Using a questionable means for a good end

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s look at it this way. There are all sorts of things which can be used in ‘appropriate’ ways, not-so-appropriate ways, and in inappropriate ways.

The same ‘thing’ can save a life in one situation, or take a life in another. (Take anesthesia, for example. People can die from an appropriate and necessary anesthetic used in surgery. Of course, the goal of the anesthetic isn’t to kill people, but it is such a possibility that in order to give informed consent to surgery-even ‘little’ or ‘routine’ surgery, a person is required to acknowledge that an ‘unforeseen’ result could be that the anesthesia used might kill him/her.)

Furthermore, depending on the person, anesthesia might be more or ‘less’ risky. If there is a family history of reaction, it is more likely that this person will have a reaction too. If the patient is old, the anesthesia is more dangerous; also if the patient is very young. Certain diseases or medications render a higher risk too.

Now, you can say, "Here is a prostitute in Africa with HIV. She is going to keep on prostituting herself so the MORAL thing to do is make her supply condoms or for the ‘johns’ to USE condoms.

So. . .what you’re doing is:

1. Encouraging this prostitute to keep on with prostitution. How does THAT help to bring down the scourge of AIDS? It doesn’t. In fact, the more you ‘encourage’ prostitutes to keep on (with condoms), the more AIDS is likely to spread. Because:
2. Even the shiniest supercool condom on the market can have tiny flaws, be used improperly. . .and the ‘barrier of protection’ is thus gone. But again, you’re encouraging the spread of AIDS because the john doesn’t think, “OMG, I could get AIDS” but, “I don’t have to worry about AIDS, I use a CONDOM so I’m safe safe safe!”
3. And you’re encouraging even more people (not just the terminally ‘sex addicted’ you seem to think are just going to HAVE to HAVE THAT SEX, but also the nebbishes who might otherwise have remained chaste or pursued a monogamous relationship. Because, hey, WE GOT CONDOMS so we are safe-safe-safe–and gee, everybody KNOWS we all GOTTA HAVE SEX because if we don’t things will fall off and we’ll go blind. )

And you know what else? Maybe today, February 17, you ‘saved’ 10 johns from this prostitute and AIDS because “they had condoms”. But maybe on March 3, some john who thinks his condom is ‘safe’ will wind up with a ‘flawed one’ or think it’s okay to ‘reuse’ it or some such. . .and this john, who might have ‘stayed away’ without the protection of the MAGIC CONDOM will wind up infected. Oops, in trying to 'save lives. . .you just DOOMED somebody.

And over the course of this lady’s lifestyle which you are making all ‘safe’ with condom promotion, in the hundreds and thousands of ‘johns’ who come, you’ll rejoice that you ‘saved thousands’ and ignore the dozens who wind up infected (and of COURSE you’ll blame the CHURCH and say, “Give MORE condoms and this won’t happen”) and you’ll ignore that despite all the condoms you throw the disease seems to infect more and more and more. Finally, when you have equipped every person in Africa with a condom and people STILL get the disease, and you won’t HAVE the Church to blame because guess what, the whole world is ‘condomized’, you’ll slap yourselves and start saying, “Wait, people, in order to stop this disease you must stop using condoms–they don’t fully protect AND they don’t deal with the root cause of this whole thing. You should be in monogamous relationships and abstain from sex if you are infected. If you do this then in a generation the disease will be gone”

And the world will laugh at you because, “We GOTTA have SEX. We can’t REFRAIN even if we die from it. With our last breaths we’ll blame the Church, we’ll blame society, we’ll even blame the condoms we have near-canonized, and we’ll blame God–but we’ll never blame ourselves!”

 

[hellopeople]

So. . .what you’re doing is:

1. Encouraging this prostitute to keep on with prostitution. How does THAT help to bring down the scourge of AIDS? It doesn’t. In fact, the more you ‘encourage’ prostitutes to keep on (with condoms), the more AIDS is likely to spread.

