In what other circumstances is it, not merely OK, but obligatory, to do what we think is a little evil (or not wrong at all, even though centuries of moral theology says it is an objective evil) to advance what we believe to be the greater good?If you look at the bit I have emphasized you'll see the issue. If something is an objective evil it raises the bar quite a bit about what circumstances it is acceptable to lie. For no matter how good your reasons for not telling the truth, you will be doing some evil.
On the basis of this argument, you might lie to save someone's life but you should still go to confession the next day to get absolution for telling the lie.
Suppose an armed gunman came in and said he was looking for Cecilia and you knew the woman sitting on the park bench was in fact Cecilia but told the gunman, "I don't know Cecilia but that is my friend Nancy." On the metaphysical definition you might be able to justify the lie but it would still be an evil. So you would go to the confessional, get down on your knees and say, yesterday I told a lie.
What should we do about such an argument?
That's easy. Ignore it. You couldn't possibly reason with a person who believes such a thing.
It's not that they are irrational. Go read the rest of Bender's argument and you will see that it is quite rational and there are even some good lessons to draw from it. But the notion that something might be an objective evil is not one of them. This isn't an argument but a move to shut down argument and it deserves to be ignored.
I agree with you. But isn't this similar to what Sister Aloysius says at the end of the movie "Doubt": "Sometimes we must move away from God in order to do His work"? I had a hard time with that too, it seemed as nonsensical as your example above, needing to go to confession after having told a lie to save someone's life. If you haven't seen it I don't want to give any spoilers away, but she told a lie in pursuit of a greater good. I suppose there's the old slippery slope argument, but maybe there's no such thing as objectively evil acts, maybe every act must be viewed in context.
ReplyDeleteJules, you mention a comment by "Bender." I'm only able to view the comments I post, I can't see anyone else's. Is that how it works or is something not working right?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I wasn't clear. "Bender" is a commenter over at the First Things site not here.
ReplyDeleteThere is no hidden posting here, if you can't see it then no one else including me can either.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
ReplyDeleteAs to Doubt, I don't know for certain not having seen it. It seems to me, though, that there are two possible interpretations for Sister Aloysius's behaviour:
ReplyDelete1. Is she bluffing in the hopes of getting Father Flynn to reveal the truth to her?
or
2. Is she blackmailing him with destroying his reputation even though she has no evidence?
If it is the second what she is doing is wrong and not justifiable under any circumstances and it is rather frightening to think anyone might think it was. That sort of morality has the whiff of something really vile about it. She would be setting herself up, as my mother used to say, as judge, jury and executioner.
If the first it is potentially justifiable but only in a really extreme situation. 1
What she should have done as soon as she had suspicions was to call the police first and then her Bishop. In that order and immediately.
Well, hopefully that's what they do today, call the police and then the Bishop. She does, in fact, first notify diocesan authorities. You posit two theories for her motives, but I don't want to give it away. You should rent the DVD, its a really good movie on many levels and only about 90 min long. Meryl Streep is amazing.
ReplyDelete