we call equity. Therefore it is evident that “epikeia” is a virtue.
(St. Thomas Aquinas - source: newadvent.org/summa/3120.htm)

This applies to your example 1.

#2 would probably be an example of mental reservation - the father doesn’t have literal “carts” but does have a great good waiting for his children outside the house, namely safety.

#3 would be depending on the end to justify the means - this is not moral. No earthly good is worth one mortal sin. You seem yourself to have realized that this example is different from the others.

 

[hellopeople]

#3 would be depending on the end to justify the means - this is not moral. No earthly good is worth one mortal sin. You seem yourself to have realized that this example is different from the others.

I know that number 3 is different from the others because of how condoms are looked at on this board. I mean many people on these forums think this world would be a better place if condoms and birth control did not exist at all. Well I completely disagree with that.

As for number 3, why does it even make a difference? OK, lets assume two things:
1 that if you die in a state of mortal sin, that you go to hell (and condoms and prostitution are mortal sins).

2 if you go to confession, your sins are forgiven.

So what does an added mortal sin do? If you go to the prostitute and don’t repent, you are going to hell if you use a condom or not. Right? If you go to confession, you are absolved of all mortal sins if you used a condom or not, right? So in terms of how worthy you are of heaven, the condom doesn’t make one bit of difference at all. Does anyone have an argument against this?

 

[DL82]

I know that number 3 is different from the others because of how condoms are looked at on this board. I mean many people on these forums think this world would be a better place if condoms and birth control did not exist at all. Well I completely disagree with that.

As for number 3, why does it even make a difference? OK, lets assume two things:
1 that if you die in a state of mortal sin, that you go to hell (and condoms and prostitution are mortal sins).

2 if you go to confession, your sins are forgiven.

So what does an added mortal sin do? If you go to the prostitute and don’t repent, you are going to hell if you use a condom or not. Right? If you go to confession, you are absolved of all mortal sins if you used a condom or not, right? So in terms of how worthy you are of heaven, the condom doesn’t make one bit of difference at all. Does anyone have an argument against this?

The only argument against this is that we are endowed with free will. It is not the case that the prostitute has no choice but to commit sin. If you are denying that she has any choice not to sin, then you are denying her basic humanity. If you are saying that her social circumstances might make it very difficult not to sin, that may well be very true, and that is a situation we should all be gravely concerned to put an end to. To simply accept that that is the way it is, is to be guilty of complaicency toward the moral and material suffering and degradation of others.

 

[hellopeople]

The only argument against this is that we are endowed with free will. It is not the case that the prostitute has no choice but to commit sin. If you are denying that she has any choice not to sin, then you are denying her basic humanity. If you are saying that her social circumstances might make it very difficult not to sin, that may well be very true, and that is a situation we should all be gravely concerned to put an end to. To simply accept that that is the way it is, is to be guilty of complaicency toward the moral and material suffering and degradation of others.

Obviously she has the choice not to sin. But if she doesn’t sin, she will not be able to eat, and has no problem with it morally. Lets say that you have tried, 100% to stop her from doing what she is doing, but there is no possible way to get her to stop. She will not stop, she doesn’t believe it is wrong, and there is nothing that will convince her to stop her ways. The only difference you can make is if her customers wear a condom at all.

Although I think this is very plausible story it is a hypothetical as well. Just take it as it is. The only difference you can make is making her clients wearicondoms or not, and if they do not wear condoms hundreds of people a year will be infected with hiv…and who knows how many they will then go on to infect. You have tried every avenue to make her stop, but she will not under any circumstances stop, so that can’t be your argument.

 

[davidv]

Obviously she has the choice not to sin. But if she doesn’t sin, she will not be able to eat,

There are other, non-sinful ways to get food.

and has no problem with it morally. Lets say that you have tried, 100% to stop her from doing what she is doing, but there is no possible way to get her to stop. She will not stop, she doesn’t believe it is wrong, and there is nothing that will convince her to stop her ways. The only difference you can make is if her customers wear a condom at all.

Condom use doesn’t diminish her sin.

