Why don't the ends justify the means but God can permit evil to draw out a greater good?

[Estevao]

I’m new to Catholicism and this is a genuine question. I heard in RCIA that we must never do an evil action even for good ends. So this question came up to me.

Take fornication for an example. Fornication is evil. But making another child is good—a greater good, as there can be a child born who is destined for the glory of the beatific vision.

Why isn’t fornication okay if there is a greater good (a child born destined for the glory of the beatific vision) brought out of it?

What’s the difference between this and God permitting evil “so as to draw out a greater good”, à la the response of Augustine and Aquinas (ST, I, q. 2, a. 3, ad 1)?

If God gets off the hook for permitting evil such as Auschwitz because there’s something good coming out of it, why is fornication wrong? Why can’t we just permit fornication if what is coming out of it is good?

Is this a false dichotomy?

 

[fhansen]

No matter how we look at it, God’s act was simply to give certain beings good gifts: the power of reason and free wills, and then command them to use these gifts wisely, to do good rather than evil. You’re suggesting that we do the opposite: to promote an evil act that good may come out of it, good that we can’t even truly predict since we lack the foreknowledge that God, alone, possesses.

 

[meltzerboy]

I’m new to Catholicism and this is a genuine question. I heard in RCIA that we must never do an evil action even for good ends. So this question came up to me.

Take fornication for an example. Fornication is evil. But making another child is good—a greater good, as there can be a child born who is destined for the glory of the beatific vision.

Why isn’t fornication okay if there is a greater good (a child born destined for the glory of the beatific vision) brought out of it?

What’s the difference between this and God permitting evil “so as to draw out a greater good”, à la the response of Augustine and Aquinas (ST, I, q. 2, a. 3, ad 1)?

If God gets off the hook for permitting evil such as Auschwitz because there’s something good coming out of it, why is fornication wrong? Why can’t we just permit fornication if what is coming out of it is good?

Is this a false dichotomy?

I think there is a difference between G-d’s PERMITTING evil and turning it into something good and our COMMITTING evil and hoping that good results from it. G-d does NOT wish us to commit evil, but since He gave us free will, it is our choice, so that if we do commit evil, G-d is capable of making something good result from it.

 

[Memaw]

I’m new to Catholicism and this is a genuine question. I heard in RCIA that we must never do an evil action even for good ends. So this question came up to me.

Take fornication for an example. Fornication is evil. But making another child is good—a greater good, as there can be a child born who is destined for the glory of the beatific vision.

Why isn’t fornication okay if there is a greater good (a child born destined for the glory of the beatific vision) brought out of it?

What’s the difference between this and God permitting evil “so as to draw out a greater good”, à la the response of Augustine and Aquinas (ST, I, q. 2, a. 3, ad 1)?

If God gets off the hook for permitting evil such as Auschwitz because there’s something good coming out of it, why is fornication wrong? Why can’t we just permit fornication if what is coming out of it is good?

Is this a false dichotomy?

Yes it certainly is false. God does “permit” evil because we have the tremondus gift of a FREE WILL. We would be no more than an animal without it. But HE doesn’t want us to use that free will for evil. If we do anyway, with God’s Grace we can overcome the evil and he can bring good out of it. Like the Thief on the Cross. God doesn’t punish the child for the sins of the parents. Every child is a gift from God from the beginning even tho the parents were sinning at the time of its conception. Our reproductive systems were set up that way from the beginning. To use them in a sinful way doesn’t alter their normal functions. The human mind baffels me as to how it can try to out smart God with its thinking but don’t fall for that. Trust God and HIS Church. She is a wise Mother and the best on this earth. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Gorgias]

I think there is a difference between G-d’s PERMITTING evil and turning it into something good and our COMMITTING evil and hoping that good results from it.

This.

Even if we have a pretty good understanding that something good might proceed from an evil action, we cannot commit that evil action. God does not commit evil actions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think there is a difference between G-d’s PERMITTING evil and turning it into something good and our COMMITTING evil and hoping that good results from it. G-d does NOT wish us to commit evil, but since He gave us free will, it is our choice, so that if we do commit evil, G-d is capable of making something good result from it.

This is, I think, a good general answer, but there are additional considerations that need to be stated.

If we take a teleological view of the “good” such that events are ordered towards good ends, such a view makes a difference in terms of prioritizing actions. Some ends are more “good” than other ends.

Take, for example, a surgeon who must decide between saving the life of a cancer patient or removing the patient’s leg. Removing the leg is decidedly not “a good thing.” In fact, as a privation of the man’s physical wholeness, it is a decidedly evil act. Yet, allowing the man to die of cancer by not removing the leg would be more evil. Therefore, the surgeon removes the leg, not “in the hopes” that doing so will save the patient, but because of a certain level of certainty that it will.

