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

[PRmerger]

But are you going to class stealing in all circumstances as evil?

Well, if it’s not stealing, (such as taking something you have a right to have as part of your human dignity), then it’s not evil.

If it is stealing, (such as taking something that you have no right to have), then it’s always evil.

Do, yes, stealing is ALWAYS evil.

Just like murder is ALWAYS 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.

Yep.

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.

The Catholic view, which you seem to be promoting here even if you don’t realize it, is that each of must make moral decision using our intellect and will, based on the Moral Law given to us by the Moral Lawgiver.

 

[PRmerger]

We’re not discussing whether a particular statement is true or false. We’re discussing degrees of evil.

Ok.

If stealing the gun is evil, then ends justify means.

Yep. Although it’s not evil to take something no one ought to prevent you from having.

Sometimes the ends do justify the means. We’ve already established that.

To wit: It is often necessary to inflict pain upon your child in order to achieve a greater good.

But it is NEVER permissible to do EVIL that good may come.

If you think it is not evil, then you need to tell me how we decide which is which.

By using our intellect and our will which is conformed to the Moral Law.

That’s why even atheists can be moral.

In fact, some atheists are more moral than Christians. That’s because the atheist may be using her intellect and will and conforming it to the moral law while the Christian might be suppressing his intellect or will and yielding to his disordered desires.

 

[Bradski]

Although it’s not evil to take something no one ought to prevent you from having./QUOTE]

Is this meant to cover the situation where you steal someone’s gun to prevent a massacre? You are saying that doing something evil, like stealing, is not evil if it results in something good. Like preventing a massacre.

in which case we get: Stealing is evil depending upon the circumstances.

if you steal a gun, it’s evil. If you steal a gun to prevent a massacre, it’s not. Is that accurate?

 

[PRmerger]

Is this meant to cover the situation where you steal someone’s gun to prevent a massacre? You are saying that doing something evil, like stealing, is not evil if it results in something good. Like preventing a massacre.

It’s not stealing, Bradski. If someone is preventing you from getting an instrument that would prevent a massacre, the immoral one is the one withholding the gun.

Stealing, however, is always evil.

And thus, it is never permissible to do evil that good may come.

in which case we get: Stealing is evil depending upon the circumstances.

No, Bradski.

Stealing is ALWAYS evil.

if you steal a gun, it’s evil. If you steal a gun to prevent a massacre, it’s not. Is that accurate?

If you take a gun to prevent a massacre, it’s virtuous and what we are morally compelled to do.

In fact, the one who is withholding the gun who is doing something immoral.

 

[Bradski]

OK, let’s try this…

I took something from someone without them knowing and without their permission.
That’s stealing and it’s evil.

But it was a gun.
Doesn’t matter. It’s still evil.

But he might kill someone with it.
Nope still evil.

In fact I think he might kill someone with it.
Still evil I’m afraid.

No, I’m convinced he will kill someone with it.
Well…

Look, he told me yesterday that he might do something bad.
Mmmm…

There’s a note he wrote saying he wanted to get back at the school for expelling him…
Still, I’m not sure…

…by killing the students.
Ahhh, let me think about this.

There doesn’t seem to be any room for suggesting that ‘this is very wrong, this is a little bit wrong, this isn’t really wrong, this is sorta OK…’ It’s either ‘Evil’ or Not Evil’. As I said earlier, things are never just black and white.

So what if the end (a massacre) is not as definite as we’d like? Everyone is going to have a different view on when taking the gun is really necessary. Everyone will have a different take on the end justifying the means. Which means that no-one will be able to agree on what is evil or not.

 

[PRmerger]

Stealing is evil depending upon the circumstances.

I feel like another analogy might be being called for here.

Let’s say you ask me: is adultery always wrong?

I say: yes, adultery is ALWAYS, in every case, wrong.

You respond with: yet the CC permits a widow to cheat on her husband and marry another man. In this case, the CC says, “Well, adultery is permitted, depending upon the circumstances.”

I say: no, adultery is ALWAYS wrong. But marrying another man if you are a widow is not adultery.

 

[Bradski]

I feel like another analogy might be being called for here.

Let’s say you ask me: is adultery always wrong?

I say: yes, adultery is ALWAYS, in every case, wrong.

You respond with: yet the CC permits a widow to cheat on her husband and marry another man. In this case, the CC says, “Well, adultery is permitted, depending upon the circumstances.”

I say: no, adultery is ALWAYS wrong. But marrying another man if you are a widow is not adultery.

