I have a very religious brother who says “You cant commit a sin in order to commit an act of goodness.”
To put it in a different way…
You can’t kill a child in order to save a hundred people.
I say this is rediculous. I think any sane individual has so choose the lesser of two evils. He says I have fallen into the Jokers (The Dark Knight) hands. The Dark Knight, kind of, examined this topic. I say kind of because if I say it did, then my brother would be right.
I interpret the brother’s statement to mean that no act of goodness can be derived from an evil act. I would certainly agree with you, Faust, that no act of murder could be interpreted as an act of goodness, unless we look at this thing from a book of Deuteronomy, “Defending yourself,” standpoint, but even then self-defense is more of a neutral act than a good act.
I suppose if you kill to defend your family, that may be a good act, though.
Again, I think the brother is probably correct as it relates to murder, but in terms of other sins I would be inclined to argue that goodness can come as the result of a committed sin.
Well, Christians have famously suffered much angst by reading all of the Bible for guidance in the area of sin. And the arguments have raged for centuries. In the end, though, if only good comes from an act, then it is not a sin.
We must sometimes simply pray for God to speak to us.
However, even in my example, “Only good coming from an act,” is not satisfied. The individual from whom the bread was stolen did not experience a good result as he either paid for the bread or the necessary materials with which to bake the bread.
Although, the individual from whom the bread was stolen has the ability to obtain or create such bread where it can be assumed that the starving people do not.
This begs the question, while the theft is most assuredly a sin, is it counter-balanced in the Book of Righteousness by way of a sinless and humane motive, or does the very fact that it is a sin result in the thief losing face in God’s eyes?
I tend to argue in the case of the former, the Bible and Word of God also promote sharing, charitability and good will towards men. As a result, the man from whom the bread was stolen should have shared of his bread with others in need in the first place.
I’m not saying “Is he right from a Catholic perspective”.
I just think it is or should be, common sense to all humanity.
The original discussion came from the events a few years past when those crazy militant arabs said to prisoners “Denounce your faith and you will be spared.” These particular prisoners, who were missionaries I believe, wouldnt do it, so they were beheaded. I said to my brother that those missionaries could do more to serve God by denouncing him and living the rest of their lives as they were. He was in love with them saying they were martyres and they did the right thing.
I then asked him if he would denounce his faith if it meant saving a group of children. I said "You dont even have to mean it. Just tell them you do, let them set you free, and go on living your Christian life. He said he wouldnt do it.
I think thats pathetic. No one on these forums believes that thats the right thing to do right?
Somehow he attached me to the Joker in The Dark Knight.
do we know that in the future the baby will grow up to be hitler… (do we really know that? do we know exactly what the child will do in the future? of course, we are omniscient…)
do we believe that at this instant, this act of murder is a mortal sin?
Somehow this discussion always makes me want to not depend upon a Christian for help…But then I know too many Christians who know how to wrangle a sin into an act of good. I know people that would look at the hundred people then look at the baby then decide if one baby is worth more than those hundred people, they would take the time to look at each of the hundred and see if they are worthy, by the time they get too onehundred the 99 would have died. Hmmm, then there are others that would whack that baby without a second thought, especially if its a boy baby. hmmmmm,
You know if I have to depend upon a sin for help then I guess it would depend upon the sin. Because of the hundreds of people I know and care for, all would say save the baby, not them if they were part of the hundred. Wait, that is suicide, damn that bible! There is nothing but catch22s all through it…
Well yes and no. Sometimes you should just run like hell out of there, lawyers tend to show up at things like this. You just know they will nail your butt no matter what you choose. Heck they would even nail your butt for running but, if you are fast enough they might not be able to ID you
Some people sacrifice their freedom for the greater good. Like killing abortion doctors to prevent the murder of innocent zygotes, and spending the rest of their lives in jail. It’s all part of God’s plan.
You may not think you are, but you are. Morally, the “right” is connected to the “good”. And “good” is connected to “evil”. You cannot know right action without defining good and evil. You are advocating a from of Utilitarianism. The major objection to this is that U-ism doesn’t define “good”.
Check this out. While deontological and consequentialist schools remain more prominent, virtue ethics offers solutions to many problems, such as the one posed here. It also works for people of a lot of different traditions (including Christians and post-Christians, which your brother appears to be). Granted, it introduces other problems . . . but that is the way of the world. Usually a combination of the various methods is the best approach and (personally) I think VE easily makes room for that sort of a synthetic approach.