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

[PRmerger]

But we’d do it anyway.

Now, this, Bradski, this is indeed irrelevant.

Given that the Catholic understanding of the human condition presupposes that we’re not the people we were intended to be, what we would do “anyway” is, indeed, irrelevant.

Our moral compass, written in our hearts, would tell us that it’s wrong.

If you were the one in the boat, with your family, and pulling Mengele back in would result in the boat capsizing and everyone ending up swimming with the sharks, then you’d let him drift off. In fact, I’d bet good money that you’d beat him off with an oar.

I don’t think I would.

I’m not sure I could believe that you would sacrifice your children simply because an action is deemed to be ‘never permitted’. What would seem to be the case is that we all could do something that is ‘never permitted’ to attain the greater good despite knowing that it is held to be evil.

And it would be wrong.

The question then becomes, is it indeed an evil act?

Of course it is evil.

Our Lord, Jesus, did, essentially, that which you are questioning–He pulled Mengele into His boat, knowing that He would die in doing this.

You don’t see this?

On that I’m not entirely sure but would suggest not. Although it would depend on the situation. And, wouldn’t you know, we’re then talking about whether evil is a relative concept.

I think I’ve shown that it’s not.

 

[Bradski]

Oh, but Bradski, it is not irrelevant. At all. It is of the greatest import to this discussion.

I say it’s irrelevant because immunisation, by your own admission, is not evil. It’s just causing momentary suffering for the greater good. We need to use an example of what you understand to be an evil deed.

Letting Mengele drift off is something that you accept as being evil. But I’m suggesting that you would allow it to happen (and virtually everyone else would allow it to happen) if you were in the boat with your children.

Pulling him on board means everyone dies. Letting him drift off means everyone except him lives. I think the question now becomes: is it therefore evil? Perhaps the original question is impossible to answer. If something leads to the greater good then quite possibly it cannot be described as evil.

Surely for something to be described as evil it must stand alone in isolation. Which, apart from the actions of some psychopaths, is not possible.

 

[PRmerger]

I say it’s irrelevant because immunisation, by your own admission, is not evil. It’s just causing momentary suffering for the greater good. We need to use an example of what you understand to be an evil deed.

Again, to the child, it does appear evil.

No explanation you can give to a 5 yr old, even if he possesses the most supreme intellect of any 5 yr old who ever lived, will give him the understanding of why these series of painful injections are being given.

And compare this gap between a 5 yr old’s intellect and an adult’s, to the gap between us and God.

So evil it appears, no matter what it truly is, to the 5 yr old.

 

[Bradski]

Our moral compass, written in our hearts, would tell us that it’s wrong.

And it would be wrong.

Of course it is evil.

I think there’s a difference between something that’s wrong and something that’s evil. I think most people would be able to differentiate between you saving your kids by allowing Mengele to drift off and, for example, someone killing children for fun.

But you appear to be stuck with the one description. Both examples are ‘evil’ with no distinction between the two. Life ain’t black and white but if you accept it as such, then there is no gradation between one sin and another. You are just as evil as the mass murderer or the person who kills for fun. Which is obviously nonsense.

Can you agree to that?

 

[PRmerger]

But I’m suggesting that you would allow it to happen (and virtually everyone else would allow it to happen) if you were in the boat with your children.

If I did, it would be wrong.

There is no question of that.

Pulling him on board means everyone dies. Letting him drift off means everyone except him lives. I think the question now becomes: is it therefore evil?

Of course it is evil.

“It is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish” = the greatest evil ever perpetrated.

Perhaps the original question is impossible to answer. If something leads to the greater good then quite possibly it cannot be described as evil.

Christianity calls deicide evil. The greatest evil ever perpetrated.

Even if it led to the greatest good that ever happened.

Surely for something to be described as evil it must stand alone in isolation. Which, apart from the actions of some psychopaths, is not possible.

Nope.

Perhaps for an atheist, yes.