I have already said many times there is no way of convincing her of not being a prostitute. She needs to eat and feed her children and this is the only way she can do it. You have already tried as hard as you could to convince her otherwise, but you could not. The only difference you could make is if people use condoms or not.

Because:
2. Even the shiniest supercool condom on the market can have tiny flaws, be used improperly. . .and the ‘barrier of protection’ is thus gone. But again, you’re encouraging the spread of AIDS because the john doesn’t think, “OMG, I could get AIDS” but, “I don’t have to worry about AIDS, I use a CONDOM so I’m safe safe safe!”

This type of attitude would be caused by improper condom education. No one should ever have this attitude and in places where they teach about condoms properly (Uganda) people understand the risks.

1. And you’re encouraging even more people (not just the terminally ‘sex addicted’ you seem to think are just going to HAVE to HAVE THAT SEX, but also the nebbishes who might otherwise have remained chaste or pursued a monogamous relationship. Because, hey, WE GOT CONDOMS so we are safe-safe-safe–and gee, everybody KNOWS we all GOTTA HAVE SEX because if we don’t things will fall off and we’ll go blind. )

**I will use Uganda again. They use LOTS of condoms in Uganda…some of the most in Africa, yet they have a low percentage of people with aids. It is because they teach them that they should remain celibate or have a faithful relationship with someone without aids, but if they have to, use a condom even though it is far from fool proof. Once you actually teach about condoms properly (as in there is still a lot of risk involved, but a less of a risk than not using condoms) people don’t have this feeling you are talking about. **

And you know what else? Maybe today, February 17, you ‘saved’ 10 johns from this prostitute and AIDS because “they had condoms”. But maybe on March 3, some john who thinks his condom is ‘safe’ will wind up with a ‘flawed one’ or think it’s okay to ‘reuse’ it or some such. . .and this john, who might have ‘stayed away’ without the protection of the MAGIC CONDOM will wind up infected. Oops, in trying to 'save lives. . .you just DOOMED somebody.

**Once again, this would be the result of improper condom education. **

And over the course of this lady’s lifestyle which you are making all ‘safe’ with condom promotion, in the hundreds and thousands of ‘johns’ who come, you’ll rejoice that you ‘saved thousands’ and ignore the dozens who wind up infected (and of COURSE you’ll blame the CHURCH and say, “Give MORE condoms and this won’t happen”) and you’ll ignore that despite all the condoms you throw the disease seems to infect more and more and more. Finally, when you have equipped every person in Africa with a condom and people STILL get the disease, and you won’t HAVE the Church to blame because guess what, the whole world is ‘condomized’, you’ll slap yourselves and start saying, “Wait, people, in order to stop this disease you must stop using condoms–they don’t fully protect AND they don’t deal with the root cause of this whole thing. You should be in monogamous relationships and abstain from sex if you are infected. If you do this then in a generation the disease will be gone”

**The last part is what I have been preaching all along. Everyone should be celibate or in monogamous relationships…but if you aren’t going to do that, use a condom. This approach has worked very well in Uganda. Thinking condoms are 100% safe is due to condom miseduation. It can be stopped easily when people are taught about the real risks of using condoms. **

And the world will laugh at you because, “We GOTTA have SEX. We can’t REFRAIN even if we die from it. With our last breaths we’ll blame the Church, we’ll blame society, we’ll even blame the condoms we have near-canonized, and we’ll blame God–but we’ll never blame ourselves!”

My responses in bold. Tell the people the high risks involved in having sex with condoms, but tell them the truth that it is much, MUCH safer than having sex without condoms, and the aids rates will drop. Just look at Uganda!

 

[shondrea]

I was wondering…what about cases that directly involve human life? Like…we all know war is bad, but what of war used to liberate a nation from tyranny? I mean like, if a people were the target of genocide from another people, would it be justifiable to use force or violence to try and save people from being unjustly killed?

 

[Timbothefiveth]

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…

I think the one with the father lying is not morally acceptalbe. He could have said something true, like “I’ll take you to get ice cream”. The one with the beer doesn’t involve stealing.

