lesser of two evils

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]rape can never ever ever be good, i defy you to name me one case it can be good.[/quote]
I'll provide an example where it could be good. THen you can probably assume that I could find other examples for fornication etc.

There's a man who rapes women. He doesn't care. He knows he wouldn't like to be raped and has insecurities about this. So a bigger man rapes him to make him see what it is like. THe initial man stops raping after seeing what it does to people. This is a gross example and a bit convuluted because you have to know it'd stop him. I don't like thinking about this too much but am sure I can think of another if yo uwant.

Maybe this example. Fornication. A king kills his subjects. He doesn't care. He's expressly angry because he doesn't get sex. So a girl sleeps with him and he eventually stops. Then isn't that good?


Also. You shouldn't just respond to what I write you should put more into it. I mean, the point is there that you are killing and it is a good act in self defense and just war etc. I do realize maybe I shouldn't call it murder but the point is there. Maybe you wouldn't call them rape or fornication but the points there. Doing something that's normally evil and it's actually good. That's all I was saying.

[qfnol31]

dairygirl (btw, may I ask what your name is? I think it might be shorter than your sn) ,

[quote]I'll provide an example where it could be good. THen you can probably assume that I could find other examples for fornication etc.

There's a man who rapes women. He doesn't care. He knows he wouldn't like to be raped and has insecurities about this. So a bigger man rapes him to make him see what it is like. THe initial man stops raping after seeing what it does to people. This is a gross example and a bit convuluted because you have to know it'd stop him. I don't like thinking about this too much but am sure I can think of another if yo uwant.[/quote]

I think one of the differences about what you say is that you're saying rape can sometimes be okay. I would say differently, in that, rape is intrinsically evil, that is, always wrong, but at times good can still result from it. This isn't necessarily a direct result from the action, but rather a result from God working through the action. Here's an example for you:

Killing an innocent person (much less God) is always wrong. However, because of Christ's death (murder) we can be saved from sin. I think that this great good came out of a great evil, but it doesn't make the evil any less evil, or make it something good for us to have done.

[quote]Maybe this example. Fornication. A king kills his subjects. He doesn't care. He's expressly angry because he doesn't get sex. So a girl sleeps with him and he eventually stops. Then isn't that good?[/quote]

The result is good, but the action is not.

[quote]Also. You shouldn't just respond to what I write you should put more into it. I mean, the point is there that you are killing and it is a good act in self defense and just war etc. I do realize maybe I shouldn't call it murder but the point is there. Maybe you wouldn't call them rape or fornication but the points there. Doing something that's normally evil and it's actually good. That's all I was saying.[/quote]

A rape is always wrong. Fornication is always wrong. Killing an [i]innocent[/i] life is always wrong. However, war isn't always using innocent lives. In that case, the point is to attack the military (maybe as individuals they're innocent, but in this case it's not a direct act to kill someone who's innocent, but rather to go after a guitly "supporter," which would bring double effect into place. In war you're attacking someone who "supports" the government, and if the government is evil, they're no longer "innocent." I'll have to explain this in a few hours, after more sleep.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I think I have addressed your point qnol. Have you read the whole thread?

Regardless, I would like Aluigi to respond because you two have different positions and I do not want to have two discussions.

Edited October 29, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

in regards to your examples: they are intrinsically evil acts. the girl having illicit sex with the king (i'm assuming they're not married) is committing a grave sin which very well could KILL her soul and if she were to die unrepentent, unhealed, she would go to hell. the man raping the raper is committing a grave sin. same thing applies.

A raper should not be raped in order to end his raping. he should be arrested, punished, given psychiatric help. A king who is killing his people because of "sexual frustration" should be reprimanded, perhaps helped to find a wife, but never granted the right to pile sin upon sin, fornication upon murder.

just killing is an inherently different concept. it is a last resort the last way to stop someone who is an aggressor causing death. Because they are causing death, they forfeit their own life. Like, the king in your example, he forfeits his right to life by such heinous murder and should be opposed and punished. But not granted more sin, that's only going to make it worse.

The ends do not justify the means. You cannot do something evil if you think it will bring about good. Why? First off, you're almost always wrong. The king getting sex outside of marriage is just going to make himself even more morally currupt and he probably won't stop the killing. he might even increase killing. The big guy raping the racist isn't going to "teach him a lesson" and make him not want to rape people again. You know what it's going to do? It's going to give him EVEN MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL problems. And secondly, even if it did bring about some good ultimately, the evil you did would have still caused evil effects.

But if something evil existed, and you did a good action to make it less evil (say in the case of the king killing a bunch of people, you convinced him to only kill one person a day instead of like 50 a day he was doing) but didn't fully take away the evil, it'd still be good. And that's where the voting for an imperfect candidate or imperfect legislation stuff comes in.

[Guest Aluigi]

i don't see how our positions are different...

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]just killing is an inherently different concept. it is a last resort the last way to stop someone who is an aggressor causing death. Because they are causing death, they forfeit their own life. Like, the king in your example, he forfeits his right to life by such heinous murder and should be opposed and punished. But not granted more sin, that's only going to make it worse.[/quote]

Maybe I should use an other example because appeasing him might make him and others do it more.

He's using a knife to kill. You steal the knife. Is this a good action?