I think we’re drifting off the point. Which is means to an end and when it is justified. And that is apparently by deciding if the means is evil or not. And that appears to be a moveable feast. An action can be evil in some circumstances but not in others. I’m not sure who decides that.

I’m not sure adultery, widowhood, remarriage or the morality of the situation as you described has any relevance. Except to use it as a comparison to stealing. In that adultery is always wrong but stealing is entirely dependent on the situation (unless you want to formulate some scenario when someone says you must cheat on your husband or we’ll kill your children).

 

[PRmerger]

I think we’re drifting off the point. Which is means to an end and when it is justified. And that is apparently by deciding if the means is evil or not.

Yes. You got it.

And that appears to be a moveable feast. An action can be evil in some circumstances but not in others. I’m not sure who decides that.

Evil is, in every circumstance, never permitted.

However, some things may be immoral, or moral, depending upon the situation.

And the way we decide that is by using our intellect and our will, and conforming it to the Moral Law given by the Moral Lawgiver.

I’m not sure adultery, widowhood, remarriage or the morality of the situation as you described has any relevance. Except to use it as a comparison to stealing. In that adultery is always wrong but stealing is entirely dependent on the situation (unless you want to formulate some scenario when someone says you must cheat on your husband or we’ll kill your children).

sigh

I have said, ad nauseum, that stealing is NEVER permissible.

If you say that we have agreed that stealing is sometimes permissible, I am out of here, Bradski.

 

[PRmerger]

OK, let’s try this…

I took something from someone without them knowing and without their permission.
That’s stealing and it’s evil.

No.

It’s not stealing.

Why?

See the end of your scenario, which tells you why you took the gun in the first place.

The immoral person was the one with the gun originally. At least, he intended something immoral.

In fact I think he might kill someone with it.

Most. important. fact.
Source of the whole hypothetical.
Reason for taking the gun in the first place.

Taking the gun is not stealing.

Look, he told me yesterday that he might do something bad.
Mmmm…

Case solidified.

There’s a note he wrote saying he wanted to get back at the school for expelling him…

Case closed!

…by killing the students

QED.

And, I would add, that all of this was known by the individual prior to ever taking the gun.

 

[PRmerger]

There doesn’t seem to be any room for suggesting that ‘this is very wrong, this is a little bit wrong, this isn’t really wrong, this is sorta OK…’

I think I’ve shown it’s quite simple. The above scenario is not even a little bit wrong–taking the gun is what we are morally compelled to do, (all other options being unavailable, such as telling the police, tackling him in the schoolyard, calling his parents etc etc etc)

It’s either ‘Evil’ or Not Evil’. As I said earlier, things are never just black and white.

Haha. You seem pretty black and white on this issue.

I would say that while the above is indeed pretty black and white–no morally competent individual would even think twice about taking the gun away–

but would like to stress that not everything in the moral order is black and white.

And that is a very Catholic way to look at the world.

We have a relatively moral absolute world.

Which means that no-one will be able to agree on what is evil or not.

I think everyone can agree on lots of things being evil.

To wit:
torturing children
rape
genocide
racial slavery
racism
homophobia
sexism

 

[Bradski]

I would say that while the above is indeed pretty black and white–no morally competent individual would even think twice about taking the gun away.

I think you misunderstood my scenarios. They weren’t an escalating argument about the same problem. They were different problems to be looked at in isolation. I’m trying to show that it is very difficult and quite subjective to decide when something is wrong. Hence evil.

Anyway, I think the argument as you see it, or at least as I understand it, is that we cannot do evil (steal a gun) in order to do good (prevent a massacre), because if we are doing good (preventing the massacre), then we can’t have done evil in the first place (because taking the gun then can’t be classed as stealing).

The whole question becomes meaningless…

But in any case, taking someone’s gun just because I want it for myself is wrong. Taking someone’s gun because I know for a fact he is going to kill someone is right. But what if I do it just in case he might want to kill someone. Or maybe I just think it’s possible that he might do something stupid. Or maybe probable that he might.

Whether taking it is evil (stealing) or not (justifiably removing it from a dangerous situation) in your opinion is entirely down to how well I can convince you that I am doing it for the right reasons. If I fail to convince you but convince someone else, where does that leave us? Can the action be Evil and Not Evil at the same time depending on one’s perspective?

…but would like to stress that not everything in the moral order is black and white.

Here we agree.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you misunderstood my scenarios. They weren’t an escalating argument about the same problem.

I understood what you were trying to do.

I was telling you that, a priori, the individual who took the gun had a licit reason for taking it.

He already knew that which you were progressively revealing.

Right? You see that, yes?

