So if intrinsic goods and not always and only obligations, then how does one know which good is intrinsic or not? I suppose that no intrinsic good has an extrinsic justification but then, what doesn’t have an extrinsic justification? A little help here would go a long ways.An intrinsic good is not necessarily an obligatory good. Religious life is good, but I am not obliged to become a nun. Marriage is good, but I am not obligated to be married.
If you genuinely have two goods that are both intrinsic and (ordinarily) obligatory that conflict, you will simply have to choose one and go with it. God does not expect the impossible, and if it is truly impossible to fulfil both obligations then He won’t expect you to do so.
What I would do is try to discern which is the greater good and plump for doing that. Make the best use of the talents and gifts given me by God. In the case of the soldier, assuming he does have equally serious moral obligations to his country and his parents - and can do more good by saving the country rather than staying at home - he IMHO should fight.
I believe this selection from the CCC should help.So if intrinsic goods and not always and only obligations, then how does one know which good is intrinsic or not? I suppose that no intrinsic good has an extrinsic justification but then, what doesn’t have an extrinsic justification? A little help here would go a long ways.
1723 The beatitude we are promised confronts us with decisive moral choices. It invites us to purify our hearts of bad instincts and to seek the love of God above all else. It teaches us that true happiness is not found in riches or well-being, in human fame or power, or in any human achievement - however beneficial it may be - such as science, technology, and art, or indeed in any creature, but in God alone, the source of every good and of all love:
What is intrinsically good is what is in accord with God’s nature and will.All bow down before wealth. Wealth is that to which the multitude of men pay an instinctive homage. They measure happiness by wealth; and by wealth they measure respectability. . . . It is a homage resulting from a profound faith . . . that with wealth he may do all things. Wealth is one idol of the day and notoriety is a second. . . . Notoriety, or the making of a noise in the world - it may be called “newspaper fame” - has come to be considered a great good in itself, and a ground of veneration.24 1724 The Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, and the apostolic catechesis describe for us the paths that lead to the Kingdom of heaven. Sustained by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we tread them, step by step, by everyday acts. By the working of the Word of Christ, we slowly bear fruit in the Church to the glory of God.25
Literally everything is in some way in accord with God’s nature. What do you mean by this?I believe this selection from the CCC should help.
What is intrinsically good is what is in accord with God’s nature and will.
I don’t understand your question on extrisic justification.
True, but evil isn’t even a “thing” and in so much as it is a “thing” then it is good. For Being is identical with Good.Well sin and evil are most definitely NOT in accord with God’s nature and will - so we can safely say that those things which are intrinsically evil or sinful will not under any circumstances be intrinsically good.
Personally I thought the action was intrinsically evil since it was a sin of omission; not taking care of parents in their need.So many responses whatout what seems to be an obvious answer.
The Prinicple of Double Effect absolutely applies. Go save your country!
Let’s break it down to see the elements of Double Effect.
In this case, the action is going to war. Taking care of your parents is the on-going action you are engaged in, but now special circumstances have arisen. Your country is invaded and you can save thousands of lives by going to her defense. Going to fight is not objectively evil.
- The action cannot be intrinsically evil.
You certainly do not want your parents to die from lack of care.
- The evil results cannot be intended.
The good and bad effects are clearly one two different paths. You would not even be causing your parents death’s per se, merely allowing it to happen because you were not present to care for them.
- The evil effects do not flow from the good results.
Saving thousands is better than saving two.
- The the good effects outweigh the bad and there are sufficiently grave reasons to allow the bad effects.
All 4 criteria for double-effect are met. While this may not be a classic case of double effect, the principle very clearly applies and should resolve the matter. Keep in mind, however, that the Principle of Double Effect merely allows an action with bad results to be taken, it does not mandate that action. If you had no strict obligation to go to war (i.e. you were a civilian) you would not morally have to go, but in good conscience decide to save your parents. However, if you were in the military or indeed the general himself, then it would seem that abandoning your post would be the action we would have to analyze and in that case, you would fail to meet the requirements of double-effect and would not be justified in abandoning your post.
Aquinas makes the argument that non-action is also a sin and plus, accidentally, omission is an action:While not doing something you are supposed to can be sinful, it is not an action in itself. Rather, you are choosing some other action rather than doing one you were supposed to.
Anyway, not taking care of your parents is not the immediate action, and even if it were, it is not objectively evil, but like taking a life, can be justified in circumstances.
Yes but only on some issues that are not germane to the topic. I was just saying that even things which are not obviously actions could still be called actions in some sense, even omissions. So it’s not true that not doing something is always free of vice.I am confused. Are you disagreeing with me? If so, there is nothing in your last post I would disagree with. It still remains a case of double-effect.
Sorry then.I said inaction could be sinful two posts ago. Doesn’t sound like we disagree then.
You may have heard of it before but mental reservation (saying something true but misleading) and double effect (doing something good or neutral in order to gain a good greater than the evil which consequently occurs due to you doing the previous good) I’m sure come into play here. You can both tell the truth and save people.Perhaps a realistic example would be beneficial. It is well and good to say that my going to battle will win the war, but there is no way to know that beforehand. Perhaps an example where the outcomes are relatively knowable before the decision. How about the old standby about hiding someone in your house when their would-be-murderer comes looking for them? Saving life and telling truth are both intrinisic goods, are they not?
Me, I am a firm believer in the lesser of the two evils theory. There is no way to win; you commit the lesser sin and pray that you might receive God’s forgiveness.
Interesting, I would still count mental reservation as deceitful and acquiring guilt, but nevertheless there are very few situations where there are only two choices, so bad example. Perhaps we should dispense with examples with evil in the mix and look at a choice between two intrinsic goods. How about a choice of vocation between medical doctor and teacher, assuming you would be equally proficient at both? Are providing health and providing wisdom both intrinisic goods? If they are then it does not seem to matter much which you choose.You may have heard of it before but mental reservation (saying something true but misleading) and double effect (doing something good or neutral in order to gain a good greater than the evil which consequently occurs due to you doing the previous good) I’m sure come into play here. You can both tell the truth and save people.
Also an interesting example.Interesting, I would still count mental reservation as deceitful and acquiring guilt, but nevertheless there are very few situations where there are only two choices, so bad example. Perhaps we should dispense with examples with evil in the mix and look at a choice between two intrinsic goods. How about a choice of vocation between medical doctor and teacher, assuming you would be equally proficient at both? Are providing health and providing wisdom both intrinisic goods? If they are then it does not seem to matter much which you choose.