Dr. Tiller & the Visitation

Alas, notorious abortion "doctor" George Tiller went to meet his Maker today, the victim of a homicide. In the foyer of his Lutheran church in Wichita, Kansas. The alleged murderer has been caught, according to report. God have mercy on both.

I note what is, to me at least, a strange irony, that today is May 31. It is the fixed date for Western Feast of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin. Mary, soon after the Annunciation, with Child, goes to meet and greeted Elizabeth, six months with child, and the babe in the womb of Elizabeth--John the Baptist--leaps for joy at the sound of Mary's voice, and Elizabeth, too, responds in wonder at the fact that the "Mother of my Lord" has arrived and greeted her. Two women with child, one a Virgin and the other past the years of child-bearing, meet, and John and Jesus are there, with John, as it were, beginning his ministry of announcing Jesus the Christ in the womb with leaping. For years friends and I have advocated that the Sunday in May closest to May 31 be observed in chuches as "Sanctity of Life," also somewhat in connection with Memorial Day and its remembrance of lives lost in war. Of course, we have a Sanctity of Life Sunday already, in January because of the date of the U.S. 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which opened the floodgates for the Dr. Tillers and other "abortion providers." It would be better to observe Sanctity of Life Sunday not only in the US but elsewhere in connection with the Gospel of the Visitation. It is a rich and significant Gospel that the churches, including Dr. Tiller's own Lutheran church, apparently, ignore.

Too much blood, too many victims. Dr. Tiller's many, many victims. His own life ended in cold blood. Roe opened this door and he went through it. I've written elsewhere about how bad laws make bad men. There will always be bad men (who of us is without sin?) but laws can make us worse, and abandoning the respect for human life in the womb cannot but make a nation worse. The children of Roe are rising up. Lord, have mercy.

Comments

[Clifford Simon]

How about "mad doctor" for what we call abortion "doctors" or "provides" -- a parallel to "mad scientist." A mad scientist is one who uses his intelligence and skill, not in the service of the pursuit of knowledge, but for a twisted purpose or power. A mad doctor uses his, not in the service of healing, but for madness.

[Diane]

"There will always be bad men (who of us is without sin?) but laws can make us worse, and abandoning the respect for human life in the womb cannot but make a nation worse."

Carol Swain has just written a commentary on the pending supreme court nomination and the matter of abortion (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carol-m-swain/too-clever-by-half-obama_b_209264.html).

In the course of her article she adds this note:

"As I write these words, I write from the perspective of a black woman who decades ago aborted an unborn child because of the ease and convenience of the nearby clinic. In my naiveté, I reasoned that if it were legal, it must be okay. Not everything that is legal is okay."

The perversion of law is truly one of the more damaging of human missteps.

[Mark]

Mr. Kushiner, it is anything but "ignored". Go here for a sampling of ongoing comments from Lutherans:
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=2056.0

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

James Kushiner: "I've written elsewhere about how bad laws make bad men. There will always be bad men (who of us is without sin?) but laws can make us worse, and abandoning the respect for human life in the womb cannot but make a nation worse."

I agree. However, I've heard from others on previous MC threads that Christians are too active in the legislative (i.e., law-making) process. In particular, these heavy-handed critics despise what they claim are the "Religious Right" and their involvement in so-called "wedge" issues of culture-war politics such as gay marriage and abortion.

[Rob G]

"I've heard from others on previous MC threads that Christians are too active in the legislative (i.e., law-making) process."

I don't think it's that so much, TUAD, as the fact that the pro-life movement in some ways got too hung up on politics, i.e., putting our faith in the GOP, and didn't spend enough effort on grassroots concerns. In other words, too much top down, not enough bottom up.

As far as Dr. Tiller goes, it seems to me to be no great problem to be happy for the result of Dr. Tiller's murder (a rabid abortionist is no longer practicing) but to condemn wholly the means whereby this happy result was accomplished (vigilantism and the breaking of the law).

One can, I think, say a similar thing about war. For instance, am I happy that Japan surrendered to end WWII? Yes. Do I condone the manner in which that end was accomplished? No.

[Benighted Savage]

Rob G writes:
"As far as Dr. Tiller goes, it seems to me to be no great problem to be happy for the result of Dr. Tiller's murder (a rabid abortionist is no longer practicing) but to condemn wholly the means whereby this happy result was accomplished (vigilantism and the breaking of the law)."