Although I think this is very plausible story it is a hypothetical as well. Just take it as it is. The only difference you can make is making her clients wearicondoms or not, and if they do not wear condoms hundreds of people a year will be infected with hiv…and who knows how many they will then go on to infect. You have tried every avenue to make her stop, but she will not under any circumstances stop, so that can’t be your argument.

Whether the clients wear condoms, or not, they are also in sin. It is still her sin, even if you fail to get her to stop.

 

[hellopeople]

There are other, non-sinful ways to get food.

Condom use doesn’t diminish her sin.
Whether the clients wear condoms, or not, they are also in sin. It is still her sin, even if you fail to get her to stop.

If it is a sin or not is not the issue. The issue is if it is worth it to promote condom use to prevent hundreds of people from dying from aids every year.

 

[curlycool89]

1. I think we’d call that being prudent. If I was drinking out of control, I’d hope I’d have a friend who’d get me to stop, even if it means dumping my drink out.
2. It would be a white lie. Not all lies constitute a grave matter needed for it to be a mortal sin.
3. As above, there’s no reason that she has to be a prostitute. She doesn’t eat otherwise? Sometimes it happens. It’s sad, but there’s always another non-sinful way. There was an AAA question while back about this (why shouldn’t you sin if you’ve already sinned?). If you are truly sorry for your sins, for having offended and rejected God, and you die without being able to make it to confession by no fault of your own you may still go to Heaven. If you continue to sin or do another sin then you are just continuing to reject God.

You need to put God first and yourself last. The cross will be heavy, there is no doubt of that. Sometimes you just need to give it all up, for the glory of God.

Condoms are not the issue. The issue is that people are sleeping around. And people think that they can change the entire culture to shoehorn condoms in, but they don’t think that they can change it to promote fidelity. It’s so hypocritical.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

You have the oppurtunity to steal their alcohol from them so they cannot drink anymore. Stealing is something that is wrong, right? Would this be a bad thing to do because you are doing an evil thing for the greater good.

This isn’t stealing, this is taking his drink away. If you saw a drunk and you decided to steal his drink and sell it, and it stopped him from getting drunk, it wouldn’t be moral because you’d still be stealing. If you just took his drink away, it’s probably fine.

 

[StrawberryJam]

If it is a sin or not is not the issue. The issue is if it is worth it to promote condom use to prevent hundreds of people from dying from aids every year.

Catholic teaching after the late 60’s says it is not an option on the table to discuss. Rome has spoken “case closed”. It’s not even up for debate in the catholic church. Merits or not, they can not move or budge from that stand now. They were not aware of the Aids dillemma at the time they drafted the document HV.

 

[rwoehmke]

If it is a sin or not is not the issue. The issue is if it is worth it to promote condom use to prevent hundreds of people from dying from aids every year.

Studies independent of the Catholic Church ( I believe one of them was carried out by someone at Harvard have shown that condoms atre not very effective at preventing the spread of aids/hiv in an African country. The study showed that teaching abstinence, spousal faithfulness, etc. were much more effective and actually dramitically lowered the spread of the disease in at least one country in Africa. In short those abominable rubbers do not get the job done. It seems that do the crime serve the time has taken on real meaning.

In my most humble opinion your posts on the forum, that I have read, seem designed to shake up the troops. What exactly is your game?

 

[hellopeople]

Studies independent of the Catholic Church ( I believe one of them was carried out by someone at Harvard have shown that condoms atre not very effective at preventing the spread of aids/hiv in an African country. The study showed that teaching abstinence, spousal faithfulness, etc. were much more effective and actually dramitically lowered the spread of the disease in at least one country in Africa. In short those abominable rubbers do not get the job done. It seems that do the crime serve the time has taken on real meaning.

In my most humble opinion your posts on the forum, that I have read, seem designed to shake up the troops. What exactly is your game?

