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

[PRmerger]

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.

No, Bradski.

Even if no good ever came from taking the gun to prevent a massacre (i.e. the massacre occurred anyway, despite your best efforts), it still would not have been evil to take the gun.

The ends are irrelevant as to whether taking the gun is stealing or not.

 

[Bradski]

No, Bradski.

Even if no good ever came from taking the gun to prevent a massacre (i.e. the massacre occurred anyway, despite your best efforts), it still would not have been evil to take the gun.

The ends are irrelevant as to whether taking the gun is stealing or not.

That’s inherent in the question and I don’t dispute it. It says: ‘…that good may come of it’. Not if good does come of it. The question is still impossible to answer because you won’t accept something as being an evil act if good may come from it. If I take the gun, it’s not stealing and therefore not evil if it prevents people from dying.

However, going back to an earlier example, me throwing Mengele out of the lifeboat led to good coming out of it. Lots of people were saved. Yet you classed this as being evil.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Protestor]

Is any form of torture evil? Didn’t God give over Job to be tortured? He did not tell Satan to torture Job. I that why it was ok for God to name drop Job and give him over to Satan to be tortured. Was Satan preforming the will of God by torturing Job or was he sinning?
It has been a while since I read the book so this may be easily concluded with the right quotes.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Is any form of torture evil? Didn’t God give over Job to be tortured? He did not tell Satan to torture Job. I that why it was ok for God to name drop Job and give him over to Satan to be tortured. Was Satan preforming the will of God by torturing Job or was he sinning?
It has been a while since I read the book so this may be easily concluded with the right quotes.

God does not torture Job, but he allows Satan to tempt Job, knowing that Satan will fail.

The real torturing here, if there is any, is the sense of defeat Satan must have increasingly suffered when he gradually realized that he could not tempt Job away from God as he had so easily tempted Adam and Eve.

All Satan know is sin, because Satan has a continuing and relentless hatred of God and all that is good.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Is any form of torture evil? Didn’t God give over Job to be tortured? He did not tell Satan to torture Job. I that why it was ok for God to name drop Job and give him over to Satan to be tortured. Was Satan preforming the will of God by torturing Job or was he sinning?
It has been a while since I read the book so this may be easily concluded with the right quotes.

By the same token, God could be said to have given Jesus over to be tortured. I am not clear what your “name drop” reference is about, but it need not be the case that the Jewish Sanhedren and Roman soldiers were doing God’s active will, although God permitted Jesus to be tortured, which is not quite the same thing. The Sanhedren and Roman authorities were sinning and not doing God’s will even though their actions were allowed.

It might be said that God permitted Satan to tempt Job because he knew Job would not succumb to sin, just as Jesus would not. There may, in fact, have been something salvific in Job’s resistance to sinning, just as there was in Jesus’ not succumbing to sin.

When God was about to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, even the presence of ten good men in the cities would have saved them from destruction. Good men are those who resist temptation and live exemplar lives despite the consequences of suffering that might result. It might be said that God allowed individuals like Job to be tested precisely because they would prove their metal. Good men that are only good when everything is hunky dory are quite a different breed from those who are good regardless of consequences to them. Suffering and temptation typically separates those who are authentically good from those who are pragmatically so.

 

[TruthSeeker92]

The Christian concept of suffering is that love will often entail suffering and sacrifice of comfort in a fallen world. Christ did not turn his back on creation but infused himself into the depths of it and accepted whatever suffering that entailed. He did not run or flee from it but courageously faced it. Flight or fight were not alternatives but rising above suffering by facing it and going through it in fulfillment and completion of what loving concern for others brings on,

A love that avoids, flees from or will not tolerate suffering for the sake of the one loved is not love. This is the kind of love showed by God in Christ - that love will always act for the good of the beloved is not subject to conditionals about inconvenience or freedom from pain or anguish.

This is beautiful! I know that we all may not agree about who God is, what he wants, what he does, etc. But, I hope that we can all see the beauty in what PeterPlato just said and to discuss this with true charity and respect. Remember, “Whatever you did do the least of these, you did to me.” So let’s remember that God lives in every single person on this forum, no matter what religious affiliation.

 

[TruthSeeker92]

Regarding JOB: I know we’ve been talking about the book of Job and if he was a real person. Someone brought up a good question/concern (paraphrasing) If JOB was a parable and not historical, why would the Church put it into the Bible?

For the Catholic explanation, here is what I found.

*THE BOOK OF JOB

The Book of Job, named after its protagonist (apparently not an Israelite; cf. Ez 14:14, 20), is an exquisite dramatic treatment of the problem of the suffering of the innocent. The contents of the book, together with its artistic structure and elegant style, place it among the literary masterpieces of all time. This is a literary composition, and not a transcript of historical events and conversations.

