I am willing to debate the topic of whether the ends justify the means, with the intention of reaching a conclusion on whether the church is morally justified in doing something evil to obtain a greater good.

My position is both that it is rational for the ends to justify the means AND that this is also how God acts.

Anyone who wants to debate with emotional arguments or call me names should not be on this thread. There is much abuse and paranoia on this forum, and you all know why, and there are those motivated by malice, but if you cant have a true debate in the spirit of philosophy then stay away please.

Try to make one point at a time so the thread does not diverge onto other subjects.

Thesis for debate: The ends do justify the means

1

If the ends do not justify the means there would be no divine precedent for acting in union with the thesis, and that divine predisposition matters because it is God from whom all moral right is derived.

God acted in union with the human notion of the ends justifying the means when he said to his people
"If your eye should cause thee to sin, pluck it out"
and again
"If your hand should cause thee to sin, cut it off"

I say there is a philosophy in his words.
If God desires our well being, a notion that I don't think is contested, and IF God instructed His people to cause harm to themselves to avoid a greater evil,

THEN he told His people to do evil to obtain the greater good of avoiding sin
Therefore there is Divine precedent for the ends justifying the means.

I don't care for debates particularly much on internet forums, I'm not saying their useless, just normally, because the two opponents really are opponents normally rather than two Christian souls seeking the truth whatever it may be, restrained by Christian virtue, and unwilling to use any vice to further their beliefs -- in fact because debaters often believe 'the ends justify the means' so that they believe they can abuse their opponents and the truth they believe in is worth not admitting a faulty argument. It's a different stance and interior attitude brought to it that I think tends to be a barrier towards the truth rather than a help for the participants. Sinful interior beliefs are easily roused.

The truth stands however poor a debater a person is, the person who admits failure in a particular point is better than the person who will not, behaving badly lest somehow (he thinks) he will be held accountable for people not believing the truth because he admitted any weaknesses or faults.

So no debates for me. I will give you a quote for thought though, I hope you won't mind. I suggest reading 'Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence' and 'Cur Deus Homo'.

The idea of 'the ends justifying the means' isn't an open or debatable question within the Faith. One outside of it might wonder about it, or enjoy trying to figure it out, a young boy might enjoy toying with the idea philosophically, but it's not an open question.

From Cur Deus Homo:

Anselm. You have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin.
Boso. Show it me then.

Anselm. If you should find yourself in the sight of God, and one said to you: "Look thither;" and God, on the other hand, should say: "It is not my will that you should look;" ask your own heart what there is in all existing things which would make it right for you to give that
look contrary to the will of God.
Boso. I can find no motive which would make it right; unless, indeed I am so situated as to make it necessary for me either to do this, or some greater sin.

Anselm. Put away all such necessity, and ask with regard to this sin only whether you can do it even for your own salvation.
Boso. I see plainly that I cannot.

Anselm. Not to detain you too long; what if it were necessary either that the whole universe, except God himself, should perish and fall back into nothing, or else that you should do so small a thing against the will of God?
Boso. When I consider the action itself, it appears very slight; but when I view it as contrary to the will of God, I know of nothing so grievous, and of no loss that will compare with it; but sometimes we oppose another's will without blame in order to preserve his property, so that afterwards he is glad that we opposed him.

Anselm. This is in the case of man, who often does not know what is useful for him, or cannot make up his loss; but God is in want of nothing, and, should all things perish, can restore them as easily as he created them.
Boso. I must confess that I ought not to oppose the will of God even to preserve the whole creation.
Anselm. What if there were more worlds as full of beings as this?

Boso. Were they increased to an infinite extent, and held before me in like manner, my reply would be the same.

Anselm. You cannot answer more correctly, but consider, also, should it happen that you gave the look contrary to God's will, what payment you can make for this sin?
Boso. I can only repeat what I said before.

Anselm. So heinous is our sin whenever we knowingly oppose the will of God even in the slightest thing; since we are always in his sight, and he always enjoins it upon us not to sin.
Boso. I cannot deny it.

Anselm. Therefore you make no satisfaction unless you restore something greater than the amount of that obligation, which should restrain you from committing the sin.
Boso. Reason seems to demand this, and to make the contrary wholly impossible.

Anselm. Even God cannot raise to happiness any being bound at all by the debt of sin, because He ought not to.
Boso. This decision is most weighty.

Anselm. Listen to an additional reason which makes it no less difficult for man to be reconciled to God.
Boso. This alone would drive me to despair, were it not for the consolation of faith.

Anselm. But listen.
Boso. Say on.

Oh come on!
Is it not possible to have a debate on CathInfo?
What would people who look at this forum say?
Apart from the interesting comment by Shin who does not want to be in the debate, others post that they disagree with "The ends justify the means", and down thumb me ( I don't care tbh, do it again if you like),
but the actions of those who want to hijack this thread show that they do in fact believe that the ends justify the means, they are just hypocrits.
They think they have a right to post on this thread out of vanity.
Anything that reminds people you still exist eh?
Even if it means squashing a debate before it starts.

Anyone who wants to debate can they respond to the post 1 from me.
It is a respectful search for wisdom I am looking for.

"Ends does not justify the means" is an immemorial principle of Catholic moral theology that is so undisputed within Catholic theology that I would consider it to be part of the infallible ordinary universal magisterium of the Church, i.e. that it would be heretical to deny it.  That would explain why no one wants to "debate" this with you.  It's simply not OPEN to debate.  That would be akin to starting a debate about the Immaculate Conception or something.

One can NEVER do evil.  Period.  On the other hand, once can perform certain actions that are not instrinsically evil with the proper formal intent ... e.g. murder vs. self-defense.  Such actions, which involve things not intrinisically evil, derive their moral quality from the formal intent.  In self-defense, the formal intent is not to kill but to save one's life.  It is not intrinsically evil to take a life (contrary to the Pro Life dogmatists out there, but we can address that on a separate thread), as the Church has always taught that there's nothing wrong with the death penalty, and God Himself takes human life.

If it is an immemorial principle of Catholic moral theology then maybe you could describe how this is so. I hold the opposite opinion, in fact it is obvious that the ends do in fact justify the means.

What you describe in your example of "is it murder or self defence" is nothing other than a re-catagorization of good and evil. You do not call an evil act evil because of the intention. But I submit that there are some things that are always evil, and to do them is necessary both for our education for "you shall be tried as gold is tried in the furnace",
AND
because a greater good may result that reduces the consequences of evil for a soul. You may call evil good depending on intention, but I say to thee,
Is sodomy ever a good act? (if done with the right intention)

You say that it is a good because of the intention of it,
but verily it is one of the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance.

Now if someone were to propose that you commit sodomy in order to save 1000 lives. That would be to propose an evil act.
BUT
because "there is good without evil, but there is never evil without good" - St Thomas Aquinas
the good that exists in the evil act is that you save 1000 lives, though it is inescapable that sodomy remains a sin crying to heaven for vengeance.

Therefore what say you?

The "thumbs up" for the post by "soulguard" (what a crock that name is) was, most unfortunately but entirely like his sophistry, an error.

Let us pray for that unfortunate poster, lest his final words be "Oh, come on, now..." as he races straight through a red light.

Ladislaus, a fine accounting, indeed!

If you cant debate then stay off this thread.