Moral Question

[frozencell]

Just wondering. There seems to be a lot of moral objectivity/subjectivity going around the boards at the moment...

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="FF6699"]I believe that you can not allow evil to prevent evil.
Like the two negatives make a possitive.
...Yea, does not work with morality.

You can do all you can to prevent evil from happening, but you can not take part in it hoping that it may stop a greater evil. Your INTENT is good, but your MEANS is bad.

It IS evil anyhow...
[/color][/size]

[pyranima]

I still carry alot of the beliefs i did as an Atheist and you should keep in mind that is how i am answering this question.

This is a very very complex question and i would need more to go on for example what kind of 'lesser' evil would you be preforming and what would the 'greater' evil be? take the concept from the movie "Kingdom of Heaven". in that case yes the lesser of two evils would have been to kill the husband of the princess and save the kingdom from a war. however i am inclined to believe that killing the husband of the princess would not strictly be considered an evil act given all the circumstances (He wanted a war with the muslims).

but lets ask this question, is it morally acceptable to have an abortion if both the mother and the child will die in child birth?

the ideal would be for the mother to carry the child for as long as possible then to (at the begining of the third trimester) remove the baby and put it in an incubator.

But lets look at another case lets say the mother is allergic to the pregancy (i assure you it is possible), and both the mother and the Child are in grave danger of death. to the upmost the reaction should be supressed but lets say it cant be supressed, then the moral action would be with the most reluctance to kill the child to save one life rather than loose both lives.

I have never been one to support the murder of unborn children but in cases where both the mother and child will die (which is a very very very very very small percent) a mother and father must make a very difficult decision.

as an end note: this might sound harsh to some however i do believ that it is better not to permit abortions under circumstances, as C.S. Lewis says 'give them an inch and they will take an L'

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="FF6699"]Yes this is a very tough question, but I do not think that causing an evil to omit one is the right way to go about it.
It is an oxymoron.

You are causing that which you want to prevent.
Even if the end result is something good, your means is still evil.
And we are all good people who try every day to avoid evil and stive for holiness.
So why would we commit an evil?


And about the abortion question....
When in my apologetics class in school, I think I remember my teacher, while on the topic of abortion, said that when the life of the mother is in danger, then it IS acceptable to have an abortion.
But now it may make everything I just stated before a contradiction.

But I know there is an explanation, we just need someone smarter than me. LOL
[/color][/size]

Edited July 5, 2006 by CrossCuT

[Guest JeffCR07]

It depends on what you mean here. The Principle of Double Effect allows for a forseeable evil to be permitted as long as it is not the [i]cause[/i] of the desired good.

Let's take a rather extreme example: Imagine that there are four people trapped in a cave. One of the people is pinned to the cave wall by a fallen boulder and the other three cannot get him out. They are all quickly losing oxygen and will suffocate, however, they have a stick of dynamite strong enough to blow open a particular section of the cave wall. The brilliant geologist in the group, however, informs them that the only way the dynamite will succeed is such that the explosion will also kill the pinned man. Is it morally permissible to use the dynamite, knowing that the pinned man will die?

According to the theory of double effect, yes, such an action is permissible. The reason for this is because it is not the man's death that causes the cave wall to open and them to be set free. Rather, the action of setting off the dynamite has two effects. The primary effect is to explode the cave wall and free the captives, while the secondary effect is the death of the pinned man. The act itself (exploding dynamite) is not intrinsically evil, and the desired good effect (freedom) is not causally dependent on the death of the pinned man. Thus, the double effect (the man's death) can be accepted.

However, let's take a somewhat similar example where Double Effect would forbid the action in question:

Imagine that there is a riot beginning in the city. A brilliant man knows that if the riot is not stopped now, thousands of people will die. The brilliant man also knows that the only way to stop the riot is to publically execute five people. However, the city has no inmates on death row, and so the five people will inevitably be innocent people. Is it permissible to kill the five innocent people in order to stop thousands of people from dying?

According to the theory of double effect, no, such an action is not permissible. The reason for this is twofold. First, the direct action being taken is an intrinsically evil action (the killing of innocents). Second, even if the direct action being taken was not intrinsically evil (imagine that we push a button, and then the innocent people are automatically shot), it would still not be permissible because the evil effect of the action (the killing of innocents) is [i]causally[/i] linked to the desired good effect (the saving of thousands of people). The ends do not justify the means, and, as such, if an evil act is necessary in order to cause a desired good end, that action is not permissible.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[pyranima]

Before i respond i just read your sig... so i have to ask... is frank the rabbit a ref. to donny darko? i hope it is i LOVE that movie.[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1017589' date='Jul 5 2006, 11:52 AM']
[size=1][color="FF6699"]Yes this is a very tough question, but I do not think that causing an evil to omit one is the right way to go about it.
It is an oxymoron.

You are causing that which you want to prevent.
Even if the end result is something good, your means is still evil.
And we are all good people who try every day to avoid evil and stive for holiness.
So why would we commit an evil?
And about the abortion question....
When in my apologetics class in school, I think I remember my teacher, while on the topic of abortion, said that when the life of the mother is in danger, then it IS acceptable to have an abortion.
But now it may make everything I just stated before a contradiction.

