-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Does the End Justify the Means?
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
- Status
Irenaeus
Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
Hey Dream Doctor, I have probably the shortest answer ever.
Romans 3
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? ( I am speaking in human terms.)
6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?
7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
NO. A good end must NEVER be accomplished by evil means.
Romans 3
5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? ( I am speaking in human terms.)
6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world?
7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 8Why not say--as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say--"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.
Upvote
0
First of all: Dream Doctor?Irenaeus said:
Secondly: Does this mean that an assasination of Hitler would not be justified? Even though millions and millions of people died as a result, it wouldn't have been alright to kill him before he got into power? Also, by saying no, aren't you also saying that a man can never steal a loaf of bread to feed his starving family?
Upvote
0
No, the murder of an abortionist (please do not refer to them as doctors) is not justified , even if it will reduce the number of abortions. Murder is wrong.DreamTheater said:
No, the end does not justify the means.
I wonder how we justify war?
Upvote
0
Irenaeus
Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
Ack! Sorry, Dreamtheater!
I am losing my mind, lol. I was thinking of the Angelic Doctor and I think I gave you his formal title.
However, these acts must be carried out by legitimate civil authorities who enforce the law. We cannot do it. This would then not be a case of murder, but of enforcing the law, or at least imprisoning the perpetrator, not necessarily putting them to death.
I am losing my mind, lol. I was thinking of the Angelic Doctor and I think I gave you his formal title.
That's a good question. Judith herself assassinated Holofernes. This circumstance was extreme. Thomas Aquinas gives several key points in deciding whether the extermination of another human being is morally justifiable, if I am not mistaken.
However, these acts must be carried out by legitimate civil authorities who enforce the law. We cannot do it. This would then not be a case of murder, but of enforcing the law, or at least imprisoning the perpetrator, not necessarily putting them to death.
Upvote
0
So if someone tried to kill you and your family, you don't think you would be justified in protecting yourself? Even if you didn't have to kill him, just knock him out so you and your family could get away safetly. That wouldn't be alright?Monica02 said:
Upvote
0
But killing is killing, whether it's done by an individual or by an authority. There was obviously no civil authority that could give Hitler the death penalty, so does that mean that he should be allowed to live and kill millions? Do you think it's ok to be a bystander and let people be killed without putting up any resistance?Irenaeus said:
Upvote
0
Aaron-Aggie
Legend
Would it been better for the early christians to have killed Saul since he was hunting down christians and killing them?
We as indivudal are not given the power to judge.
Also we must always rember death and suffering on earth are minute compare to the glory of heaven and the suffering of hell
We as indivudal are not given the power to judge.
Also we must always rember death and suffering on earth are minute compare to the glory of heaven and the suffering of hell
Upvote
0
Irenaeus
Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
DreamTheater,
Augustine says evil is the privation of good.
The privation of good comes about by two ways;
-A turning from God and his commandments,
-A turning from God and his ordination of creation. (natural law)
Now, we have the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." We know this does not apply to all killing, because God even commanded the Israelites to war. God cannot sin.
In any case, Thou shalt not kill has been interpreted more to mean, "Thou shalt not murder." Murder being, of course, the taking of another human life with premeditated malice. Such killings were punished under the Mosaic law.
Now, as to your example. Christ does say, we must turn the other cheek when one strikes us. This is the ideal of charity. However, many times to defend those whom we love, to check the audacity of an unjust aggressor, or to defend another legitimate claim we may have, we may resort to violence in so far as reason allows. For example, when killing an abortion doctor, the intent is to kill. The means (fighting) are neutral. Even the Lord fights his enemies, but he does so in perfect justice.
However, with saving one's life, or another's life, or property, the intent is not to kill the perpetrator, but to save one's life or whatever the thing may be. It is an extraordinary circumstance.
I think there are others on this board that can address your question with abortion doctors better, because it is difficult for me to deal with.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07441a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01210a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm
As clskinner said, it is a foundational maxim of Catholic moral theology, and the commandments of Christ, that we must do no evil so that good may come of it. First, we must define what evil is.
Augustine says evil is the privation of good.