But you are then left with the problem of evil–and with no solution.

 

[oldcelt]

Again, to the child, it does appear evil.

No explanation you can give to a 5 yr old, even if he possesses the most supreme intellect of any 5 yr old who ever lived, will give him the understanding of why these series of painful injections are being given.

And compare this gap between a 5 yr old’s intellect and an adult’s, to the gap between us and God.

So evil it appears, no matter what it truly is, to the 5 yr old.

How many people would it take for you to understand that your example does not relate to the conversation? Or do you just like to argue for the sense of argument. Well, I don’t know about Brad, but I certainly have better things to do than converse with people who project their own failings onto others as a debate tactic.

Everything of Importance that I had to say is here. It is for those who read this thread to make up their won minds. I’m feeling confident.

 

[PRmerger]

Everything of Importance that I had to say is here. It is for those who read this thread to make up their won minds. I’m feeling confident.

It has consisted of only illogical remarks, similar to a bratty child’s objection to getting immunizations, telling his father, “I hate you! I’m going to find a daddy who doesn’t let me suffer!”

And the irony of ironies in this scenario is that this child who seeks a daddy who doesn’t let his child suffer with immunizations ends up suffering (in)finitely more.

http://www.davidicke.com/images/stories/June201293/end_of_polio_5.jpg

 

[PRmerger]

I think there’s a difference between something that’s wrong and something that’s evil.

Can you articulate what this difference is? Isn’t it really just a question of degree?

I think most people would be able to differentiate between you saving your kids by allowing Mengele to drift off and, for example, someone killing children for fun.

One is more evil. But both are evil.

But you appear to be stuck with the one description. Both examples are ‘evil’ with no distinction between the two.

I haven’t said there aren’t distinctions.

Life ain’t black and white

And yet, you seem to be proposing a…er…black and white belief.

but if you accept it as such, then there is no gradation between one sin and another. You are just as evil as the mass murderer or the person who kills for fun. Which is obviously nonsense.

Can you agree to that?

Of course. What you have proposed is very Catholic indeed!

Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction
between mortal and venial sin, already evident …–CCC 1854

 

[Peter_Plato]

But the means to an end is meant to be an evil one. Why does God seem to be able to do or to allow something that appears to be wrong to, as it says in the first post, draw out a greater good?

Kolbe didn’t do anything wrong. He is held up as an example of doing something good. But throwing Mengele out could be considered wrong.

Let’s say that Kolbe is the only one in the lifeboat who has any sailing skills. If he throws himself overboard (how honourable!) then they’re all going to die. But someone has to go. What sort of argument could anyone mount that doesn’t say that Max doesn’t tip Mengele over the side?

I noticed you avoided answering both of my questions.

Here is another one for you. What would you do if all the others in the boat with you were your children. No Mengele, no Kolbe, just you and your children. What would you do? I suggest there is only one answer, but I will wait for you to propose one.

 

[Bradski]

Can you articulate what this difference is? Isn’t it really just a question of degree?

Yes, just a matter of degree. Some things are more evil than others. As per the example I gave - you allowing Mengele to drift off versus killing children for fun.

One is more evil. But both are evil.

Perhaps so. But we have established that some things are less evil than others. Some things are more worthy of punishment than others. Ther person who has killed a dozen children for fun is more evil than you in the lifeboat scenario.

The term ‘evil’ has very strong connotations. If you asked anyone to describe an evil act, then killing for fun might be a good contender. I doubt if people would describe stealing a loaf of bread so that your child didn’t starve as being evil. Maybe wrong. Maybe sinful, but not evil.

Or to take it a step further, you know someone is going to head into a local school and massacre as many kids as possible. Just for fun. So you steal his gun to prevent it happening. If you still want to class that as evil, then the ends certainly justify evil means.

If you don’t class it as evil, then we need to find out at what point an evil act becomes one where we cannot invoke it whatever the end result. As you said, there are distinctions. Which appears to agree with my assertion that things are never black and white.

