Why don't the means justify the ends?

[Johndigger]

It’s an often used phrase in arguments. I know the Church teaches that the means don’t justify the ends.

But why not? What is the reasoning behind it?

JD

 

[1ke]

If I want to provide for my family, there are several ways I can go about it. The **end **in each case is providing for my family. Here are the **means **I might use:

(1) get a job and work
(2) rob a bank
(3) engage in organized crime
(4) euthanize grandma for the inheritance money

I need a coat to keep myself warm this winter. The end is keeping warm. Here are the means I might use to get a coat:

(1) buy one
(2) shoplift
(3) take one from the coat rack at the library while the owner is inside

In the first two cases my end is moral but some of my means are not.

In this example, let’s say the means is giving money to charity. My end could be:

(1) loving Christ through serving the poor
(2) vainglory (recognition, power, and fame)

In this case, the means are moral and the end is not if #2 is chosen.

The object chosen the means used to obtain the object and the circumstances ALL must be moral in order for the action to be moral.

 

[joseph_virgen]

in essence you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. morality dies, as life becomes a free for all. it would mean that at the end those with the most toys win.

 

[Eucharisted]

It’s an often used phrase in arguments. I know the Church teaches that the means don’t justify the ends.

But why not? What is the reasoning behind it?

JD

If the means justified the end, morality would not exist. Nothing would be wrong, nothing would be morally evil.

And nature would be very chatoic, too, if the same princiapal was applied to physical and metaphyiscal evil. God would have no hold over the Universe and the demons would get to do whatever they wanted.

 

[Caesar517]

If I want to provide for my family, there are several ways I can go about it. The **end **in each case is providing for my family. Here are the **means **I might use:

(1) get a job and work
(2) rob a bank
(3) engage in organized crime
(4) euthanize grandma for the inheritance money

I need a coat to keep myself warm this winter. The end is keeping warm. Here are the means I might use to get a coat:

(1) buy one
(2) shoplift
(3) take one from the coat rack at the library while the owner is inside

In the first two cases my end is moral but some of my means are not.

In this example, let’s say the means is giving money to charity. My end could be:

(1) loving Christ through serving the poor
(2) vainglory (recognition, power, and fame)

In this case, the means are moral and the end is not if #2 is chosen.

The object chosen the means used to obtain the object and the circumstances ALL must be moral in order for the action to be moral.

This is a good explanation.

 

[Debra_C]

It’s an often used phrase in arguments. I know the Church teaches that the means don’t justify the ends.

But why not? What is the reasoning behind it?

JD

Actually the teaching is that the ends do not justify the means. In other words, it is not ok to committ a sin, even if the goal you intend to achieve is a good one or it works out after the fact to have caused some good.

e.g. it is not ok to cheat on your wife, even if the end result turns out to be that it makes her insanely jealous and causes her to discontinue her own affair and turn her attention back to being faithful to the marriage. Though it ended her affair, which is a good end, you would still be guilty of adultery. Likewise, it would not be permissable to steal from someone else to teach them how it feels to be the victim of such a crime in order to get them to change their ways. Even if it works, you have still committed a theft.

It is this reasoning which causes the Church to oppose embryonic stem cell research. The problem is not that the research may produce important health breakthroughs, but that human life must be destroyed to achieve it. Of course, the Church would welcome advances in medicine that would provide cures for disease and reduce or eliminate the suffering of many. But the methodology for accomplishing those advances cannot ethically come by means of an intrinsic evil, the deliberate taking of another human life.

 

[Johndigger]

Thank you for your explanations so far.

With most of the examples, there have been other means available in achieving the end.

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

What do you do? And what is the justification for it?

JD

 

[Debra_C]

Thank you for your explanations so far.

With most of the examples, there have been other means available in achieving the end.

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

What do you do? And what is the justification for it?

JD

Well, the heroic thing to do would be to give your own life rather than do something you believe to be wrong. Such would be the final act of a saint. However, in such a situation, you are not entirely free to make your own decision, as your own life is now in jeopardy, and the lives of others also hang in the balance. A failure to do the heroic in such a case is no longer a mortal sin as your free will has been so compromised.

 

[joseph_virgen]

you just never know what you will do. i am reminded of when jews were given the choice of choosing between the life of one daughter or son so that the rest of the family might live.

personally, i like to think that i would go the route of butch and the sundance kid. but than what of the living. those germans really knew how to put a guilt trip on the living, huh.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The end does not justify the means because all knowingly chosen acts must be good; if a knowingly chosen act is evil then it is a sin. Evil is never justified by good, nor does a good act or a good result ever make evil into good. So if the chosen means is evil, nothing can make it good.

 

[Johndigger]

Well, the heroic thing to do would be to give your own life rather than do something you believe to be wrong. Such would be the final act of a saint.

Just to clarify my example a little. Giving your own life is not the option, murdering another person is.

Also, in terms of free will being compromised that may or may not by the case. But what, in principle makes killing one person wrong when it saves 10 people when if not you will all die?

The end does not justify the means because all knowingly chosen acts must be good; if a knowingly chosen act is evil then it is a sin. Evil is never justified by good, nor does a good act or a good result ever make evil into good. So if the chosen means is evil, nothing can make it good.

I know that this is the teaching, but what is the reasoning behind it?

JD

 

[thistle]

Just to clarify my example a little. Giving your own life is not the option, murdering another person is.