I don't follow you here. It looks as if, in an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, you assert an unreasonable and radical disconnect between means and ends.

For example: let's say my wife is approached by my boss at a party. He makes the following proposal to her: if she has a series of sexual encounters with him, he will see to it that I receive a much needed promotion and a big raise. My wife agrees, and for several months they have an affair. Soon after my boss ends the affair, he keeps his word: I unexpectedly recieve a much needed promotion and raise. Let's then say that, several months later, my wife suddenly regrets her decision and tearfully confesses her adultery (and the circumstances which surround it) to me.

Are you seriously suggesting that, as a husband and as a man, I could properly and rightfully respond to her admission by saying "I am happy with the result of your actions, but I condemn the means whereby this happy result was accomplished"?

I hope you see my point. There is a reciprocity between means and ends that you ignore at your peril. There is no happy result in regards to Tiller's murder. There is no cake.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Rob G: "I don't think it's that so much, TUAD, as the fact that the pro-life movement in some ways got too hung up on politics, i.e., putting our faith in the GOP, and didn't spend enough effort on grassroots concerns."

I don't know any Christian who put their "faith in the GOP" above their faith in God. Looks like you're tilting towards a strawman of the so-called "Religious Right".

And with regards to grassroots concerns, I think I saw on another thread a number of rebuttals to Francesca about Christians putting in the effort on "grassroots concerns".

"am I happy that Japan surrendered to end WWII? Yes. Do I condone the manner in which that end was accomplished? No."

Admit it. You miss Stuart Koehl.

;-)

[David Gray.]

>I don't follow you here. It looks as if, in an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, you assert an unreasonable and radical disconnect between means and ends.

Actually Rob is spot on. An end can be legitimate or just even if the means that brought it about are illegitimate or unjust. We can't sanction the means because we aren't Bolsheviks who believe the end justifies the means.

[Rob G]

**I don't know any Christian who put their "faith in the GOP" above their faith in God.**

I didn't even imply that, let alone say it. What I said was that we relied too much on politics (which inevitably means the GOP) and not enough on grassroots efforts (note I didn't say we did NOTHING on the grassroots level; I said "not enough").

"I hope you see my point. There is a reciprocity between means and ends that you ignore at your peril."

True enough. But no principle of the type you mention can apply universally and equally across the board in every instance. The situation with you and your wife seems to me to be of a different sort than that of the Tiller incident or of Japan and WWII which I mentioned. The determination of application of principles is what casuistry is all about.

"There is no happy result in regards to Tiller's murder."

Sorry, but there is. A man who killed thousands of unborn children will no longer be doing it.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Rob G.: "What I said was that we relied too much on politics (which inevitably means the GOP) and not enough on grassroots efforts (note I didn't say we did NOTHING on the grassroots level; I said "not enough")."

Compare and Contrast With...

James Kushiner: "I've written elsewhere about how bad laws make bad men. There will always be bad men (who of us is without sin?) but laws can make us worse, and abandoning the respect for human life in the womb cannot but make a nation worse."

[Rob G]

No difference that I can see, TUAD. You're trying to start a fire where there's no fuel.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

No, I'm not. I'm in complete agreement with James Kushiner about bad laws making bad men worse and that efforts by Christians to make good laws via a variety of means is a very good and God-honoring endeavor.

[Benighted Savage]

David Gray writes:
"An end can be legitimate or just even if the means that brought it about are illegitimate or unjust."

I disagree. When we're talking about means AND ends, I'd say the justness or goodness of the ends is directly proportional to the goodness or licitness of the means. Illicit means taints licit ends. This relationship is also one-way: a good end will not sanctify bad means.

What you and Rob G are doing by separating means and ends amounts to a sophistic cheat. You divide and isolate two halves of a dyad that, pragmatically speaking, are only distinguishable. It's always means AND ends. For an argument to separate the two and posit one as distinctly good, and the other as isolably evil -- "and never the twain need meet" -- is at best indicative of a deep underlying confusion. At worst, it turns moral argument into a shell game.

I also don't think you're coming to terms with the entirety of Rob G's argument. He doesn't merely abstractly argue that unjust means can produce a just end. He writes that "it seems to me to be no great problem to be HAPPY for the result of Dr. Tiller's MURDER" (his words, my emphasis). I'd say that his expressed happiness over Tiller's death further undercuts, if not contradicts, his claim that he doesn't condone the means to that end.

