{"id":432,"date":"2014-03-28T12:08:54","date_gmt":"2014-03-28T17:08:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/jenniferfitz\/?p=432"},"modified":"2015-08-04T12:26:25","modified_gmt":"2015-08-04T17:26:25","slug":"do-the-ends-justify-the-means","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/jenniferfitz\/2014\/03\/do-the-ends-justify-the-means\/","title":{"rendered":"Do the Ends Justify the Means?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"Religion<\/a><\/p>\n

Yesterday\u2019s post on religious freedom<\/a> provoked an interesting combox discussion that comes down to a single question: Does a good end (the elimination of a horrible disease) justify xyz coercive measures?<\/p>\n

It was an ironic debate in so many ways, including the bit about how I have a novel draft sitting on my laptop which features, among other heroic ventures, a benevolent despot implementing all kinds of coercive measures to stop the spread of an epidemic.\u00a0 I\u2019m a hopeless American patriot myself, but it turns out my characters are not.\u00a0 I\u2019ll have to think about whether the novel needs some editing to avoid fueling the fires of totalitarianism.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile . . . ethics.\u00a0 The book you want, and will have difficulty obtaining, is Religion Outlines for Colleges: Course 1<\/em>, by John M. Cooper<\/a>.\u00a0 Originally published in 1924, revised edition 1935, and reprinted over and over until smoking went out of fashion*.\u00a0 I\u2019m a big fan of vintage of Catholic textbooks, having had the good fortune of living around the corner from a St. Francis College Alumn who donated much of his collection to my favorite local thrift store.\u00a0 (It\u2019s now St. Francis University, and I have no idea if it\u2019s any good, but it was back in the day, judging from the textbooks.)<\/p>\n

I re-read this text every few years, and the explanation of how ethics works is so clear I still have it bookmarked from last time I had to write about this stuff, though my scrap of pink paper is now yellowed where it sticks out from the page.\u00a0 What you need to know, from pp. 144-145, on how to evaluate the morality of an action:<\/p>\n

\n

Two basic principles enter in: the principle of parallel effects and the principle of ends-and-means.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That \u201cparallel effect\u201d is often known by the name \u201cdouble effect\u201d.\u00a0 Shoddy thinking tends to confuse it with ends-and-means, so pay attention.<\/p>\n

\n

The principle of parallel effects may be expressed as follows: It is ethically permissible to perform an act good or indifferent in itself, from which follow immediately and simultaneously two effects, the one good and the other bad, provided that only the good effect is intended or aimed at and provided further that the good resulting equals or outweighs the bad.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is the principle that makes the use of deadly contraptions, such as bath tubs and automobiles, ethically permissible.\u00a0 So long, of course, as your intent in using such death-traps is a good one.\u00a0 If you\u2019re trying to get yourself or someone else killed, there\u2019s no wink-wink just going for a looong bath, if you catch my meaning, hehe<\/em>.\u00a0 That would be immoral.\u00a0 But if you hop in the tub firmly intending just to take a long-but-not-fatal soak, you aren\u2019t culpable of suicide if your perilous hygeine habits lead to a genuinely accidental demise.\u00a0 Quit scrupling, tub-users.<\/p>\n

Likewise, this is the prinicple that makes it acceptable to undergo potentially deadly or certainly-disabling medical treatments, if the good effect is proportionate.<\/em>\u00a0 The more dire the treatment, the more dire the illness being treated needs to be.<\/p>\n

Now, onto the meat of our topic, ends-versus-means:<\/p>\n

\n

The principle of ends-and-means is expressed more simply: it is never ethically permissible to use a means evil or bad in itself for a good end.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In other words, you may not do evil that good might come of it.<\/p>\n

For a classic example where these two principles meet, consider the case of legitimate self-defense<\/a>:<\/p>\n

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. \u201cThe act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one\u2019s own life; and the killing of the aggressor\u2026. the one is intended, the other is not.\u201d65<\/a><\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one\u2019s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:<\/p>\n

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful\u2026. Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one\u2019s own life than of another\u2019s.<\/p>\n

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another\u2019s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.66<\/a><\/sup><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(Quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.<\/a>)<\/p>\n

The meeting of these two principles is how we end up with prisoners of war: If you must kill the attacking enemy in order to safeguard your borders, so be it.\u00a0 But if the guy survives, surrenders, and no longer poses a threat, you don\u2019t get to execute him out of spite.<\/p>\n

What about hard cases?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Most sloppy thinking about ethics concerns things that just aren\u2019t that difficult.\u00a0 The tendency is to justify wrong-doing by overstating the severity of the case, and then announcing how it would be just impossible to do the right thing.\u00a0 Time honored spiritual advice from the saints: Don\u2019t be a whiner.<\/p>\n

We also have to keep in mind that not all moral principles are absolutes.\u00a0 For example, the virtue of obedience (yes, that\u2019s really a virtue) ends where immorality begins.\u00a0 There\u2019s no obligation to follow an illegal order.\u00a0 The trick is discernment.\u00a0 Our tendency is to get obedience all backwards, and dig in our heels about things that are only unpleasant, but then hide behind cries of \u201cjust following orders\u201d when in fact our obligation is to take a principled stand despite the cost.\u00a0 The reality is that sometimes doing the right thing requires total sacrifice.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But hard cases happen.\u00a0 You don\u2019t get to murder your friend in the life raft so that you may eat him, even though you\u2019ll starve to death otherwise.\u00a0 (But if he dies of natural causes . . .\u00a0 okay let\u2019s not think about that.)\u00a0 For a sin to be mortal \u2014 that is, deadly to the life of your soul\u2013 it needs to meet three criteria:<\/p>\n