I was wondering…what about cases that directly involve human life? Like…we all know war is bad, but what of war used to liberate a nation from tyranny? I mean like, if a people were the target of genocide from another people, would it be justifiable to use force or violence to try and save people from being unjustly killed?

You can’t justify an evil for that. For instance, I couldn’t intentionally kill an innocent to save a bunch of people. However, a just was is not an evil, only unjust wars are.

 

[Doc_Keele]

There are problems with both the deontological approach and the consequentialist approach.
It is one position to consider that you can’t use an “immoral means” to obtain a good end, but it is not possible to prove this philosophically. There’s various thought experiments that can demonstrate this eg Sophie’s choice, Sam and the Indians, the unconscious violinist.

 

[shondrea]

I think the one with the father lying is not morally acceptalbe. He could have said something true, like “I’ll take you to get ice cream”. The one with the beer doesn’t involve stealing.

You can’t justify an evil for that. For instance, I couldn’t intentionally kill an innocent to save a bunch of people. However, a just was is not an evil, only unjust wars are.

Oh. Well, what qualifies as a just war? And what if the man was not innocent? Or rather, what defines innocent in a just war?

Also, about the father and the fire…isn’t is likely that he said the first thing that poped into his head? I’m sure in such a situation a father would be panic stricken, and willing to do anything to save his children. Couldn’t it b logical that the prospect of using a lie he could make right would be better, when he’s likely blurted out his first thought?

 

[StrawberryJam]

My responses in bold. Tell the people the high risks involved in having sex with condoms, but tell them the truth that it is much, MUCH safer than having sex without condoms, and the aids rates will drop. Just look at Uganda!

I wish I could comment about what I feel about that issue. Perhaps in the future, I will be able to.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

Oh. Well, what qualifies as a just war? And what if the man was not innocent? Or rather, what defines innocent in a just war?

An innocent would be, at the very least, someone not helping the enemy. For instance, a civilian. To find out what a just war is, I would read up on the just war doctrine. I really can’t explain it well. Basicly, one of the requirements is that the forseeable harm has to be outweighed by the forseeable good that would result from the way.

Also, about the father and the fire…isn’t is likely that he said the first thing that poped into his head? I’m sure in such a situation a father would be panic stricken, and willing to do anything to save his children. Couldn’t it b logical that the prospect of using a lie he could make right would be better, when he’s likely blurted out his first thought?

I don’t know if it’s the first thing he thought of. It’s a fictional story.

 

[shondrea]

Thank you for the answer.

I found a page on this site about just war, and it talked about how it must be a last resort, and how basic human rights, dignity and life but be in great, immenent peril

 

[curlycool89]

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.

Then if they are ignoring what the Church has to say on fidelity why on God’s green earth do they care what the Church says about condoms? If they don’t care about God enough to stay faithful to their spouse then why should they care about what God thinks about birth control.

The answer is that the Church will always promote celibacy for your state of life and never promote sins like birth control. Because blaming the Church for people following the second one is retarded when they don’t follow the first one. It’s hilarious that you don’t realize this.

 

[hellopeople]

I wish I could comment about what I feel about that issue. Perhaps in the future, I will be able to.

I am so confused at this post. What is preventing you from commenting now?

 

[hellopeople]

Then if they are ignoring what the Church has to say on fidelity why on God’s green earth do they care what the Church says about condoms? If they don’t care about God enough to stay faithful to their spouse then why should they care about what God thinks about birth control.

The answer is that the Church will always promote celibacy for your state of life and never promote sins like birth control. Because blaming the Church for people following the second one is retarded when they don’t follow the first one. It’s hilarious that you don’t realize this.

The reasoning is actually quite easy. Christian missionaries probably spend a lot of time talking about the evils of condoms, so when someone has sex, they will think “well condoms are evil, I might as well not use them.” The difference is that sex is an enjoyable experience, and maybe even more so without condoms. If they say condoms are evil, you are still having sex.