They were different problems to be looked at in isolation

Except that it didn’t work in this case because he already had all the knowledge he needed to make a moral decision.

I’m trying to show that it is very difficult and quite subjective to decide when something is wrong. Hence evil.

Sometimes it *is *difficult. The fact that there is a branch of theology called Moral Theology is testament to this. Else there would be nothing for Moral Theologians to do.

No one has been presenting an argument that it’s always simple to discern the right thing to do, Bradski.

Anyway, I think the argument as you see it, or at least as I understand it, is that we cannot do evil

Yes!!

(steal a gun)

Yes. We shouldn’t steal a gun.

But when we take a gun in order to prevent a massacre it’s not stealing.

In fact, the person who is withholding the gun is the immoral one.

in order to do good (prevent a massacre), because if we are doing good (preventing the massacre), then we can’t have done evil in the first place (because taking the gun then can’t be classed as stealing).

No.

It’s not the fact that we are doing good that makes the taking of the gun “not stealing”.

It is the fact that, a priori, taking the gun was never wrong in the first place.

 

[PRmerger]

But in any case, taking someone’s gun just because I want it for myself is wrong.

Yes. In all cases. At all times. For all generations.

That’s a moral absolute.

Taking someone’s gun because I know for a fact he is going to kill someone is right.

Yep.

But what if I do it just in case he might want to kill someone. Or maybe I just think it’s possible that he might do something stupid. Or maybe probable that he might.

It depends.

Whether taking it is evil (stealing) or not (justifiably removing it from a dangerous situation) in your opinion is entirely down to how well I can convince you that I am doing it for the right reasons.

Yes. Motives can be a factor in discerning the morality of an action. (Although, sometimes motives are irrelevant–as in, “My motive in raping that woman was to prevent her from being raped by someone else”.

If I fail to convince you but convince someone else, where does that leave us?

It depends.

If a person has fully engaged his intellect and his will and conformed it to the Moral Law to the best of his ability, then it would be right in his situation.

I can’t imagine a situation where another person, utilizing her intellect and will and conforming it to the Moral Law to the best of her ability and comes up with the opposite solution…

Can the action be Evil and Not Evil at the same time depending on one’s perspective?

It depends. Give me a situation which you think could be Evil and Not Evil at the same time and we can talk further.

 

[Bradski]

It’s not the fact that we are doing good that makes the taking of the gun “not stealing”.

It is the fact that, a priori, taking the gun was never wrong in the first place.

If I tell you I took someone’s gun without their permission because I simply wanted it, that would be stealing.

But if I tell you that I took it to prevent a massacre, then it isn’t stealing. In this case taking the gun was never wrong in the first place because…we are doing to be doing something good by taking it.

The reason why I took it is the only diiference in classing it as stealing or not. And what if I can’t persuade you that my reasons are sound?

It depends.

If a person has fully engaged his intellect and his will and conformed it to the Moral Law to the best of his ability, then it would be right in his situation.

My emphasis…

OK, I’m going to go with that. It would not be stealing (and evil) as far as I am concerned as long as I had fuilly engaged my intellect etc. As you say, it would be right in my situation.

I can’t imagine a situation where another person, utilizing her intellect and will and conforming it to the Moral Law to the best of her ability and comes up with the opposite solution…

Give me a situation which you think could be Evil and Not Evil at the same time and we can talk further.

There are an infinite number of scenarios ranging from a position where there was absolutely no danger in someone having a gun to one where it is certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is going to kill people with it.

Somewhere along that infinite number of scenarios from no danger to undoubted massacre I will make a decision (with my intellect fully engaged) when I feel it is the right thing to take his gun away from him. The chances of everyone making the exact same decision at exactly the same point is zero. So some people will say I should have waited until I was more sure of his intentions. You may be one of those people.

So at that point, from my perspective, my taking his gun is Not Evil. But from your perspective it is Evil. Not only is the call relative to the situation, it’s also relative to the person observing the situation.

If I am right, then I haven’t done an evil act so that good should come from it. Because it wasn’t stealing. But if you are right, then I have stolen it and I have indeed done an evil act so that good should come of it.

 

[PRmerger]

If I tell you I took someone’s gun without their permission because I simply wanted it, that would be stealing.

Yes.

But if I tell you that I took it to prevent a massacre, then it isn’t stealing. In this case taking the gun was never wrong in the first place because…we are doing to be doing something good by taking it.

Correct.

The reason why I took it is the only diiference in classing it as stealing or not.

Yes. Motive is a factor here, to be sure.

And what if I can’t persuade you that my reasons are sound?