Therefore, even humans are in a position, at times, to choose between the “lesser of two evils” and must make a definitive choice of one of them. In the case of the surgeon, removing the leg is preferable to letting the man die, and since those are the two clear results,the surgeon opts for the lesser evil of the two.

I would suggest that it is the teleological nature of “the good” and the fact that final “goods” or ends can be prioritized (living with one leg is better than dying) that does make choosing the lesser of two evils or permitting evil to bring about a greater good to be necessary at times, even for human beings.

Since God is in a much better position (in eternity) to judge the value of temporal events relative to final ends, he is much more competent to do so. This reaffirms Meltzerboy’s point.

That said, however, it is also a teaching of the Church that some evils are “intrinsically” evil, that it would never be permissible to commit an intrinsic evil since, logically, there would be no circumstances under which such evils could be justified. These would pertain, I suspect, to the highest order of “final goods” for which no lesser goods could ever justify actions in conflict with those highest goods. There is debate, however, around the nature of intrinsic evils and what qualifies as such.

 

[oldcelt]

I know that this will make very few happy here, but what living parent allows terrible things to happen to their children when they have the power to stop it? What loving parent would create a being to constantly tempt and harass their children, and then create a place to put the children for being bad…a place that they can never leave.

This concept of our condemning ourselves to hell is comparatively new. The first time I remember hearing that n******se was during the early Charismatic Renewal. Before that it was God sending you there, plain and simple. Come on, that is the purpose of a judgement isn’t it? Whoever came up with the idea I would bet is standing on thin ice theologically.

The Abrahamic/Christian model of God makes no sense when one looks at the whole sweep of what is attributed to that God.

That’s it. I don’t have much to add, so no sense in firing tons of questions at me…I won’t have the time to answer them as I am editing a thesis for a friend.

John

 

[meltzerboy]

This is, I think, a good general answer, but there are additional considerations that need to be stated.

If we take a teleological view of the “good” such that events are ordered towards good ends, such a view makes a difference in terms of prioritizing actions. Some ends are more “good” than other ends.

Take, for example, a surgeon who must decide between saving the life of a cancer patient or removing the patient’s leg. Removing the leg is decidedly not “a good thing.” In fact, as a privation of the man’s physical wholeness, it is a decidedly evil act. Yet, allowing the man to die of cancer by not removing the leg would be more evil. Therefore, the surgeon removes the leg, not “in the hopes” that doing so will save the patient, but because of a certain level of certainty that it will.

Therefore, even humans are in a position, at times, to choose between the “lesser of two evils” and must make a definitive choice of one of them. In the case of the surgeon, removing the leg is preferable to letting the man die, and since those are the two clear results,the surgeon opts for the lesser evil of the two.

I would suggest that it is the teleological nature of “the good” and the fact that final “goods” or ends can be prioritized (living with one leg is better than dying) that does make choosing the lesser of two evils or permitting evil to bring about a greater good to be necessary at times, even for human beings.

Since God is in a much better position (in eternity) to judge the value of temporal events relative to final ends, he is much more competent to do so. This reaffirms Meltzerboy’s point.

That said, however, it is also a teaching of the Church that some evils are “intrinsically” evil, that it would never be permissible to commit an intrinsic evil since, logically, there would be no circumstances under which such evils could be justified. These would pertain, I suspect, to the highest order of “final goods” for which no lesser goods could ever justify actions in conflict with those highest goods. There is debate, however, around the nature of intrinsic evils and what qualifies as such.

I am not so sure your example of a cancer patient whose leg must be removed by a surgeon to save his life best illustrates choosing the lesser of two evils. That is because in the context of saving the man’s life, removal of his leg is, I believe, not at all an evil act precisely since it is done for the purpose of saving his life. Similarly, according to Jewish teaching, both the Sabbath and Yom Kippur can, and must, be broken if saving a person’s life or insuring their health is required. What would ordinarily be viewed as sinful is no longer regarded as such in the context of saving the life of another human being. A further example is suicide, which normally is considered to be sinful, but is not when a person is acting as a martyr for the faith by refusing to commit idolatry. Indeed to do otherwise, in the case of the surgeon as well as the person who breaks the Sabbath requirement of rest or commits suicide, would itself be regarded as a sinful act.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not so sure your example of a cancer patient whose leg must be removed by a surgeon to save his life best illustrates choosing the lesser of two evils. That is because in the context of saving the man’s life, removal of his leg is, I believe, not at all an evil act precisely since it is done for the purpose of saving his life. Similarly, according to Jewish teaching, both the Sabbath and Yom Kippur can, and must, be broken if saving a person’s life or insuring their health is required. What would ordinarily be viewed as sinful is no longer regarded as such in the context of saving the life of another human being. A further example is suicide, which normally is considered to be sinful, but is not when a person is a martyr for the faith by refusing to commit idolatry. Indeed to do otherwise, in the case of the surgeon as well as the person who breaks the Sabbath requirement of rest or commits suicide, would itself be regarded as a sinful act.