But I know there is an explanation, we just need someone smarter than me. LOL
[/color][/size]
[/quote]
yes i said it IS acceptable if both will die however i believe it too dangerous to allow even in that case. as our good friend above pointed out Double effect allowes for it yes but, and this is the BUT the problem then becomes one of how often is it ACTUALLY needed, and the truth is maybe 1 in 100,000 if that. you have these left wingers who will exploint the opening in the wall, thus the risk for allowance is too high. at least in my opinion.

[Franimus]

Pyranima, these rare cases are the ones that, in a way, define our morality.
Jeff gave some very good examples, and I'll provide another one (which my theology professor gave us): Let's say a fellow classmate, let's call her Janet, goes crazy and brings in a gun one day. She gives her ultimatum: Either the professor chooses one person to die, or she'll kill everybody. Knowing she's going to make good on her end of the deal, this is similar to the "push-button" option given in Jeff's second example. The professor cannot rightly choose himself (to try to make himself a martyr), since it would be suicide to choose his own death (and he would not be an actual martyr since, in the given situation, it is not based on faith). The professor cannot rightly choose any student for that matter, since he would be, in effect, killing them. The correct answer is choose none, and only then would the professor not be culpable for somebody's death. If he chooses a classmate, not only does he kill him or her, but he degrades him/her (adding insult to injury) because he/she was the one chosen to die, and thus lesser than all the others.
Now, some things I learned from my philosophy class: In the abortion example, you cannot choose the death of the child. As in Jeff's examples, choosing to euthanize the trapped person is wrong, however, choosing to blast open a way out of the cave is right. Given this, you cannot knife the trapped person so that they don't feel the blast, because that means you are choosing to kill them. (not a result of my philosophy class, obviously: There is always the possibility of a miracle occuring if you choose to blast and not to kill, but if you choose to kill, you kill) Now, we can choose to remove the child in a way that will kill the child. For example, an ectopic pregnancy. A good Catholic doctor will not abort the baby, but will instead remove the entire section of tube with the baby inside. Here, there is at least the remote possibility of reimplanting the baby (and the baby surviving). These are all examples of the principle of double effect, which should be applied in the question posed by pyranima, the medical stuff of which I'm not familiar.
By the way, CrossCut, what school did you hear that at? Whoever the teacher is, I'm pretty sure that it is never acceptable to "have an abortion", given the ectopic example above. Perhaps you misunderstood your teacher, or he/she failed to make the distinction between choosing to kill the baby, and the baby dying as a known result of something else you do with other, different and good, intended results.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote]By the way, CrossCut, what school did you hear that at? Whoever the teacher is, I'm pretty sure that it is never acceptable to "have an abortion", given the ectopic example above. Perhaps you misunderstood your teacher, or he/she failed to make the distinction between choosing to kill the baby, and the baby dying as a known result of something else you do with other, different and good, intended results.[/quote]

Franimus is right. It is never acceptable to have an abortion, not even to save the mother's life. Your teacher was gravely wrong in telling your class (and Lord only knows how many others) that.

[Guest JeffCR07]

As Franimus and IcePrincess have said, it is never permissible to have an abortion - even to save the life of the mother, because the act is intrinsically evil. Your teacher was probably referring to the example of ectopic pregnancies, in which the child is not intentionally killed, but rather, a surgical proceedure is done that will likely have the undesired result of the child's death. The difference, however, is a critical one.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Resurrexi]

I voted yes, becuase if you think about it, it is often OK to allow lesser evils to prevent greater ones. Take this example. There are a thousand people hiding in a convent that the evil liberal modernist government are trying to kill because they are decended from people who practiced the Talmudic religion. now, the sisters running the govenrment could tell the truth when asked if the refugees are there which would kill the people, or they could lie, which would be a sin, though a venial one, and save the refugees. I would say that it would be a sin not to lie, and that lying would be the only appropriate thing to do even if lying would be a sin also.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1018237' date='Jul 6 2006, 09:30 AM']
I voted yes, becuase if you think about it, it is often OK to allow lesser evils to prevent greater ones. Take this example. There are a thousand people hiding in a convent that the evil liberal modernist government are trying to kill because they are decended from people who practiced the Talmudic religion. now, the sisters running the govenrment could tell the truth when asked if the refugees are there which would kill the people, or they could lie, which would be a sin, though a venial one, and save the refugees. I would say that it would be a sin not to lie, and that lying would be the only appropriate thing to do even if lying would be a sin also.
[/quote]

This is an extremely interesting case. If the Nazis come 'a knockin, can you lie and tell them that there are no Jews in your house, when, in fact, there are? It is my position that you can, but only because, in this case, telling a falsehood is not the same as telling a lie. It seems to me that a lie is telling a falsehood to someone who has a right to the true information. Moreover, it seems to me that the Nazi government (and Nazi soldiers) give up the right to that information the moment they assent their wills to use that information to do evil. Thus, in this extreme case, though one is telling a falsehood, there is no sin involved, no turning away from God, and, as such, no true lie.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Semperviva]

