One of the most amazing ironies of our time…

…is that we now turn to the pages of Prav-freakin’-da to get a really good discussion of the dangerous evil of consequentialism. Americans should consider learning from survivors of a security state regime that was built on blood, iron, and ends-justify-the-means philosophy.

Update: The link is no longer on Pravda, but I found the story still up elsewhere.

  • godescalc

    Link needs fixing, I think – I clicked and just got the Pravda front page.

    • Marty Helgesen

      And I got a Catholic page discussing consequentialism from a Catholic point of view.

  • Observer

    Consquentialism has a greater and particular flaw. That is, anyone can follow and abide to it’s philisophical grounds and behavior anytiime one wishes (without the eloquence proposed by elitist philosphers and so forth.) Anybody can become a consequentialist (historicaly this has been done for years.) The problem, even, isn’t so much that one just merely commits consequentialism (it’s an everday habit now-a-days.) Rather, it’s when the habit is greatly empowered with authority and the service and severity of law. That, there isn’t shelter from and against it.

    Regarding the above link, I read the article on consequentialism. And there is something lacking. And so begs the question, what is the gravity and gravest form?

    Suppose you were driving down the road and had to merge just at the moment someone begins speeding up to cut you off in a flash of a second (not literal. Just the explanation of the event.) You immediately, because of the impending danger, steer your car out of the way and find only someone’s lawn for a safe reduction of speed and a complete stop avoiding to get hit by the driver.

    Would you call the end of getting out of danger from a potential accident (the good) to justify the means (the property used to safely keep out of the an accident) a form of consequentialism? In the simple terms of the definition, the answer would be “yes.”

    Would you say the gravity of consequentialism follows under the same meaning as Humanae Vitae has outlined? No, not necessarily. The gravity of the offense, as outlined really in the letter, is how bad is one’s conviction of consequentialism. Not every consequentialist is trying to change the landscape of relig’ion, philos’ophy, or any universal set of principles out there (and mankind.)

    So here follows from the example of lying where the J’ews are hidden and so forth. During WWII, no one in their right mind was trying to equivocate the safeguard of people from harm to mean lying for Jesus is justified (it’s quite absurd. And normal and ordinary people under those circumstances weren’t nutties trying to reduce and bring down one’s relig’ious and moral convictions – it’s dead argument that will not fly.) For, there was a circumstance in a given situation whereby people had to do one’s best to safeguard persons without jeoparizing anyone – even the S.S. who weren’t necessarily led into traps and such. Thus, a manner of consequentialism to which harm is not the aim of being justified, nor that matter the dev’lish belief to change the landscape of moral and relig’ous convictions, means to justify anything. The form is a last resort which no one is justifying just as any man must defends one’s life with which he has no choice. The bottom line, God does not condemn people are caught in desparate circumtances under consequentialism (quite the other way around.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X