This would seem to be a semantic, rather than essential difference.

My preference would be toward a classical view of evil as privation. When the wholesomeness of beings or creatures or the properly ordered function or purpose of events is negated that is in some sense “evil.” Whether some evils can be called “moral” evil (in your sense) is a question of intent of the agent as well as circumstance and the nature of the act itself, but the loss of a leg is unquestionably NOT a “good” thing. Having two legs is “good” as far as humans are concerned and losing one of them is a deprivation of that good state, and thus “evil” in the classical sense.

 

[mikekle]

Whats really strange is in clearly evil acts, like incest, rape or other such acts, is when the female gets pregnant!! I find it troubling God would see fit to breathe life into a fetus stemming from such evil…especially when most of these babies are aborted, and God would most definitely know this beforehand too, so why would be breathe life into the fetus, knowing full well, the circumstances and that the female will abort the baby due to the evil act?

The only thing I can find to explain this, is that creating a baby does not really require any action of God, but we were taught ANYTHING, whether its a honeybee to a human fetus, absolutely requires God to breathe life into it so it can be born…So, is this wrong, or?

 

[Amandil]

I know that this will make very few happy here, but what living parent allows terrible things to happen to their children when they have the power to stop it? What loving parent would create a being to constantly tempt and harass their children, and then create a place to put the children for being bad…a place that they can never leave.

This concept of our condemning ourselves to hell is comparatively new. The first time I remember hearing that n******se was during the early Charismatic Renewal. Before that it was God sending you there, plain and simple. Come on, that is the purpose of a judgement isn’t it? Whoever came up with the idea I would bet is standing on thin ice theologically.

The Abrahamic/Christian model of God makes no sense when one looks at the whole sweep of what is attributed to that God.

That’s it. I don’t have much to add, so no sense in firing tons of questions at me…I won’t have the time to answer them as I am editing a thesis for a friend.

John

And since I’m sure firing a bunch of questions at you which others I’m sure have already asked you before, and which you apparently have dismissed because they don’t fit your ideology, would obviously be a giant waste of time.

Again, its not that there aren’t sound and valid answers, its just that you prefer your ideas over and against those sound and valid challenges to those ideas.

 

[Gorgias]

I know that this will make very few happy here

no problems – we’re here to discuss, right?

what living parent allows terrible things to happen to their children when they have the power to stop it?

Every parent who doesn’t treat their adult children as if they were incapable of making their own decisions.

This, as it were, is the weakest argument that atheists offer. On one hand, they profess to espouse ‘free thinking’, and on the other, they castigate God for allowing humanity freely to make their own choices.

What loving parent would create a being to constantly tempt and harass their children

There’s a distinct error in that characterization: God didn’t create Lucifer “to constantly tempt and harass” humanity.

and then create a place to put the children for being bad…a place that they can never leave.

It’s not a place “for being bad” as much as it’s the place for those to go who demonstrate that they do not wish to spend eternity with God.

This concept of our condemning ourselves to hell is comparatively new.

That’s just semantics, isn’t it?

Before that it was God sending you there, plain and simple.

Based on your own actions, that is! God doesn’t “send you” anywhere, unjustly!

Come on, that is the purpose of a judgement isn’t it?

A judgment isn’t a capricious decision, however; it’s an assessment of a distinct reality.

The Abrahamic/Christian model of God makes no sense when one looks at the whole sweep of what is attributed to that God.

Says you.

 

[oldcelt]

Whats really strange is in clearly evil acts, like incest, rape or other such acts, is when the female gets pregnant!! I find it troubling God would see fit to breathe life into a fetus stemming from such evil…especially when most of these babies are aborted, and God would most definitely know this beforehand too, so why would be breathe life into the fetus, knowing full well, the circumstances and that the female will abort the baby due to the evil act?

The only thing I can find to explain this, is that creating a baby does not really require any action of God, but we were taught ANYTHING, whether its a honeybee to a human fetus, absolutely requires God to breathe life into it so it can be born…So, is this wrong, or?

One could say that, Infidelity and premarital sexx leading to pregnancy fall in that category.

 

[oldcelt]

And since I’m sure firing a bunch of questions at you which others I’m sure have already asked you before, and which you apparently have dismissed because they don’t fit your ideology, would obviously be a giant waste of time.

Again, its not that there aren’t sound and valid answers, its just that you prefer your ideas over and against those sound and valid challenges to those ideas.

