lesser of two evils

[Guest Aluigi]

lol...come on God wants you to be sure of His Will... moral absolutes are your friends !

okay, here's what I'm thinking. it all depends on where you're starting from. if you start from C, then choosing B is not choosing any evil. If you are going towards lesser evil than the current evil, that is an inherently good action. Let's say for the sake of an example that smoking was evil (it is not inherently evil, don't get me wrong, though it can be used for evil, i'm just using it for the sake of the argument). To choose to smoke less would be a good action. If you attempted to stop cold turkey you would likely fail and be smoking just as much as you ever were. Your means is not smoking less, your means is LIMITING the smoking you're already doing. That's the action, the agent of change.

now, if you start from A, then B would be choosing an evil. Same example, this time start with a guy that does not smoke. The action of deciding to smoke a little bit would be evil.

Am I making sense here? Again, these examples only serve to make it easier and less confusing to talk about, there will be innaccuracies in any analogy generally, but this serves the purpose of explaining how I am viewing this I think. It's the decision of change that is the real means. The action being taken would be the action to limit something bad that is is already going on, not to do a little of it (you are already doing a little of it plus more before you decide to change)

[dairygirl4u2c]

Still seems kind of arbitary but I don't know. I think you may be right.

But one thought. No actions that are normally sins can be said to be always a sin? Murder, rape, theft, fornication, etc can all be good can't they? I can see ways in which they would be.

Another thought to clarify. You do agree that the term "lesser of two evils" must be being used wrongly correct? (in regards to my scenario and the election) I just want you to verify that you agree.

[Guest Aluigi]

yeah, i would say not to use "lesser of two evils" because that implies you're choosing evil. you're only choosing good and ommitting the FULL extent of the good because it is not yet possible.

Murder, rape, theft, fornication, are always and everywhere evil sins. A person is not always fully culpable for that sin, but they are still comitting a sin (they just aren't to blame all the time).

[dairygirl4u2c]

That's what they usually say. And that's why I just asked and didn't explain; to see if that's what you'd say.

But wouldn't you agree that there may some times when they could be good? Murder. Just war doctrine and self defense is something that would have to fall into your theory and that involves murder. Well, maybe you wouldn't define it as murder then, just killing. Theft in order to prevent the object from being used wrong. Unless you only say "taking". on and on. But I think the point is there. Then rape, fornication, etc you might want to do that to get someone out of a bad spell they are in. See, they all can be used as good.

Edited October 23, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[Guest Aluigi]

rape and/or fornication are NEVER EVER good for someone. perhaps you weren't thinking when you said that. at least I hope that's not something you honestly believe.

RAPE- having sex with someone against their will, generally involving violence and numerous other crimes against the person. how is that to get them out of a bad spell they are in? rape can never ever ever be good, i defy you to name me one case it can be good.

fornication- having sex with someone outside of marriage, no lifelong committment, always and everywhere evil and detrimental to the psychological well-being of a person, when done with multiple partners throughout a life time it can increase risk of depression and decrease ability to have healthy relationships.

regarding your other examples, yeah, murder is by definition unjust killing. so just killing, i.e. in self defense when your action is not intended to take a life but rather to defend yourself by firing a bullet or striking the agressor in some way (double effect), is never wrong. but to intend to take someone's life away from them is always wrong. if you go into a just war with a bloodlust simply wanting to kill people, you are murdering. if every time you fire a weapon in a just war you are intending to protect your fellow soldiers and ultimately protect the country and the ideals you are fighting for, you are not murdering.

theft i would define as taking of something that rightfully belongs to another person. if another person intends to use that thing for evil purposes, they forfeit their right to own it. thus the action of taking it from them is not the sin of THEFT, but rather the prevention of sin.


to summarize,
morally neutral actions: killing, taking, sex
morrally good actions: just killing, taking to prevent evil, sex within Holy Matrimony
morally evil actions: murder, theft, fornication, rape

<all definitions from the Dictionary of Aluigi's Ideas and will not necessarily represent the views of Webster but are nonetheless important>

-Pax-

[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.