Also, in terms of free will being compromised that may or may not by the case. But what, in principle makes killing one person wrong when it saves 10 people when if not you will all die?

I know that this is the teaching, but what is the reasoning behind it?

JD

Are you seriously asking why its wrong to do evil??

 

[Johndigger]

Are you seriously asking why its wrong to do evil??

Absolutely.

When the choice is between saving 10 people at the cost of 1 person and between all 11 people dying it would seem to be a greater evil to let the other 10 people die for the sake of one person.

JD

 

[Ghoti]

Absolutely.

When the choice is between saving 10 people at the cost of 1 person and between all 11 people dying it would seem to be a greater evil to let the other 10 people die for the sake of one person.

JD

Where do you draw the line then? What if there were nine other hostages? Or eight? Five? Only two?

What if you have to murder two people to save the other ten? Or murder three, or six, or maybe nine? What’s the correct “lesser evil to greater good” ratio?

What if it were the Eleven with you…which Apostle will you martyr to free the others?

What if the hostages were all people you had no knowledge of…and the one you were to kill was, say, the Pope? Or Mother Teresa? Or Jesus Himself?

What if you didn’t have to kill the one person? What if you “only” had to rape them? And it was a child? Would you do that to save a number of people?

Where will you draw the line?

Jesus died for the “greater good”. And He did gladly give His life. But that didn’t get Judas, or Pilate, or the Sanhedrin off the hook. Will you say, as Caiphas did, “It is better for one man to die…?”

Oh, and by the way…can you really trust someone who blackmails another into murder to keep a promise?

 

[Just_Lurking]

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

In this case, the terrorist is directly responsible for the murder of the 10 people.

A slightly different scenario that moral philosophers use is to suppose that a train is speeding out-of-control towards a platform with 10 people on it, who will die if the train crashes into the platform. You are chained to a ledge that stands over the tracks, and the only way you have to stop the train is to throw something in its path to derail it. But the only thing available to throw is another person.

Depending on how you answer this, a third scenario still has the train speeding towards the platform with 10 people, and you are chained to a switch that could reroute the train if you throw it. However, throwing the switch reroutes the train to a different platform that only has 1 person on it.

 

[Trader]

Both the means and the end must be just for moral action. The reason is that an immoral means actually frustrates the moral end rather than advances it.

Take the case of the person who murders an abortionist to save thousands of babies. Does he really save any babies? In reality he gives scandal and lowers the value of human life in the minds of others. He makes the pro-life arguement more marginalized and may actually cause more more abortions to be chosen in the future.

It comes down to a frequent question of our bishop in his teaching:
“Who decides what is right and wrong?” If God decides, then we have a safe answer for any problem. If we get to decide for ourselves, we have committed the same sin of pride that caused of the fall of Adam and Eve. If we believe the very first lie, “you shall be as God,” we are open to every other moral failing.

 

[Newbie2]

Ah, but in the terrorist situation it must be clear to murder another person; if one were to kill one’s self to free the other 9 or 10, wouldn’t it count as a murder? (Probably not to a terrorist)

In any case, in such moral “end justifying the means” scenarios, one also has to take into consideration the likely outcome, and sometimes one cannot know the outcome.

One of the first principles of morality is that it is never acceptable to do evil to achieve good.

Killing doctors who do abortions is a clear example.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It’s an often used phrase in arguments. I know the Church teaches that the means don’t justify the ends.

But why not? What is the reasoning behind it?

JD

All you do is live, so how you live is all there is. Doing evil is then how you live.

Thank you for your explanations so far.

With most of the examples, there have been other means available in achieving the end.

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

What do you do? And what is the justification for it?

JD

So the idea is to 1) put the terrorist in charge 2) trust the terrorist. What could be wrong with this plan?

Just to clarify my example a little. Giving your own life is not the option, murdering another person is.

Also, in terms of free will being compromised that may or may not by the case. But what, in principle makes killing one person wrong when it saves 10 people when if not you will all die?

I know that this is the teaching, but what is the reasoning behind it?

JD

the reasoning behind the paradox or the reasoning behind the false logic?

The paradox is false: It relies on the concept that at times you know and control the future and other times you do not. ie the terrorist can kill the other 10 even though you killed one person for him

On the logic part: You have one (terrorist) who violates the rules of society rewarded by being trusted, so the plan is to trust the untrustworthy

Absolutely.

When the choice is between saving 10 people at the cost of 1 person and between all 11 people dying it would seem to be a greater evil to let the other 10 people die for the sake of one person.

JD

human sacrifice, explain to me how you can guarantee the future. If god denies your plan can you overcome god’s intervention?

 

[johnnydigit]

i heard the greatest good should not be pursued at the cost of even the tiniest evil. save the world if you just commit a tiny sin? must say no.

 

[Lainey63]

Thank you for your explanations so far.

With most of the examples, there have been other means available in achieving the end.

However, when there is no other means available, such as if you’re locked in a room and terrorist says you have to murder 1 person and he’ll set the other 10 people free. (Crazy terrorist, I know, but humour me)

What do you do? And what is the justification for it?

JD

Hey I don’t think this is a very good question to pose…I would never believe the word of a terrorist…in my mind he is such a liar and a coward he would have you kill all ten for him…if not he would do it himself. Also, there is a story in the Bible about a woman who had to watch all her sons be put to death because she would not renounce God and after the last one was put to death she said the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.