Is in act of evil right if it saves lives?

[Ori]

"Sometimes to do the right thing you have to do the wrong thing".
So is using evil, when any other way cannot help, acceptable?

 

[michel]

"Sometimes to do the right thing you have to do the wrong thing".
So is using evil, when any other way cannot help, acceptable?

I am not sure about using 'Evil'; the only situation that immediately springs to mind is war, and killing.

Both my parents were pacifists, but both 'did their bit' during WWII. I suppose if it comes to it, the only time I could imagine myself killing another person would be to defend my loved ones' lives, or to defend England if we were attacked.

Mind you thinking about that, I don't think they would want me ! Is there a wheel chair division in the forces ?:biglaugh:

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

"Sometimes to do the right thing you have to do the wrong thing".
So is using evil, when any other way cannot help, acceptable?

This is one of the ways that God's will is done. And it is why we are not to judge others. We do not know what karma is being balanced, or what lessons are being learned.

 

[Scott1]

From the CCC:

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Jaymes]

Depends on the situation. If there's someone going nuts with a gun, it's still wrong to kill them... but it would be more wrong to allow them to just keep killing people.

 

[njcl]

From the CCC:

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

so if i had a scoped rifle zoomed in on adolf hitler in 1932 and shot him therebye saving 6 million jews and millions of soldiers lives that would be wrong??

 

[Scott1]

so if i had a scoped rifle zoomed in on adolf hitler in 1932 and shot him therebye saving 6 million jews and millions of soldiers lives that would be wrong??

Aaaaahh brilliant..... well thought out.

so much for those catholic precepts

Ignorance and arrogance.... great combo.... maybe if you'd ask me if shooting hitler would have been evil we can have an adult conversation.

For the record: it would not have been evil.

 

[Jaymes]

Why do you feel it wouldn't have been evil, Scott? I'm of the view killing is always wrong, but sometimes unavoidable.

 

[njcl]

An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.


evil action - killing hitler,killing any human being whatever they are is an evil act but you have just said it would be ok making the above by st thomas void

 

[Halcyon]

For the record: it would not have been evil.

Why do you feel it wouldn't have been evil, Scott? I'm of the view killing is always wrong, but sometimes unavoidable.

Of course it would have been evil, it would have been better to have arrested him. Think of it like this, would you be able to shoot him in the face as a baby? If not, then why could you do it to him as an adult, bearing in mind that at this point he has yet to kill anybody?

 

[Scott1]

Why do you feel it wouldn't have been evil, Scott? I'm of the view killing is always wrong, but sometimes unavoidable.

Why thank you Jensa, for the intelligent question.

The CCC also teaches: 2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

I believe that anyone who lived in that day and age who knew that Hilter was intent on(or commiting, depending on the exact time and place of this hypothetical scenario) mass-murder, and had the intention to stop the genocide... would have performed a moral act by ending the life of this mad man.

 

[Halcyon]

I believe that anyone who lived in that day and age who knew that Hilter was intent on(or commiting, depending on the exact time and place of this hypothetical scenario) mass-murder, and had the intention to stop the genocide... would have performed a moral act by ending the life of this mad man.

Um, why so bloodthirsty Scott, there are places called mental hospitals, or prisons for the criminally insane for people just like him?

 

[Jaymes]

Of course it would have been evil, it would have been better to have arrested him. Think of it like this, would you be able to shoot him in the face as a baby? If not, then why could you do it to him as an adult, bearing in mind that at this point he has yet to kill anybody?

I don't think I could shoot anyone, Hitler or not.

And thank you for clarifying, Scott.

 

[Scott1]

Um, why so bloodthirsty Scott, there are places called mental hospitals, or prisons for the criminally insane for people just like him?

Ummm right, Haycyon.....use a hypothetical situation to preach about morality....

What I would do is.... take my time machine.... go see Hitler as a baby.... use magic pixie dust to confuse his parents.... abduct the child Adolph and bring him to Dr. Seuss land to live his life with Cat-in-the-Hat and fuzzy little bunnies.

Better?

 

[Halcyon]

Ummm right, Haycyon.....use a hypothetical situation to preach about morality....

What I would do is.... take my time machine.... go see Hitler as a baby.... use magic pixie dust to confuse his parents.... abduct the child Adolph and bring him to Dr. Seuss land to live his life with Cat-in-the-Hat and fuzzy little bunnies.

Better?

Nice dodge there Scott.

1. Why not use a hypothetical question to talk about morality?

2. If you did have a time machine, why is the only option to kill him? I wouldn't mind a real answer this time, minus the fluffy bunny crap.

 

[Jaymes]

I think he might start trying to do genocide on the star-bellied Sneetches...

 

[Scott1]

Nice dodge there Scott.

1. Why not use a hypothetical question to talk about morality?

2. If you did have a time machine, why is the only option to kill him? I wouldn't mind a real answer this time, minus the fluffy bunny crap.

It wasn't a dodge... if you'd pay attention to the entire thread... njcl proposed a scenario that involved shooting Hitler with a rifle... I countered that with a discussion about the morality of that action in this purely hypothetical situation.

For you to then call my views "bloodthirsty"...

We're finished with this discussion.

 

[njcl]

Um, why so bloodthirsty Scott, there are places called mental hospitals, or prisons for the criminally insane for people just like him?

he was not mentaly ill neither criminally insane,just evil

 

[Halcyon]

It wasn't a dodge... if you'd pay attention to the entire thread... njcl proposed a scenario that involved shooting Hitler with a rifle... I countered that with a discussion about the morality of that action in this purely hypothetical situation.

For you to then call my views "bloodthirsty"...

We're finished with this discussion.

What the deuce!? Are we reading two different threads here?

njcl did propose a hypothetical scenario about shooting hitler - true.

• you said that it would not be evil to kill hitler
• Jensa and njcl then suggested it would be evil to kill any human, including hitler
• i suggested there must be hyperthetical alternatives to killing hitler in this hyperthetical situation, i consider choosing the killing option over the arrest option bloodthirsty, don't you?
• you come back with a statement about bunnies

Why am i in the wrong here exactly?

 

[Crystallas]

Going back to the original post, I would wonder if you mean something more like "Stealing food to feed hungry family." For so many years people saw this as right and now people see this as lost money and homeless problem.

But anyways I came up with a few subquestion of the original. Is it right to use an illegal cure for cancer that cures you instantly because you have no time to wait?

Is it wrong to send people to prison? If we talk about evil, how can you say that we are ones to decide others fate? As well as places on earth that still use lethal injection, electic chair, death by riflesquad ect ect. They exchange doing something evil to save other peoples lives, tax money, prison space and set examples of them.