The privation of good comes about by two ways;
-A turning from God and his commandments,
-A turning from God and his ordination of creation. (natural law)
Now, we have the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." We know this does not apply to all killing, because God even commanded the Israelites to war. God cannot sin.
In any case, Thou shalt not kill has been interpreted more to mean, "Thou shalt not murder." Murder being, of course, the taking of another human life with premeditated malice. Such killings were punished under the Mosaic law.
Now, as to your example. Christ does say, we must turn the other cheek when one strikes us. This is the ideal of charity. However, many times to defend those whom we love, to check the audacity of an unjust aggressor, or to defend another legitimate claim we may have, we may resort to violence in so far as reason allows. For example, when killing an abortion doctor, the intent is to kill. The means (fighting) are neutral. Even the Lord fights his enemies, but he does so in perfect justice.
However, with saving one's life, or another's life, or property, the intent is not to kill the perpetrator, but to save one's life or whatever the thing may be. It is an extraordinary circumstance.
I think there are others on this board that can address your question with abortion doctors better, because it is difficult for me to deal with.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07441a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01210a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm
Upvote
0
Irenaeus
Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
Dream Theater,
There is the material act, and the formal act.
You need to learn more about moral theology, and read up.
There is the material act, and the formal act.
In a similar manner, DreamTheater, why one may commit the material act of taking from another what is not his, the formal act is not there, as in the malice that is done from a free conscience - in this case, the need is compulsory, just like in self-defense.
Upvote
0
Irenaeus, you bring up good points, but when you say this:
I can use that same argument to justify killing Hitler or an abortion doctor. If I chose to murder Hitler, it wouldn't be because I wanted to kill him, but rather to save lives of millions of people. Same with an abortion doctor. If I decided to go out a kill an abortion doctor (which I'm not, don't worry), it wouldn't be because I wanted that man dead. It would be because I intend to save lives of the innocent.Irenaeus said:
Upvote
0
Benedicta00
Well-Known Member
Self-defense is okay but killing an abortionist is not self-defense, it would be murder. It would be one thing to kill someone to stop them from killing you or your family or even your pregnant wife but it is another killing an abortionist because he kills womens babies who wants them dead. As evil and violent abortion is, its not self-defense to kill an abortionist.DreamTheater said:
Upvote
0
Irenaeus
Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
Again, with assassination, Dreamtheater.
Judith was a Jew woman, a private citizen, not a soldier. She assassinated a threat to her people. There are several principles in regard to whether an assassination may happen, which I cannot look up right now. However, let it suffice to say that an assassination to be just would not be killing with the premeditated malice of murder, but with the intent of saving millions of lives.
Judith was a Jew woman, a private citizen, not a soldier. She assassinated a threat to her people. There are several principles in regard to whether an assassination may happen, which I cannot look up right now. However, let it suffice to say that an assassination to be just would not be killing with the premeditated malice of murder, but with the intent of saving millions of lives.
Upvote
0
Benedicta00
Well-Known Member
But its vigilante justice. One can not decide they will go out and kill a world power who is evil any more than they can decide to go kill an abortionist. We have leaders and laws for the reason if we all thought we could take matters into our own hands we would be living in chaos. As wrong as abortion is, one can not go out and kill them before they kill more babies. It does not fall under self defense, it falls under vigilante justice. Which in turn leads to a out of control society which in turn means none of us are safe.DreamTheater said:
Upvote
0
Why is okay to kill someone to stop them from killing your family? That's not self-defense. It's defending other people.Shelb5 said:
Similarly, aren't we just one family on Earth? Aren't the unborn children in the womb our brothers and sisters? How can you justify killing to protect certain members of your family, but not others?
Upvote
0
Irenaeus
Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
Shelb is right.
In the case where there is one individual (like Hitler) directly tyrannizing millions of people without any law to stop them, it may be morally justifiable, being in fact the self-defense of a society of people.
Where a law is in place, though, the civil authorities must do their job. Even if there is no law against abortions, we still must not do vigilante justice.
In the case where there is one individual (like Hitler) directly tyrannizing millions of people without any law to stop them, it may be morally justifiable, being in fact the self-defense of a society of people.
Where a law is in place, though, the civil authorities must do their job. Even if there is no law against abortions, we still must not do vigilante justice.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