I don’t understand the question. If you can’t convince me that your reasoning is sound…then what? You still need to do what is right in your eyes, as you have evaluated the situation using your intellect and will and conforming it to the Moral Law.

 

[PRmerger]

OK, I’m going to go with that. It would not be stealing (and evil) as far as I am concerned as long as I had fuilly engaged my intellect etc. As you say, it would be right in my situation.

Yep.

There are an infinite number of scenarios ranging from a position where there was absolutely no danger in someone having a gun to one where it is certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is going to kill people with it.

Ok.

Somewhere along that infinite number of scenarios from no danger to undoubted massacre I will make a decision (with my intellect fully engaged) when I feel it is the right thing to take his gun away from him. The chances of everyone making the exact same decision at exactly the same point is zero. So some people will say I should have waited until I was more sure of his intentions. You may be one of those people.

Sure.

So at that point, from my perspective, my taking his gun is Not Evil. But from your perspective it is Evil.

Give me the point at which you would say that it’s not evil and I would say it’s not evil.

Then we can discuss.

Not only is the call relative to the situation, it’s also relative to the person observing the situation.

Actually, it’s really just relative to the motive. The observer still needs to evaluate the motive.

Christian ethics dictate that we have to do the right thing, for the right reason, in the right way.

If I am right, then I haven’t done an evil act so that good should come from it.

One would hope. Although it doesn’t always turn out that way.

Because it wasn’t stealing. But if you are right, then I have stolen it and I have indeed done an evil act so that good should come of it.

Huh?

I have never said that we can do evil acts so that good can come from it.

 

[PRmerger]

I think everyone can agree on lots of things being evil.

To wit:
torturing children
rape
genocide
racial slavery
racism
homophobia
sexism

Oh, I just thought of one more thing that belongs on this list of very evil things:
honking at permit drivers.

You have to be a very special kind of mean to do that.

(I don’t know how things are set up in Australia, but here in the States, at least, my state, when a teenager is learning how to drive, she puts a big “PERMIT DRIVER” on the back window, announcing to everyone on the road, “Hey, I am just learning!”)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Bradski]

I don’t understand the question. If you can’t convince me that your reasoning is sound…then what? You still need to do what is right in your eyes, as you have evaluated the situation using your intellect and will and conforming it to the Moral Law.

This was the question:

The reason why I took it is the only diiference in classing it as stealing or not. And what if I can’t persuade you that my reasons are sound?

I expanded on this a little later by suggesting that no two people would be able to agree just at what point it could be decided that there was a danger that must be averted by taking the gun. You agreed to this. So to repeat:

So at that point, from my perspective, my taking his gun is Not Evil. But from your perspective it is Evil.

I have answered my own question. If we can’t honestly agree (with our intellect fully engaged!), then one of us thinks that something I did is Not Evil and the other thinks it is.

Give me the point at which you would say that it’s not evil and I would say it’s not evil.

The exact, specific point is not relevant. Notwithstanding that this is a hypothetical and we could be here for ever fine tuning any given scenario to get to an agreed position. The point is, and we have agreed to this, is that there would undoubtedly be a point at which you and I would disagree.

As I said:

The chances of everyone making the exact same decision at exactly the same point is zero. So some people will say I should have waited until I was more sure of his intentions. You may be one of those people.

And as you replied:

Sure.

So now we have reached a position where you can at some point say, in all honesty, using all your faculties, that what I did was Evil. And where I can say it is not.

As an aside, you also state that:

Actually, it’s really just relative to the motive. The observer still needs to evaluate the motive.

But no, it’s not just relative to the motive. The guy with the gun is either going to kill people or he’s not. He’s the constant tin the equation. If we wait long enough, we will be able to tell. But waiting might end up with dead kids, so you and I have to make a decision as to what we think his motives actually are. And at what point, if we think his motives wrong, at what point it is acceptable to step in to prevent something bad happening.

I have never said that we can do evil acts so that good can come from it.

But evil seems to be a moveable concept. I can hold something to be Not Evil and you can say just the opposite. And everyone else would have differing opinions on when it changed from one to the other. And what if I have taken the gun and the owner says that, yeah, he was thinking of killing someone. Or that he doubts that he would have killed someone. Or that maybe, if someone had cut him up in traffic, he possibly might have.

Is taking the gun then a little bit evil, or just probably evil? Classing it as evil or not seems to change depending on the owner’s mood at any given time. If there is no definite agreement, then the original question is pretty meaningless.

I don’t know how things are set up in Australia, but here in the States, at least, my state, when a teenager is learning how to drive, she puts a big “PERMIT DRIVER” on the back window, announcing to everyone on the road, “Hey, I am just learning!”