Perhaps my examples were bad. But I think the point still remains: if the only way to stop the person or lesser the person's evil acts is by doing something normally considered evil, isn't this the same as justly killing someone? Isn't it the same as voting for an evil person?

It looks like you're making an exception for just killing and voting for an evil person if you couldn't apply the concepts to other areas as well.


Why is killing sometimes okay to end evil, but other normally evil acts not okay?

[Guest Aluigi]

let me see if I can sum this up

Morally Neutral: Killing
Evil: Murder
Good: Just Killing

Morally Neutral: Sex
Evil: Sex outside of marriage
Good: Sex inside of marriage

Morally Neutral: Taking
Evil: Theft
Good: Taking something from someone to prevent them from doing evil (not theft because they do not have the moral right to do evil, and thus do not have the moral right to have the object)

Nothing in the evil column can ever be done, even if the intended outcome is good.

If something evil is going on that you are not doing, you are not culpable for that evil. Thus doing a good action to make that situation less evil is good. This is what it is when there is already illegal abortion and we are voting for LESS abortion. We are not voting for abortion in cases of rape and incest, rather we are voting for NO abortion when there ISN't rape or incest, thus making it BETTER.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Evil: Sex outside of marriage[/quote]

I don't know of a better example offhand. But couldn't you say, there might be an example where it's possible and good, but I can't think of any. I say it might be possible because all normally evil acts as a generalization of the acts (not all specific acts) can be good depending on the situation.

If you can't say this then it seems like you're just making exceptions when I think of a good example. (it also seems, if this is true, like you're allowing things like killing and taking at some times and not sex sometimes.. that is you're priorities are killing and taking aren't as bad as simple sex. this is why cathoics have bad sex stereotypes. not just because people are sex aholics but because people realize your priorities)

[Guest Aluigi]

i'm saying you allow for sex if the conditions of marriage are met
i'm saying you allow for killing if the conditions that make it just are met
i'm saying you allow for taking if the condition that the thing you are taken is something the person has no right to have in the first place is met

It's very simple. Sex outside of marriage is always and everywhere evil. Killing with murderous intent is always and everywhere evil. Taking something that rightfully belongs to someone is always and everywhere evil.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, there's different forms of the word "kill".. there's murder.. there's just killing.

There's no other words for sex. Don't be limited by an artificial creation like language. I'll go back to one of my examples.

A woman will only stop an evil if she's forced to have sex beyond her will. No other methods of stopping her exist. I will avoid the use of "rape" and agree that that is evil always. I will now invent a word for that action done to the woman: jabbered. She was jabbered. She wasn't raped. Is it okay now? sorry If I'm twisting it all up just let me know.

[Guest Aluigi]

No it is not OK. Having sex outside of marriage is evil. There are only certain conditions under which sex is right and good, and that is within marriage open to the possibility of God's Creative Power. It's not that the word "rape" is used or not. With the killing example, ok i won't use murder, just killing. killing justly, or in self defense, is good. killing unjustly is evil.

GOOD- just killing BAD- unjust killing
GOOD- marriage in marriage BAD- marriage outside marriage
GOOD- keeping evil objects out of the hand of people who have no right to own them BAD- taking objects away from their legitimate owners

We're going in circles here. I'm saying that there are conditions for each of these morally neutral actions that would either make them GOOD or BAD.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I don't think I am going in circles here. I am trying to get you to explain how something normally bad such as killing can be good, and how something normally bad such as premarital sexual relations cannot ever be good.

The only distinctions I see is that the Catholic Church has said that killing can sometimes be justified. As for the stealing thing, this would seem allowable athough less explicitly. I make that judgement as a former Catholic. The premarital sexual relations thing has never been possibly allowed, from my experience; the Catholic Church has always said no premarital sexual relatinos whatsoever ever is good.

It seems that even the Catholic Church might grudgingly admit that there may be cases where it's good. These hypotheicals are just so far out there that it's never considered. That means that you should reconsider what you're basing your statements on.

So anyway you have not shown how, beyond the normative notions of the Catholic Church, how one thing that's normally bad such as killing is different than norammly bad premarital when trying to do good when nothing else will work. It seems that all you're doing is saying "this is good and this is bad". I want you to explain the differences in philosohpyical terms, a proof so to speak, not just making those kind of statements.

Edited November 2, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

because you're specifying a type of sex, premarital. that type of sex is evil. just like a type of killing, murder, is evil. just like a type of taking, theft, is evil. sex is good in some cases. killing is good in some cases. taking is good in some cases.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Again, I hope you are not confusing the words with the actions. Premarital actually means just that, premarital. I am not implying that the sex occured in a knowing open evil act for the sake of itself. I am arguing that the sex happened in the context of the only way to stop an evil.

I'll ask it simply. If I have to clarify again I will. You said that killing can be done when it is the only way to stop an evil so why can't sex be used when it is the only way to stop an evil? (as in my hypothetical)

[Guest Aluigi]

sex cannot stop an evil outside of marriage. ever. provide any coherent example that proposes that it could and we'll continue the talk, but so far you've been unable to provide a coherent example. sex outside of marriage is always harmful and unbeneficial, ALWAYS. but sex itself, which is not just a word but in actuality the general action with two types, either inside or outside of marriage. just like with killing, it is only just within the context of a just authority taking action intending only to do good but killing in the process. sex must be in the context of a marriage and open to life and unitive.