[quote name='JeffCR07' post='1018260' date='Jul 6 2006, 09:56 AM']
This is an extremely interesting case. If the Nazis come 'a knockin, can you lie and tell them that there are no Jews in your house, when, in fact, there are? [b]It is my position that you can, but only because, in this case, telling a falsehood is not the same as telling a lie.[/b] It seems to me that a lie is telling a falsehood to someone who has a right to the true information. Moreover, it seems to me that the Nazi government (and Nazi soldiers) give up the right to that information the moment they assent their wills to use that information to do evil. Thus, in this extreme case, though one is telling a falsehood, there is no sin involved, no turning away from God, and, as such, no true lie.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[/quote]


In Dogma 102 we were taught that it did not matter whether the Nazi's came to the door, you still cannot convey a falsehood by answering "No," no matter if they have the right to the information, if they are part of an "evil regime," and no matter the context. Apparently, only [b]mental reservation[/b] is morally acceptable. ie,

Nazi: Are there Jews here?
Person ansering: Jews? Why would I keep Jews in [i]my[/i] house?


This whole issue of mental reservation seems to bring up more questions then it solves, in my rarely humble opinion.

[pyranima]

[quote name='Franimus' post='1018163' date='Jul 6 2006, 06:46 AM']
Pyranima, these rare cases are the ones that, in a way, define our morality.
Jeff gave some very good examples, and I'll provide another one (which my theology professor gave us): Let's say a fellow classmate, let's call her Janet, goes crazy and brings in a gun one day. She gives her ultimatum: Either the professor chooses one person to die, or she'll kill everybody. Knowing she's going to make good on her end of the deal, this is similar to the "push-button" option given in Jeff's second example. The professor cannot rightly choose himself (to try to make himself a martyr), since it would be suicide to choose his own death (and he would not be an actual martyr since, in the given situation, it is not based on faith). The professor cannot rightly choose any student for that matter, since he would be, in effect, killing them. The correct answer is choose none, and only then would the professor not be culpable for somebody's death. If he chooses a classmate, not only does he kill him or her, but he degrades him/her (adding insult to injury) because he/she was the one chosen to die, and thus lesser than all the others.
Now, some things I learned from my philosophy class: In the abortion example, you cannot choose the death of the child. As in Jeff's examples, choosing to euthanize the trapped person is wrong, however, choosing to blast open a way out of the cave is right. Given this, you cannot knife the trapped person so that they don't feel the blast, because that means you are choosing to kill them. (not a result of my philosophy class, obviously: There is always the possibility of a miracle occuring if you choose to blast and not to kill, but if you choose to kill, you kill) Now, we can choose to remove the child in a way that will kill the child. For example, an ectopic pregnancy. A good Catholic doctor will not abort the baby, but will instead remove the entire section of tube with the baby inside. Here, there is at least the remote possibility of reimplanting the baby (and the baby surviving). These are all examples of the principle of double effect, which should be applied in the question posed by pyranima, the medical stuff of which I'm not familiar.
By the way, CrossCut, what school did you hear that at? Whoever the teacher is, I'm pretty sure that it is never acceptable to "have an abortion", given the ectopic example above. Perhaps you misunderstood your teacher, or he/she failed to make the distinction between choosing to kill the baby, and the baby dying as a known result of something else you do with other, different and good, intended results.
[/quote]
i disagree for several reasons, one of which is the professor may choose himself in that case it is not sucide to say it is would be to say Christs death was sucide it is a sacrafice. secondly choosing a student would not degrade the student at all in fact one way he may choose a student would be to ask for a volunteer(also not sucide). many martyers of the Early Church volunteered their deaths for example Saint Maximilian Colby. as for the abortion the double effect still applies, the objective is not to kill the second person though it does appear that way, killing the second person is a biproduct of trying to save the mothers life thus it is not immoral. it is the same as abortions in the case of birthcontrol pills take to help regulate hormones. you do not intend to have an abortion you take the pill not for contraceptive purposes but to regulate hormones but the double effect is the abortion of the child.

[picchick]

I was not able to read the other posts but here is my support for my answer.

I voted Yes. Although all evil must be avoided at all costs, sometimes it is necessary to do a "lesser" act of evil to prevent or stop a greater evil. For example, World War II was started to stop Adolf Hitler's Nazi spread. He was killing people for just being who they were: Jews, gypsies, Poles, and so on. He was spreading throughout Europe. Can you imagine what might of happened if he kept going? If WWII did not stop him?

I hope this made sense, I am not very good sometimes at making myself clear.
Meg

[Semperviva]

The difference between an abortion and removing a uterus that [i]happens[/i] to have a small human inside seems merely semantic.


The principle of Double Effect seems to me like an abuse of reason.

Why does it not take into account the fact that you[i] know[/i] both effects beforehand, the good and the bad effect and then (in some way) [i]do [/i] will the bad effect? You have to will the negative effect as well as the good one in some way.


How can we isolate these effects into a hierarchy of seperate realities, when in fact they occur suimultaneously?