"We can't sanction the means because we aren't Bolsheviks who believe the end justifies the means."

I'd say that when you claim that you're happy that an abortionist is dead you're conferring an implicit approval of the means that caused that death. You're sanctioning the violence, albeit with a wink.

[Benighted Savage]

Rob G writes:
"But no principle of the type you mention can apply universally and equally across the board in every instance."

This is a red herring. No man-made principle of any type can apply universally and equally across the board in every instance.

"The situation with you and your wife seems to me to be of a different sort than that of the Tiller incident or of Japan and WWII which I mentioned."

I thought that the hypothetical situation with my imaginary wife was close enough to the case of Tiller's murder. If you don't want to discuss the similarities, or answer the question I posed, so be it. The example of Japan struck me as being another red herring.

"The determination of application of principles is what casuistry is all about."

I'd say casuistry is as casuistry does... and you're the one who is being evasive here. Once again, so be it.

Here's another case to ponder: Dr. Gein, the abortionist, offers to make a $2 million donation to a diocese-run hospital. Gein is an unrepentant abortionist, and all his money has been earned at his private abortion mill. Bishop Y hears of Gein's offer and decides to accept the money. A deal is reached. When stunned reporters ask Bishop Y why he would do such a thing, given his ardent support of the pro-life cause, Y replies that although he cannot condone the actions of the abortionist, the money he gives can do so much good for the hospital that he is happy to accept it.

Question: Does Bishop Y provide a reasonable moral argument to support his decision to accept the abortionist's money? Should he have accepted the money in the first place? Why or why not?

"A man who killed thousands of unborn children will no longer be doing it."

In terms of the abortion industry, Tiller is a speed bump. He'll soon be replaced. I doubt the damage to the pro-life movement will be repaired so easily. Proclaiming how happy you are that he is dead on a public forum just adds fuel to the fire.

[David Gray.]

>I'd say that when you claim that you're happy that an abortionist is dead you're conferring an implicit approval of the means that caused that death. You're sanctioning the violence, albeit with a wink.

I'd say you are utterly wrong.

>I disagree. When we're talking about means AND ends, I'd say the justness or goodness of the ends is directly proportional to the goodness or licitness of the means. Illicit means taints licit ends. This relationship is also one-way: a good end will not sanctify bad means.

God would appear to differ. In the old Testament we see justice and chastisement meted out by such as the Assyrians. It is no less justice because of the means used.

>In terms of the abortion industry, Tiller is a speed bump. He'll soon be replaced.

Actually from what I've read that is untrue. Very few men are willing to perform the abortions Tiller was willing to. And they are getting long in the tooth.

[Benighted Savage]

David Gray writes:
"God would appear to differ. In the old Testament we see justice and chastisement meted out by such as the Assyrians. It is no less justice because of the means used."

God wills what He wills. However, we are mere men. If you have evidence that Scott Roeder was, like the Assyrians in the OT, an instrument of God's justice when he murdered Tiller, do tell. You might also relate to us how this evidence was revealed to you.

"Very few men are willing to perform the abortions Tiller was willing to. And they are getting long in the tooth."

Definitely NOT true if you mean by this the "Tiller was one of only three L/T abortionists" nonsense the news media is repeating. I think I'll trust Father Pavone over the late baby-killer's self-promotion:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/blog/ --- cf. entry for 2 June 2009 along w/comments

http://www.gynpages.com/ACOL/category/late.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99924

[David Gray.]

>God wills what He wills. However, we are mere men. If you have evidence that Scott Roeder was, like the Assyrians in the OT, an instrument of God's justice when he murdered Tiller, do tell. You might also relate to us how this evidence was revealed to you.

I don't have to know in order to assert that means and ends are not linked in the manner you believe. My example was sufficient to destroy that illusion (which is presumably why you are trying to change the topic).

[Benighted Savage]

David Gray writes:
"I don't have to know in order to assert that means and ends are not linked in the manner you believe. My example was sufficient to destroy that illusion (which is presumably why you are trying to change the topic)."

As I wrote above, I readily admit that God wills what He wills and is not bound or limited by principles or definitions thought of by foolish men like me (to describe the actions of other foolish men).