I have tried to answer all your questions…you just don’t like the answers. There are many varieties of Deism…it is not a religion…it is a belief system that is very open to other ideas. That makes answers frustrating to those who seek doctrine for an answer.
It ain’t there, but there is plenty of good information easily available on the net.

 

[Peter_Plato]

One could say that, Infidelity and premarital sexx leading to pregnancy fall in that category.

They also fall into the category of “actions entail consequences” and that the actions undertaken by each of us as moral agents have real, important and tangible effects on ourselves and on others which ought not be taken lightly because we are accountable for what we think and do.

The paradigm contra-example is that God himself could have avoided the consequences of sin, held himself immune by assuming a “deistic” stance far, far away from the consequences of human choices, but he didn’t. He assumed flesh, walked the Earth, was mocked, tried, condemned, vilified, whipped and crucified.

So the question asked by mikekle could very well be turned around and framed as why "God would see fit to breathe life into a fetus [Jesus, ending in] … such evil…especially when …God would most definitely know this beforehand too, so why would be breathe life into the fetus, knowing full well, the circumstances and that the… [man, Jesus, would be crucified] due to the evil act [of human beings]?

Perhaps our choices and actions do count at a far more significant level than we are willing to allow and that all our “deistic” posturing will be shown up as simply evasion in the end?

 

[Amandil]

I have tried to answer all your questions…you just don’t like the answers.

I like answers that make sense. I like answers that have logical conclusions. I dont like answers based upon fallacious premises.

There are many varieties of Deism…it is not a religion…it is a belief system that is very open to other ideas.

1. I never said that it was a religion. Nor can it ever be a religion because it necessarily denies any possible relation to the deity.
2. Deism is not open to any ideas contrary to Deism. So therein lies a contradiction.

That makes answers frustrating to those who seek doctrine for an answer.

No. What’s frustrating is that you posit your subjective belief that truth is subjective as an objective fact of reality. Thus another contradiction of your philosophy.

It ain’t there, but there is plenty of good information easily available on the net.

Its nothing that I hadn’t already considered on my journey from atheism to the Church. Deism, like mms any other “isms” that sprung up from the “enlightenment”, cause more problems and more confusion than it solves.

As is also said, “such ‘isms’ often eat their own offspring.”

 

[Estevao]

Yes it certainly is false. God does “permit” evil because we have the tremondus gift of a FREE WILL. We would be no more than an animal without it. But HE doesn’t want us to use that free will for evil. If we do anyway, with God’s Grace we can overcome the evil and he can bring good out of it. Like the Thief on the Cross. God doesn’t punish the child for the sins of the parents. Every child is a gift from God from the beginning even tho the parents were sinning at the time of its conception. Our reproductive systems were set up that way from the beginning. To use them in a sinful way doesn’t alter their normal functions. The human mind baffels me as to how it can try to out smart God with its thinking but don’t fall for that. Trust God and HIS Church. She is a wise Mother and the best on this earth. God Bless, Memaw

Thanks very much for your respose, Memaw. It always brightens my day a little when I run across one of your posts.

 

[Oreoracle]

The problem is that there seems to be a disagreement of what “committing” evil entails.

To me, deliberately acting so that one knowingly produces evil consequences when it is unnecessary (i.e., when there’s a better way) surely amounts to committing evil. If God wishes to produce good, any intermediary evil he commits to produce the good is unnecessary since he is omnipotent. So it’s clear that by this definition, God would be committing evil.

You could of course disagree with this definition, but then the disagreement is purely a matter of semantics. If you want to quibble with definitions of “commit”, then that’s fine. But assuming you agree with the definition, I don’t see a flaw in the reasoning.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem is that there seems to be a disagreement of what “committing” evil entails.

To me, deliberately acting so that one knowingly produces evil consequences when it is unnecessary (i.e., when there’s a better way) surely amounts to committing evil. If God wishes to produce good, any intermediary evil he commits to produce the good is unnecessary since he is omnipotent. So it’s clear that by this definition, God would be committing evil.

You could of course disagree with this definition, but then the disagreement is purely a matter of semantics. If you want to quibble with definitions of “commit”, then that’s fine. But assuming you agree with the definition, I don’t see a flaw in the reasoning.

The flaw is the unjustifiable assumption that there is always “a better way”.

 

[Oreoracle]

The flaw is the unjustifiable assumption that there is always “a better way”.

It’s not an assumption. But it’s true that I didn’t explain it, so I will explain now.

The world works the way it does ultimately because of the interplay between the laws of physics. It is important to realize that the laws of physics are NOT the laws of logic–they are contingencies. God could change the laws of physics, and thus the workings of the universe, at his whim.

He could make death impossible, bacteria and viruses unnecessary, reproduction painless and voluntary, nutrition optional, the tectonic plates stable at all times, etc. This might seem difficult to arrange for a human, but everything is infinitely simple to an omniscient being.