Similar here. You show an L plate when you’re learning then a P plate for three years when you’ve got your license. Zero tolerance on alcohol for that three years.

 

[PRmerger]

I have answered my own question. If we can’t honestly agree (with our intellect fully engaged!), then one of us thinks that something I did is Not Evil and the other thinks it is.

I would never classify taking a gun, at any point in the scenario, as evil, although, at one point on the spectrum I might classify it as wrong and unnecessary. At the point where it becomes stealing, it is definitely evil.

The fact that we may disagree about where in the spectrum it becomes evil–is that what you are trying to limn here?

The exact, specific point is not relevant

Yes. We are agreed.

Notwithstanding that this is a hypothetical and we could be here for ever fine tuning any given scenario to get to an agreed position. The point is, and we have agreed to this, is that there would undoubtedly be a point at which you and I would disagree.

Of course.

We disagree about a lot regarding morality. And we agree a lot about morality.

Was there any doubt about this?

So now we have reached a position where you can at some point say, in all honesty, using all your faculties, that what I did was Evil. And where I can say it is not.

I think where I would say it is evil is the same point where you would say it is evil. At least, if your conscience is properly conformed. And that is where you take a gun because you simply wanted it.

But no, it’s not just relative to the motive. The guy with the gun is either going to kill people or he’s not. He’s the constant tin the equation. If we wait long enough, we will be able to tell.

And it’s the reason why you take the gun. And the reason matters supremely.

But waiting might end up with dead kids, so you and I have to make a decision as to what we think his motives actually are.

Of course. We always must engage our intellect and will and “make a decision”.

This is very Catholic.

And at what point, if we think his motives wrong, at what point it is acceptable to step in to prevent something bad happening.

That’s all up for discernment.

But evil seems to be a moveable concept.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn’t.

Unless you can tell me when it’s not evil to rape someone?

I can hold something to be Not Evil and you can say just the opposite.

And sometimes we might both be able to argue our points validly, and the best decision might be open to debate.

But sometimes, morality is absolute and there is no arguing with the correct decision.

And everyone else would have differing opinions on when it changed from one to the other. And what if I have taken the gun and the owner says that, yeah, he was thinking of killing someone. Or that he doubts that he would have killed someone. Or that maybe, if someone had cut him up in traffic, he possibly might have.

Certainly.

Is taking the gun then a little bit evil, or just probably evil?

If one took it because one wanted it for one’s own pleasure, then it would be a lot evil.
If one took it because one wanted it to prevent a child from getting it, then it would be a little bit evil.
If one took it because the owner was going to massacre children, then it would be a morally virtuous act.

Classing it as evil or not seems to change depending on the owner’s mood at any given time. If there is no definite agreement, then the original question is pretty meaningless.

Well, of course! The situation and owner’s “mood” is of great import here.

And sometimes, the “owner’s” “mood” is irrelevant. To wit: a man wanting to rape a woman because his “mood” tells him, “I need to do this so the guy with AIDS doesn’t do it to her first and make her terminally ill.” His motive for raping the woman is irrelevant, no?

Sometimes, the moral absolutes rule.
Sometimes, there is gray area.

 

[Bradski]

I would never classify taking a gun, at any point in the scenario, as evil, although, at one point on the spectrum I might classify it as wrong and unnecessary. At the point where it becomes stealing, it is definitely evil.

If one took it because one wanted it for one’s own pleasure, then it would be a lot evil.
If one took it because one wanted it to prevent a child from getting it, then it would be a little bit evil.
If one took it because the owner was going to massacre children, then it would be a morally virtuous act.

I think that the question as it stands: ‘Is it allowable to do evil so that good may come of it?’ is not specific enough. Because if I suggest something evil and show that good has indeed come of it, the response is that as something good has come from it, the act itself can’t be described as evil.

It’s like asking if a good man could cheat on his wife. No, you say. Because if he cheats on his wife then he cannot be a good man. But he was a good man up to the point when he cheated.

Same with stealing. You are saying that an evil act cannot lead to a good outcome because if it does, then it cannot no longer be classed as an evil act.

I was going to suggest that we reword it to: Is it allowable to do *what we would normally consider *to be an evil act so that good may come of it. But an evil act is not done in isolation. It has to have a context. If you ask me if stealing is wrong, then my immediate response would be - in what context? You gave a few above and the answer is different for each one.

So if the context is: ‘so that good may come of it’, it’s not an evil act by that very definition (as you see it) and the question self implodes. It’s not that there is a correct answer to this question. It is literally impossible to answer…