 

[curlycool89]

The reasoning is actually quite easy. Christian missionaries probably spend a lot of time talking about the evils of condoms, so when someone has sex, they will think “well condoms are evil, I might as well not use them.” The difference is that sex is an enjoyable experience, and maybe even more so without condoms. If they say condoms are evil, you are still having sex.

“Probably”? Dude, I’m pretty good with words too, and “probably” is a word you use to try and describe a situation that fits your own biases when you have absolutely nothing to back it up with. It’s an almost authoritative word used to dupe people into believing you without having to do all the work of actually proving it. I see right through your facade.

Do you have anything to back this up besides anecdotal evidence? How do you know that they aren’t telling people to be faithful to their spouse and to not have sex before marriage? You’re just throwing out more “the Church is evil” statements based on nothing but your own biases.

 

[rwoehmke]

Hellopeople, The key to your assumption is that condoms are always going to be used effectively and every time. Experience has shown that the ideal is often not reached because humans are what they are. Screw up once and doing it right 99.99 percent of the time doesn’t much help. Young Palin’s boy friend was a recent case in point. On a TV show he was proclaiming how they always practiced “safe sex”. After being pressed,“Well maybe not every time.” Viola, a lovely baby boy! If a smart young first world kid is that dumb about safe sex, what can you expect in less ideal situations? Obviously I have not chosen to accept the narrow two choices of answering the original famous question number 3. We used to get exercises like this back in the early grades in Catholic school. The good Sisters always expected a yes or a no answer with justification, but life is not always so cut and dried. Once again good luck on that Ph.D. in religious studies. I think it would be an interesting line of study.

In fact if the means are questionable and not absolutely wrong in ones mind than the answer might be either way or even a third answer, like take the poor prostitute in and shelter, feed, and clothe her while treating her aids infection. No further need for her to spread the disease.

 

[Doc_Keele]

One of the problems with the Church’s arguments against condoms and some other things is that the statement that something that is intrinsically evil can never be moral even used to achieve a good end. Actually if you analyse this argument, you realise it is completely circular. The conclusion is stated in the premise.

 

[hellopeople]

One of the problems with the Church’s arguments against condoms and some other things is that the statement that something that is intrinsically evil can never be moral even used to achieve a good end. Actually if you analyse this argument, you realise it is completely circular. The conclusion is stated in the premise.

Yes, not quite logical.

 

[shondrea]

A television program I enjoy once worded it like this;

Suppose there is a great evil, one so intristically evil that no other means can bring it down. Do you commit evil to stop them? Or stand back and let it fester. In either way, evil remains.

This program actually uses this question a LOT, and made me look at what I thought about such a thing. I generally do not support morally injust means to a just end, but there are some times where, of there are no other choices, I almost feel it would be a greater sin to stand by and coawdly do nothing. I believe an example someone else brought up in another thread was, if you were a European hiding Jews, and Nazi’s came to your door and asked you if you had Jews in the house, you have two choices-

Lie and save their lives.
Tell the truth and be an accomplice to the slaughter of innocent people.

Lying by it’s very, very core is wrong, but if I were in that situation, I think I would choose to lie and say I had no Jews in the house. I could ask God to forgive me for either sin, but I couldn’t continue to live with myself if I’d chosen to tell the truth and have innocent people killed.

 

[hellopeople]

Lying by it’s very, very core is wrong, but if I were in that situation, I think I would choose to lie and say I had no Jews in the house. I could ask God to forgive me for either sin, but I couldn’t continue to live with myself if I’d chosen to tell the truth and have innocent people killed.

I think the great majority of people would agree with you. But, apparently that goes against the church.

 

[StrawberryJam]

I am so confused at this post. What is preventing you from commenting now?

I’m not able to comment on it without getting worked up and that leads to my bluntness, and that leads to a “lack of charity” and we all know what that leads to.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I think the great majority of people would agree with you. But, apparently that goes against the church.

Sometimes intuition is the best guide.

If you subscribe to virtue ethics or proportionalism, then you would see it’s the moral thing to do to lie.