The prologue (chaps. 1–2) provides the setting for Job’s testing. When challenged by the satan’s questioning of Job’s sincerity, the Lord gives leave for a series of catastrophes to afflict Job. Three friends come to console him. Job breaks out in complaint (chap. 3), and a cycle of speeches begins. Job’s friends insist that his plight can only be a punishment for personal wrongdoing and an invitation from God to repent. Job rejects their inadequate explanation and challenges God to respond (chaps. 3–31). A young bystander, Elihu, now delivers four speeches in support of the views of the three friends (chaps. 32–37). In response to Job’s plea that he be allowed to see God and hear directly the reason for his suffering, the Lord answers (38:1–42:6), not by explaining divine justice, but by cataloguing the wonders of creation. Job is apparently content with this, and, in an epilogue (42:7–17), the Lord restores Job’s fortune.

The author or authors of the book are unknown; it was probably composed some time between the seventh and fifth centuries B.C. Its literary pattern, with speeches, prologue and epilogue disposed according to a studied plan, indicates that the purpose of the writing is didactic. But the lessons that the book teaches are not transparent, and different interpretations of the divine speeches and of the final chapter are possible. The Book of Job does not definitively answer the problem of the suffering of the innocent, but challenges readers to come to their own understanding. - usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Job&ch*

 

[PRmerger]

The question is still impossible to answer because you won’t accept something as being an evil act if good may come from it.

Not exactly.

Some things are inherently evil. So we don’t discern something as evil based on the ends of the act. They are evil in and of themselves.

If I take the gun, it’s not stealing and therefore not evil if it prevents people from dying.

Right. That’s because there is nothing inherently evil about taking a gun. The situation/circumstances/motives are all factors here.

However, going back to an earlier example, me throwing Mengele out of the lifeboat led to good coming out of it. Lots of people were saved. Yet you classed this as being evil.

Am I missing something here?

I think what you are missing is the concept that some things are black and white, while some things are gray. IOW: some things are inherently evil and will never be permitted in the moral order. While somethings may be permissible, depending upon the circumstances, while impermissible in other situations.

You seem to want to be saying, “Action A is immoral here. But moral here. Therefore we just can’t know that anything is immoral or moral.”

 

[Bradski]

…some things are inherently evil and will never be permitted in the moral order. While somethings may be permissible, depending upon the circumstances, while impermissible in other situations.

So how do we find out which is and which is not permissible? And I don’t want a list of things on which you think we will agree. I want to know where we find this info. Just in case there’s some disagreement.

 

[PRmerger]

So how do we find out which is and which is not permissible?

You just set yourself up for this, Bradski.

You are astute in your observations, as you pose the question above.

As an atheist, you don’t have an objective means to “find out which is and which is not permissible.”

And I don’t want a list of things on which you think we will agree. I want to know where we find this info. Just in case there’s some disagreement.

Here you go:
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/index.cfm

I think your questions above demonstrate that which you aren’t fully able to articulate, as you and I wrestle through the complex issues of morality.

Without belief in a Moral Lawgiver, you do inherently understand that there is no one, no where, no place, to which non-believers can appeal “just in case there’s some disagreement.”

Catholicism provides the answers to your moral wranglings, Bradski. :yup:

 

[Bradski]

So if we go with the Catechism, it looks like we’re ok to steal his gun and also shoot the guy to stop him hurting someone. Unless Joe Citizen is not deemed to ‘legitimately hold authority’.

‘He just killed a dozen kids and you stood there with a gun in your hand and did nothing?’

‘Sorry, but I wasn’t authorised to stop him’.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Doesn’t sound right to me. Would you not save them but hang around until the cops came?

 

[PRmerger]

So if we go with the Catechism, it looks like we’re ok to steal his gun and also shoot the guy to stop him hurting someone. Unless Joe Citizen is not deemed to ‘legitimately hold authority’.

‘He just killed a dozen kids and you stood there with a gun in your hand and did nothing?’

‘Sorry, but I wasn’t authorised to stop him’.

In what way would you think the CC states that you weren’t authorized to stop him?

 

[Bradski]

In what way would you think the CC states that you weren’t authorized to stop him?

Where the catechism states:

…those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

That implies that if you do not hold legitimate authority you cannot use force. Including deadly force if that’s the only option.

If I want to throw Mengele out of the boat, or if I want to prevent him getting in (or I need to shoot the guy intent on multiple murders), what authority do I need to hold to have that right?

 

[PRmerger]

Where the catechism states:

…those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Please note what is not said, which is of supreme import here–it does NOT state
“those who have CIVIL or LEGAL authority”.

Rather, it pointedly states LEGITIMATE authority.

That implies that if you do not hold legitimate authority you cannot use force. Including deadly force if that’s the only option.

Egg-zactly.

If I want to throw Mengele out of the boat, or if I want to prevent him getting in (or I need to shoot the guy intent on multiple murders), what authority do I need to hold to have that right?

Why, the authority given to any morally sane individual who recognizes the inherent dignity of the human person, all human persons, because he is made in the image and likeness of God!

 

[Bradski]

Why, the authority given to any morally sane individual who recognizes the inherent dignity of the human person, all human persons, because he is made in the image and likeness of God!