I will not lie…I made this post to make people think about certain things. It seems universally accepted that number 1 and number 2 are morally right things to do. But, there is no doubt that these things each break a commandment…and I have never read stipulations about when it is right to break these commandments. I just keep hearing that the church never promotes using a questionable means for a perceived good end, and I have come up with two examples of just that that everyone seems to be accepting as just fine.

As for the third one, I just wanted to get your opinion on the whole condom issue. Everyone is kind of dancing around the question though. The question is EXTREMELY simple. Would you convince a prostitute to use condoms if it saved hundreds of people from getting aids every year? That is it. You can’t say “well you should convince them not to be a prostitute” or something. This is a hypothetical that is plausible, but still a hypothetical. The only difference you can make is if she uses condoms or not and if she does not use condoms hundreds of people each year will be infected with aids.

So that is the choice: 1) promote condom use or 2)let hundreds of people each year get aids. You MUST pick one or the other. Don’t play ethical gymnastics here trying to get out of this question.

In my opinion number 1 is a no brainer. Prostitution is already a sinful act…in my opinion it doesn’t become more sinful because of the condoms.

I understand the church’s view on abortion. That makes a lot of sense. Not getting abortions is saving lives…and so are condoms in Africa. The church supports one and not the other though. It doesn’t make sense to me personally, and I think that anyone that would opt for choice 2 of letting hundreds of people die each year of aids hasn’t thought it through. I guarantee that any good Christian that went to Africa and saw the people dying of aids in horrible ways (even children) then they might change their stances on condoms.

So please, from now on, anyone looking to comment on the condom promotion to an African prostitute pick either 1) promote condom use or 2)let hundreds of people each year get aids.

 

[curlycool89]

As for the third one, I just wanted to get your opinion on the whole condom issue. Everyone is kind of dancing around the question though.

You seemed to have missed my answer.

1. As above, there’s no reason that she has to be a prostitute. She doesn’t eat otherwise? Sometimes it happens. It’s sad, but there’s always another non-sinful way. There was an AAA question while back about this (why shouldn’t you sin if you’ve already sinned?). If you are truly sorry for your sins, for having offended and rejected God, and you die without being able to make it to confession by no fault of your own you may still go to Heaven. If you continue to sin or do another sin then you are just continuing to reject God.

You need to put God first and yourself last. The cross will be heavy, there is no doubt of that. Sometimes you just need to give it all up, for the glory of God.

Condoms are not the issue. The issue is that people are sleeping around. And people think that they can change the entire culture to shoehorn condoms in, but they don’t think that they can change it to promote fidelity. It’s so hypocritical.

The question is EXTREMELY simple. Would you convince a prostitute to use condoms if it saved hundreds of people from getting aids every year? That is it. You can’t say “well you should convince them not to be a prostitute” or something. This is a hypothetical that is plausible, but still a hypothetical. The only difference you can make is if she uses condoms or not and if she does not use condoms hundreds of people each year will be infected with aids.

It’s not a reasonable hypothetical, it’s a manufactured situation you created in order to get faithful Catholic to directly or indirectly affirm your own immoral position. We’re not stupid, we can tell when we’re being used or duped.

So that is the choice: 1) promote condom use or 2)let hundreds of people each year get aids. You MUST pick one or the other. Don’t play ethical gymnastics here trying to get out of this question.

In my opinion number 1 is a no brainer. Prostitution is already a sinful act…in my opinion it doesn’t become more sinful because of the condoms.

Read what I put above. It is absolutely more sinful. When you sin you are rejecting God, and if you keep sinning you continue to reject God. Also, you could not simply go to confession once a week if you do not affirm to stop sinning. You cannot be absolved if you are not sorry for your sins. If you are compounding sins on sins like that it becomes apparent that you are in fact not sorry.

So please, from now on, anyone looking to comment on the condom promotion to an African prostitute pick either 1) promote condom use or 2)let hundreds of people each year get aids.

We belong to God. We have free will but that does not give us the right to do evil and reject God by committing a sin.

Death, although tragic and most likely not part of God’s original plan for humanity, is now a natural part of life. It happens to all of us. We can try to help ourselves using morally licit medicine, but we always need to remember that we all die in the end. No exceptions. Whether by disease, natural disaster, killed by someone, or natural causes we will all die in the end.