And yet, you seem to be proposing a…er…black and white belief.

Mmm. You’re fond of this line of argument. But it rarely works. Certainly not in this example.

Bradsky: Life is not black and white.
PR: But life is either not black and white or is black and white. There are only two choices so therefore, life is black and white.

Well, if it was, then there wouldn’t be a distinction between one evil act and another. And we’ve already agreed that there is.

I noticed you avoided answering both of my questions.

But they weren’t relevant, as I thought I explained. Self sacrifice is not an evil act so doesn’t relate to the thread. Unless you want to class it as such (is suicide evil?), in which case Kolbe was evil. He wasn’t, therefore it isn’t, therefore the question is invalid.

But in any case, I’d like to think I might sacrifice myself, but I don’t honestly know.

Here is another one for you. What would you do if all the others in the boat with you were your children. No Mengele, no Kolbe, just you and your children. What would you do? I suggest there is only one answer, but I will wait for you to propose one.

Unfortunatley there is only one answer in this scenario. As horrifying as it would be, assuming that I have to stay on board, one of my kids has to go overboard. That is not saying that I would be physically capable of doing it, but the question is actually: do you prefer one child to die or all of them? Not really a difficult one to answer.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps so. But we have established that some things are less evil than others.

Ummm…was there ever any doubt? Was there someone here posting during my Lenten fast that had posited that all things are of the same moral gravity?

Really?

Some things are more worthy of punishment than others. Ther person who has killed a dozen children for fun is more evil than you in the lifeboat scenario.

You are sounding more and more Catholic!

 

[PRmerger]

Mmm. You’re fond of this line of argument.

I do love me my arguments that work.

Bradsky: Life is not black and white.
PR: But life is either not black and white or is black and white. There are only two choices so therefore, life is black and white.

Some things in life are black and white*. Such as your statement that life is not black and white. Either it’s true or it’s false.

We both believe that it is true.

That is a black and white statement then, no?

And some things in life are NOT black and white. Such as whether a person should receive immunizations if he has a fever of 101.

(*It’s the proverbial Catholic Both/And at work here again. That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute.)

Well, if it was, then there wouldn’t be a distinction between one evil act and another. And we’ve already agreed that there is.

Is this statement true, Bradski: Some things that are evil are heinously so, while some things that are evil are less heinous.

We’ve already established that the above statement is true.

Black and white.

See?

 

[Bradski]

Ummm…was there ever any doubt? Was there someone here posting during my Lenten fast that had posited that all things are of the same moral gravity?

But are you going to class stealing in all circumstances as evil? If you are, then stealing a gun to prevent a massacre is most definitely an evil act that can, in fact must, be invoked to justify the ends - saving children’s lives.

If it isn’t evil, then we are left with the problem of deciding where the line lies between what is evil and what isn’t. And who decides.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Unfortunatley there is only one answer in this scenario. As horrifying as it would be, assuming that I have to stay on board, one of my kids has to go overboard. That is not saying that I would be physically capable of doing it, but the question is actually: do you prefer one child to die or all of them? Not really a difficult one to answer.

Funny. That isn’t the answer I was thinking of. There is something about the finality of life grounding atheism that inevitably collapses to a dog eat dog ethic.

 

[Bradski]

Is this statement true, Bradski: Some things that are evil are heinously so, while some things that are evil are less heinous.

We’ve already established that the above statement is true.

Black and white.

We’re not discussing whether a particular statement is true or false. We’re discussing degrees of evil. If stealing the gun is evil, then ends justify means. If you think it is not evil, then you need to tell me how we decide which is which.

 

[Bradski]

Funny. That isn’t the answer I was thinking of. There is something about the finality of life grounding atheism that inevitably collapses to a dog eat dog ethic.

What answer were you expecting? Well, there is only another one: the one where all your children drown.