Personally, I think it does mean civil authority as it says it’s ok to use arms to protect the community ‘entrusted to their responsibility’. And I’ll pass on the fact that that only seems to include Christians and assume it includes all non Christians as well.

But you are effectively saying that if I am morally sane and recognise the inherent dignity of the human person, I can use force, as per the Catechism as you recognise it’s meaning. So I can throw Mengele out of the boat and shoot the gunman.

 

[PRmerger]

Personally, I think it does mean civil authority as it says it’s ok to use arms to protect the community ‘entrusted to their responsibility’.

Perhaps it does. But one ought not read into it that it means ONLY civil authority. Anyone with legitimate authority may protect oneself and one’s family, using lethal force if necessary.

And I’ll pass on the fact that that only seems to include Christians and assume it includes all non Christians as well.

Where do you see that it includes only Christians?

But you are effectively saying that if I am morally sane and recognise the inherent dignity of the human person, I can use force, as per the Catechism as you recognise it’s meaning. So I can throw Mengele out of the boat and shoot the gunman.

If Mengele’s being there meant that it was an imminent threat to your family, then, yes.

But in this scenario his weight on a dory is not an imminent threat. In fact, it is the weight of your entire family, you included, that constitutes a danger.

So, no, it’s not moral to throw one person off, using force, to protect your family in this situation.

 

[CrossofChrist]

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?

When God created the world he didn’t intend evil. Evil has its source in us (per Augustine and is possible because God created us with freedom. When we do evil so that good might result we intentionally do something that is morally wrong.

 

[Bradski]

If Mengele’s being there meant that it was an imminent threat to your family, then, yes.

But in this scenario his weight on a dory is not an imminent threat. In fact, it is the weight of your entire family, you included, that constitutes a danger.

So, no, it’s not moral to throw one person off, using force, to protect your family in this situation.

Well let’s say he’s trying to get in the boat. If he does, it will sink and drown us all, it’s an imminent threat so I am legitimately allowed to prevent him. To actually throw him in the water as he tries to get on. To effectively kill him. Because the catechism says it’s ok.

But hang on, it might take one more. And there’s a pregnant woman with him. He gets on first so I thrown the woman in the water. It’s allowed, so why wouldn’t I? I have the authority!

It’s not evil to kill the woman and save Mengele, but it would be evil to kill Mengele and save the woman.

OK, the scenario is becoming a little too involved. But hypotheticals are meant to be stretched and pulled this way and that to see where they take us. And in this case it takes us to a point where any normal person would say what we ‘should’ do is not always right. The question of evil is just too slippery to fix in one catch all commandment or paragraph.

Evil is relative to the context. And I think we have agreed that if an action leads to a good outcome, then that action cannot be defined as evil. Stealing is not stealing but becomes the taking of someone’s property to prevent a bad outcome. Killing is not killing but becomes the protection of ones community or family.

So the question is unanswerable.

 

[PRmerger]

Well let’s say he’s trying to get in the boat. If he does, it will sink and drown us all, it’s an imminent threat so I am legitimately allowed to prevent him. To actually throw him in the water as he tries to get on. To effectively kill him. Because the catechism says it’s ok.

But hang on, it might take one more. And there’s a pregnant woman with him. He gets on first so I thrown the woman in the water. It’s allowed, so why wouldn’t I? I have the authority!

It’s not evil to kill the woman and save Mengele, but it would be evil to kill Mengele and save the woman.

OK, the scenario is becoming a little too involved. But hypotheticals are meant to be stretched and pulled this way and that to see where they take us.

Sure.

And in this case it takes us to a point where any normal person would say what we ‘should’ do is not always right. The question of evil is just too slippery to fix in one catch all commandment or paragraph.

Indeed.

This is very Catholic of you to say.

Evil is relative to the context.

Well, I would say that some things are good or bad, depending upon the situation.

But some things are inherently evil, no matter what the situation.

And I think you would be agreed with me on both of those points above.

And that would make you very Catholic in your moral outlook!

And I think we have agreed that if an action leads to a good outcome, then that action cannot be defined as evil.

Unless the action was inherently evil in the first place.

Example: raping someone. Even if good came from it in that she wasn’t raped by someone with AIDS because you got to her first.

Stealing is not stealing but becomes the taking of someone’s property to prevent a bad outcome

No. Stealing is always wrong.

Killing is not killing but becomes the protection of ones community or family.

Certainly.

Killing is not always wrong. I kill bacteria all the time.
And I am not meaning to be, exactly, facetious or coy here. I do mean that killing, in and of itself, is not inherently evil.

However, murder always is.

So the question is unanswerable.

You would like that, because you can see where your moral wranglings are taking you…if there is an answer…it lies in…

the

Catholic Church.

 

[tonyrey]

When God created the world he didn’t intend evil. Evil has its source in us (per Augustine and is possible because God created us with freedom. When we do evil so that good might result we intentionally do something that is morally wrong.

Not if it is the lesser of two evils.