But death is not the end of the story. For those who have had their sins absolved and commit to living a life for God alone free from sin, no matter how much suffering they go through whether it is starving or dying from disease those who stay faithful will have eternal life. Life on earth is but a hundred years, but eternal life in Christ is forever.

 

[hellopeople]

Death, although tragic and most likely not part of God’s original plan for humanity, is now a natural part of life. It happens to all of us. We can try to help ourselves using morally licit medicine, but we always need to remember that we all die in the end. No exceptions. Whether by disease, natural disaster, killed by someone, or natural causes we will all die in the end.

But death is not the end of the story. For those who have had their sins absolved and commit to living a life for God alone free from sin, no matter how much suffering they go through whether it is starving or dying from disease those who stay faithful will have eternal life. Life on earth is but a hundred years, but eternal life in Christ is forever.

So you would think it would be more moral to not promote condoms and let hundreds of people a year die of aids when it could have been easily prevented.

 

[rwoehmke]

So you would think it would be more moral to not promote condoms and let hundreds of people a year die of aids when it could have been easily prevented.

You assume that condoms are an effective means of preventing aids, when evidence is to the contrary. Other posters are correct in saying this is a false hypothetical situation.

 

[curlycool89]

So you would think it would be more moral to not promote condoms and let hundreds of people a year die of aids when it could have been easily prevented.

People did every year. In this case it’s easily preventable by just not having sex with everyone and everything. Why don’t you promote that?

 

[davidv]

If it is a sin or not is not the issue. The issue is if it is worth it to promote condom use to prevent hundreds of people from dying from aids every year.

But “sin” is the true issue. No sin is worth any perceived good that may be desired.

In addition, there an non-sinful ways to prevent people from dying from aids.

 

[hellopeople]

You assume that condoms are an effective means of preventing aids, when evidence is to the contrary. Other posters are correct in saying this is a false hypothetical situation.

This is completely wrong. Evidence shows that if you just push condom use and say “hey, use condoms and you won’t prevent aids” then it likely won’t do much. But if you promote Abstinence, faithful partnerships, and then, if you choose to have sex otherwise, which is advised against, use a condom, it is the MOST effective way. And in terms of a prostitute who has hiv and is going to be having sex anyway, can you please tell me how her using condoms would not prevent the spread of aids? That is ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

If you are having sex with someone with HIV, the risk of catching it is MUCH smaller if you are using a condom. No one in their right mind would disagree with this.

 

[hellopeople]

People did every year. In this case it’s easily preventable by just not having sex with everyone and everything. Why don’t you promote that?

Because people have sex anyway…The church says don’t have sex and then tells people not to use condoms. So when people do have sex, which MANY do, they don’t use condoms. There is no doubt in my mind that if the church was not promoting this message of abstinence only the HIV epidemic in Africa would not be as bad. If the church said “look, you really should be abstinent, but if you are not it is much safer to use a condom.” When the church leaves out that second part of the equation, people get AIDS. IF everyone could stay abstinent, aids wouldn’t really exist…considering such a large population has aids though, you have to realize that many people are disregarding the abstinence only message.

 

[hellopeople]

This is a quote from the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/condom.htm

**"Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. ****Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners. **The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. "

Uganda has been most effective in lowering rates of HIV in their country. They promote abstinence, monogamous relationships, AND CONDOMS.

Condoms are very effective in the fight against aids, you just have to market abstinence first. BUT not everyone is going to stay abstinent, and those people should know that if they are having sex, which isn’t recommended, they should use condoms.

But, this is besides the point. If someone doesn’t think that you could go to africa and find a prostitute that has HIV and will not under any circumstances stop being a prostitute is fooling themselves. If someone thinks that if this person uses condoms or not would not effect the rate at which she spreads HIV, they are obviously clueless.

So, this hypothetical situation is actually quite legitimate. So, do you promote condom use, or tell her not to use condoms knowing it will infect hundreds of people a year with the virus? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION.