Why don't the means justify the ends?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johndigger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s say the quarantine is ordered for everyone to stay inside their homes and a man tries to get in your house because he is sick and has no where else to go - too sick to make it to a hospital.

Do you shoot him to protect your family as they have not been infected. Or do you let him in to try and help?

I would not let him in. I would offer him blankets, food, maybe even the keys to the car so he could drive himself to the hospital, but I’m pretty sure I would not let him in.

If I don’t let him in and try to help am I guilty of murder as well?

Would I shoot him? I really doubt I could under those circumstances. If he got in before I locked the door I would probably use whatever force I could to get him out and then I would be responsible to care for him as I have already made contact and could not go back to my family.

If I couldn’t get him out immediately, there would be no point in shooting him. Is this a physical contact disease? Airborne? How is it spread?

It’s just not a black and white situation like it would be if someone was coming at you with a knife and you only had two choices - be killed or kill.
 
Johnny,
It is my opinion that a just war does not exist, and was dissapointed to find that the catholic church allows for a just war given certain circumstances. My stance is that when faced with evil or sin, you do not stop it with evil. I think resorting to evil is a lazy attempt to solve our problems and we undermine the power of love.
Instead of overwhelming the enemy with guns and bombs, I think we can overwhelm the enemy with love.

Surely it may seem impractical or not economical in our world but that’s putting a price on your soul.
johnnydigit said:
i’m pretty sure that you should not murder 1 if the terrorist says he’ll let 10 live. yet i don’t know how to answer the “just war” question.

perhaps because the enemy soldiers are shooting right at people, whereas the terrorist is just asking you to kill an innocent person? maybe if the terrorist lunged at the 10 people, you could defend them by disabling him lethally. maybe even if he didn’t lunge but was distracted, you could disable him, as a police officer would…
Click to expand...
 
I agree, sitting by and doing nothing is a sin but instead of advocating war, however justified it may seem, why do we not advocate love for that “insane leader.”

What if that insane leader thinks he’s justified in torturing and brutalizing for the good of his people?

Love is very powerful, guns and bombs are too. The latter may seem more practical, but you can’t deny that Love is the best option.
So the question is, what insane leaders or atrocities can the power of love not handle? None I say. The fact that love sometimes seems impractical does not mean that war is right or justified.

If you are told to kill 1 person or 10 will be killed, respond with love, and love does not say kill. You killing 1 person is bad for your soul, so are the lives of the 10 people worth that scourge that will remain for eternity on your soul?
What about the love for the 10 people? If they respond with love as well, they too will appreciate that you took a stand for love for good and did not succumb to evil.

Time allows us to justify ends with evil deeds because we dont see the consequences immidiately. But if the damage to your soul was immidiately felt after we committed sin, things would be different. But if we undestood the concept of eternity and that we are here temporarily, it would be clear that no sin would justify the ends.
Ginger2 said:
Sitting by and doing nothing to stop evil is also a sin.

Are we justified in going to war to free a nation whose people are being brutalized tortured and murdered under an insane “leader”.

Unfortunately we usually turn our heads the other way until our “interests” are being threatened.
Click to expand...
 
Ginger2 said:
It’s a hospital. You have to let the person in to get whatever care can be provided.

Your question could be turned around to ensure no one leaves the hospital because even those not showing symptoms or testing negative could still be infected, in which case your man would be warned and if not infected would immediately leave or if infected would state so and be admitted.

If he were not infected, but …let’s say shot…he would still be admitted rather than letting him bleed to death. At which point he could not leave until the quarantine was lifted.

I think we are discovering murder is never acceptable and killing is under certain circumstances which are outlined in Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Well by definition murder and the ten commandments murder is never acceptable. What we are trying to figure out here is the principles involved.

So in this set of circumstances we will allow a whole wing of immunocomprimized patients, and doctors, nurses, and staff will have to be removed from being able to participate in any further medical action (now I’m still adding to the situation.) Both of which will cause problems that may lead to many deaths. Again I’m not exactly saying what should be done, but how do the principle apply.

Of course any actions that could taken to avoid the situation should be avoided. At the same time if there are breakdowns in protocol, and a person must make a split second decision much of the culpability of out right immoral behavior would be mitigated. Granted if the guy is thinking, ‘I never liked Bill anyway, this is a good reason to get rid of him,’ that would be different.

Now in the situation, “I"ve got orders to protect this this area. There are both a large number of patients in this wing, and a large among of nurses, doctors, and staff in a room on the other side of this unsecured window he is going to jump in. Now that group would be critical in addressing the medical needs for the outbreak for the entire region. I needed to make sure they are not taken out of action for two weeks. Plus all those innocent patients who surely will have a tough time surviving. I need to stop this guy.”
While his culpability would be mitigated, how would a moral judgement for or against be reasons for the situation?
 
Johndigger said:
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
Click to expand...
I think it has to do with a lack of faith that whatever the situation, eternal good prevails over the temptation of temporal good. In other words, I read the last part of the Bible, and it is a happy ending. 👍 If I really believe this, why would I think this eternal happiness is hindered unless I committ some kind of evil? (see Rom 3:8, where Paul admonishes those who say doing evil can be sought in order to produce good).

Do I have any doubts as to good prevailing over evil? Is it doubt which tempts me to do evil, thinking that it is justified because some temporal good may result? Should I have greater faith that temporal good, no matter how tempting, is not worth being achieved by evil means?

Our relentless focus should be eternal good, the attainment of which is achieved by the way of Christ, the way of love and truth, not moral evil.
 
bloke916 said:
I agree, sitting by and doing nothing is a sin but instead of advocating war, however justified it may seem, why do we not advocate love for that “insane leader.”

What if that insane leader thinks he’s justified in torturing and brutalizing for the good of his people?
Click to expand...
He does. People who do evil always rationalize their deeds. They feel justified and don’t think what they are doing is evil.

I f a crazy man came in a building with you and others and began stabbing people to death, and the others became fear stricken and unable to move as the man went from one victim to another …

and you realized you could stop him but it meant causing his death…

How long would you talk about love before you killed him?

three innocents death? five? ten?

maybe when you are the last one left you could do it?

Talking to crazy people is OK in certain circumstances, but other situations call for action.

The Nazis weren’t listening to reason. Many Jews tried to reason with love and were brutalized for it.
 
In my humble opinion,yes action based on love not fear any action that would result in killing that insane person derives from your fear of death and not from love. Responding with love, although it may not be immidiately seen, has better long term benefits, if you will. You mention the Nazi’s, we responded with war, and still Jews are involved in fighting.

Ideally, I would talk about love until the end because it is the right thing to do if I were to die, I would die in peace with love, not fear.

Your thoughts?
Ginger2 said:
He does. People who do evil always rationalize their deeds. They feel justified and don’t think what they are doing is evil.

I f a crazy man came in a building with you and others and began stabbing people to death, and the others became fear stricken and unable to move as the man went from one victim to another …

and you realized you could stop him but it meant causing his death…

How long would you talk about love before you killed him?

three innocents death? five? ten?

maybe when you are the last one left you could do it?

Talking to crazy people is OK in certain circumstances, but other situations call for action.

The Nazis weren’t listening to reason. Many Jews tried to reason with love and were brutalized for it.
Click to expand...
 
Johndigger said:
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
Click to expand...
Also, I think you have it mixed up. The phrase is “The end does not justify the means.” In other words, “it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8).” [Paul VI, *Humanae Vitae, no. 14].
 
If I stole a million dollars and gave it to charity… does that make me a good person?

Of course not, it makes me a thief!
 
bloke916 said:
In my humble opinion,yes action based on love not fear any action that would result in killing that insane person derives from your fear of death and not from love. Responding with love, although it may not be immidiately seen, has better long term benefits, if you will. You mention the Nazi’s, we responded with war, and still Jews are involved in fighting.

Ideally, I would talk about love until the end because it is the right thing to do if I were to die, I would die in peace with love, not fear.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I admire your conviction. But to sit back and try to persuade a cray man to stop stabbing people to death, IMO is unchristian and unloving.

The point is not killing the man, the point is stopping him from killing others - even if you are certain your action will lead to his death.

If you have a gun, you can shoot him in the leg to get his attention.
You can shoot him in the arm to preventing him from raising the knife again.
There’s a good chance the man will stop stabbing people and you won’t have to shoot to kill.

But there is a good chance the man will try to get away and inevitably bleed to death before help can arrive. (Of course, you could shoot him again to stop him from leaving and try to save his life, but then you would be doing wrong)

If you shoot him you will kill him, but you would have saved others.

**What is the difference between the first hostage situation and this? **

One act is intended to kill. The other is intended to save.
 
Another comparison:

Abortion is a procedure whose sole purpose is to kill.

Laparoscopy is a procedure whose sole purpose is to save a life.

It can be argued that laparoscopy will kill a baby. The fact is the baby is usually dead by the time the condition is discovered and even in extremely rare cases where it is still alive, there is no chance of continued survival. It always dies.