Let’s say that you are guaranteed to survive. How do you explain your actions? Allowing one child to die was wrong so I let them all die. That’s not going to go down well with anyone.

 

[fluttyadavy]

holcombj paillettes totodile kelly bags kelly bags
manners manures demoman hermes birkin bag 35cm hermes birkin bag 35cm
kommunistischer hipodromo mihn warplanes fagen sunless surfaces hermes birkin crocodile hermes birkin crocodile
brod felicities neumode immoralist coastline wideraufbau dior handbags online dior handbags online

 

[Peter_Plato]

We’re not discussing whether a particular statement is true or false. We’re discussing degrees of evil. If stealing the gun is evil, then ends justify means. If you think it is not evil, then you need to tell me how we decide which is which.

It is not clear to me that the statement “ends justify means” is that contentious, stated in that form.

Ends do justify the means. In fact, it is integral to any moral system founded on a teleological paradigm that the ends are precisely what determine and justify the means.

The issue, stated properly, is whether good ends ever justify evil acts as means.

Obviously, where only two choices are live options and both are evil, then choosing the lesser of two evils is permissible. A surgeon removing the leg of a cancer patient to save his/her life is constrained to choosing the lesser evil of removing the leg or the greater evil of letting the patient die. Instances of choosing the lesser of two evils are cases where one must choose an evil to bring about a greater good (actually, a lesser evil.)

Cases of this kind seem to be covered by the principle of double effect where the evil (loss of a leg) is an unintended effect resulting from a determined choice for the good (saving a life.)

The lifeboat scenario would seem to fit into this type of moral dilemma. I strongly suspect atheism can offer only inferior resolutions to these kinds of moral issues, however. This was made clear from your solutions to your children in the lifeboat.

 

[Bradski]

It is not clear to me that the statement “ends justify means” is that contentious, stated in that form.

The lifeboat scenario would seem to fit into this type of moral dilemma. I strongly suspect atheism can offer only inferior resolutions to these kinds of moral issues, however. This was made clear from your solutions to your children in the lifeboat.

As regards the first statement, it would then appear we have nothing to debate. Except maybe the definition of evil in any particular scenario. And who is to make that decision.

But I will object to your implication that anyone with no belief in any particular deity is somehow lacking in some way so as only to be able to make ‘inferior’ decisions. Surely the only difference between you and me is that you can state that any decision to leave someone to the sharks is evil and that therefore the person involved is evil.

If you feel that someone having to make that call to allow one child to die rather than all his children is evil, then we have a different definition of the word. If you think it’s good to allow them all to die, then we also have a different definition of good.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As regards the first statement, it would then appear we have nothing to debate. Except maybe the definition of evil in any particular scenario. And who is to make that decision.

But I will object to your implication that anyone with no belief in any particular deity is somehow lacking in some way so as only to be able to make ‘inferior’ decisions. Surely the only difference between you and me is that you can state that any decision to leave someone to the sharks is evil and that therefore the person involved is evil.

If you feel that someone having to make that call to allow one child to die rather than all his children is evil, then we have a different definition of the word. If you think it’s good to allow them all to die, then we also have a different definition of good.

The irony, at least for me, is that you, an atheist, would be willing to sacrifice one of your own children for the good of the remaining and yourself. I would suggest the reason for that is because, like the Aztecs, atheists regard the opposing elements as hostile, or, at least, ambivalent to your survival plight. That juxtaposition leads to a determined position of sacrificing some for the sake of others with the more capable (you) making the decision. Given the Aztecs’ belief system, they were doing almost precisely what you would be willing to do in the lifeboat - sacrifice some for the good of others because they viewed the universal forces as unfriendly, if not hostile to their survival.

The point of the Abraham story, surely, is that the (name removed by moderator)ut of God is not to be dismissed or ignored - an option atheists do not have; at least, if they are to remain atheist. God is not, within Judeo-Christianity, hostile to the human condition and miracles can and do occur.