If nothing is done - both mother and baby die.
If a laparoscopy is performed the mother lives and baby dies.

So do you let them both die or do you save the mother not knowing whether the or not the baby is still alive.

Waiting ensures the mother’s death.

The difference is the intent, the purpose.
The purpose of an abortion is to kill/murder.
The purpose of laparoscopy is to save. The doctor is not trying to kill the baby. There simply is no way the baby can survive the procedure.

What I am trying to say is the end does not justify the means. Our goal should always be for doing good to produce good. Never doing evil to produce what we think is good.

In all the examples people have placed the focus on killing to do good. That’s the wrong emphasis.

Shooting the man to stop him from continuing a great evil is not the same as shooting him to kill him, even tho both instances are to stop him from doing evil.
 
Although I’ve seen some excellently reasoned-out responses, I’ve seen only one person quote from Scripture. Four pages of “I think” and only one person quoted from Scripture (and none from Catechism that I saw)!

My constant answer to the question posed is a simple Scripture verse which I’ll put in a few different translations (The NAB and RSV are convoluted in their phrasing so I’ll use these lesser known translations):

(New Living Bible) 8 And some people even slander us by claiming that we say, “The more we sin, the better it is!” Those who say such things deserve to be condemned.

(Amplified Bible) 8And why should we not do evil that good may come?–as some slanderously charge us with teaching. Such [false teaching] is justly condemned by them.
 
It seems like we are all dancing around two different issues. The original question of “why don’t the means justify the ends?” seems to have been well explained both by Scripture and the teachings of the church (catechism). It is never justified to do evil so that good may come of it.

That said, it seems that much of the rest of the discussion concerns killing and whether it can be justified. Scripture and church teaching are equally clear that killing of a human being is not always an evil act. The just war is only one example. Police have a responsibility to protect the public. If a life is taken in that regard, it is not evil. We can’t judge the soul of the person (police officer) was forced to take a life. That is between him and God. But if he did in fact find it necessary, it would not be sinful.

Several people have talked about love conquering evil. And that if we only love one another and our enemies that love will win out in the end. I agree with this but what constitutes an act of love? We know the obvious. We think that love only means turning the other cheek. Do you think the devil ever responds favorably to love? God did not put us on earth to be slaughtered. Throughout salvation history he has provided for maintaining societies. Some of the early Old Testament examples are somewhat extreme but they do show He wants us to try to maintain some order.

The real difference here is whether or not we act to confront an evil. Killing the sick man who is trying to enter a quarantine area seeking medical attention, would not be, in my opinion, justifiable. As difficult as it may be to allow him to enter, we have no way of knowing that his presence will absolutely cause the death of others. We would only be fulfilling God’s command to love and care for one another.

On the other hand, if a person tried to enter the building to do harm to the others (his clear intention) then I would be justified in trying to stop him, even if it meant killing him. Even if my intention was to kill him, if I thought it was the way to stop him, it would be justified. In both cases, I act out of love. There is no hatred in either action.

We really need to remember that murder is always the taking of an innocent life but that killing is not always murder.
 
centurion210 said:
On the other hand, if a person tried to enter the building to do harm to the others (his clear intention) then I would be justified in trying to stop him, even if it meant killing him. Even if my intention was to kill him, if I thought it was the way to stop him, it would be justified. In both cases, I act out of love. There is no hatred in either action.

We really need to remember that murder is always the taking of an innocent life but that killing is not always murder.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Your intent should never be to kill. You are not God and cannot know all the circumstances.

Maybe he is entering the building to kill a sadistic child molester who keeps getting off on technicalities and boldly says he thinks what he does is OK and plans to continue. This man feels justified as he will stop the molester from torturing more children - it is the only way for him to stop the molester as the justice system continues to fail and more innocents are brutalized and viciously murdered.

How are you any different from him?

His intend is to kill to save. Your intent is to kill to save.

He is truly trying to save innocent children and you think you are trying to save an innocent man, but will be saving an evil man thus allowing him to torture and kill at least one more innocent child.

Do you see why it is never justified to intentionally do evil - even when you think it will bring about good?

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Are you acting perfect as our Father in heaven if you do evil to cause good?

Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Are you walking in God’s commandments if you break one to bring about good?

Genesis 15:2 And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

Did Sarah’s wicked deed bring about the good or evil? (think muslim)
 
No Ginger! My intent would never be to “murder”. Do you not make a distinction between killing (justified) and murder, which is the taking of an innocent life? There’s a huge difference here.

In my first instance, I said that I would not withhold help to a person trying to enter the quarantined area even if it meant he would infect others. His need for help would outweigh consequences to the others. Of course I would not want him to Infect anyone else but we must be compassionate to him. His intention isn’t to hurt others; it’s only to get help himself.

In my second instance, there is a man who clearly wishes to kill other people. My intention would be to stop him even if it meant killing him, not murdering him.

Let me ask you this: if someone breaks into my home, while I am there, do I have any right to stop him even if it ultimately means killing him. Let’s eliminate all the calling for help etc. etc. He is breaking into my home, I am there, my family is there and we have no other means of protecting ourselves. Do I have a right to protect my family?

I’m not talking about property; it’s people and we are in fear of our own lives.
 
centurion210 said:
No Ginger! My intent would never be to “murder”. Do you not make a distinction between killing (justified) and murder, which is the taking of an innocent life? There’s a huge difference here.

In my first instance, I said that I would not withhold help to a person trying to enter the quarantined area even if it meant he would infect others. His need for help would outweigh consequences to the others. Of course I would not want him to Infect anyone else but we must be compassionate to him. His intention isn’t to hurt others; it’s only to get help himself.

In my second instance, there is a man who clearly wishes to kill other people. My intention would be to stop him even if it meant killing him, not murdering him.

Let me ask you this: if someone breaks into my home, while I am there, do I have any right to stop him even if it ultimately means killing him. Let’s eliminate all the calling for help etc. etc. He is breaking into my home, I am there, my family is there and we have no other means of protecting ourselves. Do I have a right to protect my family?

I’m not talking about property; it’s people and we are in fear of our own lives.
Click to expand...
To the above, I agree. Your other post was worded differently.
 
LIttle Karl Marx used this phrase to justify anything that the other hoods in the communist movement were doing…murder,rape,arson,lying,not changing ones socks,chewing gum and even spitting on the US flag…all are permissable if the ends…a communist state ie: an old fashioned dictatorship ruled by 2% of the population…for the good ,of course,of the other 98%!The slaughter of 15,000 Poles in the Katsyn forest by the communists was for Polands own good,these boy scout leaders,church administrators,educators etc all were preventing the global heavenship of communisn…the peoples republic! The wall erected in Berlin was not to prevent the east berliners from escaping to the west.but vice verser!..If one lies or fibs to defend the RCC or Jesus that is wrong,Truth never needs a coverup. I can tell my wife her new hat is fine…even if I dont like it…she cant return it and so I am being diplomatic…no souls are lost or ovens in a concentration camp lit…but if thousands are slaughtered in a square in china and we are told they deserved it,even the brave man who stood in front of a tank to stop it…that is not only absurd but evil…means to fulfill an end like that are wrong,wrong ,wrong…cheaters never win as Capt.Midnite told us kids many years ago…and the ole Capt.was soooo right…Nino
 
Johndigger said:
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
Click to expand...
I thought the common saying was “the end justifies the means” and not the other way around. That seems to make more sense to me.

Example: a couple using a third party to have a baby. The end good is having a baby. The means to have a baby - using a 3rd party surrogate. The end does not justify the means.
Law Enforcement may not commit a crime to catch someone else commiting a crime. End = catch someone commiting a crime Means = Law enforcement commits a crime to catch someone commiting a crime. What Law enforcement did was not justified even though the end result was good.
 
jkiernan56 said:
I thought the common saying was “the end justifies the means” and not the other way around. That seems to make more sense to me.

Example: a couple using a third party to have a baby. The end good is having a baby. The means to have a baby - using a 3rd party surrogate. The end does not justify the means.
Law Enforcement may not commit a crime to catch someone else commiting a crime. End = catch someone commiting a crime Means = Law enforcement commits a crime to catch someone commiting a crime. What Law enforcement did was not justified even though the end result was good.
Click to expand...
Ah, law enforcement.

So in RCIA last night we were discussing the eighth commandment, among others of course, and the conversation moved to telling lies, witholding truth not deserved, mental reservations and such. The question came up: is it okay for a law enforcement interrogator to falsely state to a suspect that he has certain knowlege of the crime in order to influence the suspect’s resolve to profess his innocence?

In other words, may I lie to obtain a confession? Another one of those Means and Ends quandries.

I maintain the rigid rule holds here as everywhere: the end does not justify the means. To me it’s simple.

It’s not easy, but it is simple.

This instance is not nearly as consequential to the participants as the one-death-ten-saved-maybe proposal at the top of the thread, but isn’t the concept the same? Does the degree of wrongdoing matter? :confused:

Ken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top