I don't deny that God used the Assyrians as an instrument (means) to chastise Israel (end). How could I? What I do question is what relevance this counterexample has to the question of means/ends when we are discussing mere humans like you, me, Tiller or Roeder. Your Assyrian counterexample applies to the case of Tiller's murder only if we assume that Roeder is an agent of God's justice (which you have yet to argue, let alone prove) or if we claim that God's Happiness, Power, Law and Justice are identical with that practiced by man (i.e., the claim would be that God's meting out of justice is the same as Roeder's commission of homocide, which is patently absurd).

Still waiting for you or Rob G to address my case of the foolish husband or the example of the benighted bishop.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Yowsa! I shall forthwith make an amended and revised version of my earlier comment given the severe beating being constantly administered to the backsides of those who dare oppose the means-ends analysis proffered by Benighted Savage.

Version 2.0.

"I'm in complete agreement with James Kushiner about bad laws making bad men worse and that efforts by Christians to make good laws via a variety of licit means is a very good and God-honoring endeavor."

Eg., working for the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

[David Gray.]

>What I do question is what relevance this counterexample has to the question of means/ends when we are discussing mere humans like you, me, Tiller or Roeder.

Hate to break it to you but the Assyrians were human like you, me, Tiller or Roeder.

>As I wrote above, I readily admit that God wills what He wills and is not bound or limited by principles or definitions thought of by foolish men like me (to describe the actions of other foolish men).

And, again, it proves that means and ends are not inextricably tied in the fashion that you've convinced yourself.

[Rob G]

"And, again, it proves that means and ends are not inextricably tied in the fashion that you've convinced yourself."

Bingo. We are not to do evil so that good may come, correct? This presumes that a good can come from evil means.

I am not happy that Tiller is dead. I am happy that he's no longer doing abortions. Is this really so difficult to understand? Who's being the sophist here?

Your child punches the playground bully and breaks his nose; as a result your son is suspended from school for three days, but the bullying stops. Did the end justify the means? No. Is it still a good or "happy" end? I'd say yes.

TUAD, I'm going to ignore you. It seems to me you are trying to start an argument here where there isn't one by positing an imaginary either/or (which, BTW, I've already addressed).

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Rob G, you and others undermine, perhaps unknowingly, those Christians who are working through a variety of licit means to change bad laws to good laws through your caricatured cheap shots of them by dismissively calling them the "Religious Right" within the GOP.

BTW, you are the one positing an imaginary either/or by artificially dividing between "enough" grassroots efforts and legislative efforts. And who are you to decide what is "enough"?

[Rob G]

I've never been dismissive in the way you mention, nor have I ever used the term 'Religious Right' as a cheap shot. You've got me confused with someone else, stranger.

Do yourself a favor and read Kirk's 'The Politics of Prudence' or Weyrich's and Lind's recent book 'The Next Conservatism.' You'll see what I'm getting at.

[David Gray.]

>Rob G, you and others undermine, perhaps unknowingly, those Christians who are working through a variety of licit means to change bad laws to good laws

I don't agree with this premise and will probably regret interacting with someone who is afraid to use their name but are you really asserting that you think there is a possibility that Rob is knowingly trying to undermine any effort to change bad laws to good laws?

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Rob, threats to ignore only work if you follow through with it.

[Rob G]

I know, WFO. I'm ignoring the argument, but I wanted to make clear that it wasn't I who wrote the things he's saying I did.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Rob G., glad to hear that you're not opposed to those who are derisively and unfairly termed the "Religious Right". Glad to hear that you support the variety of licit efforts by Christians (many who are in the GOP) to encourage biblically moral behavior which includes the legislative and political arenas.

Now I can ignore you on this issue.

[Rob G]

"Now I can ignore you on this issue."

Indeed.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Getting back to the discussion about the linkage between Means and Ends I've been wondering about the Donatist heresy.

Let's say that you have a pedophile priest or a psuedogamy priest who was engaged in illicit physical behavior just shortly before confecting the Elements of the Mass. He then gives the Host to the parishioners.

The parishioners receive the end result of the Real Presence, and the means by which the Real Presence were confected are irrelevant.

[William Tighe]

TUaD,

Correct in terms of Catholic sacramental theology, but, on the other hand, most if not all Catholic theologians have insisted that Catholics should shun the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, of clergy whom they know to be immoral, or in rebellion against Church teachig and discipline (cf. the ongoing case of St. Stanislaus parish in St. Louis and its rebellious pastor, Fr. Bozek).

[David Gray.]

>Correct in terms of Catholic sacramental theology

The WCF also says that the efficacy of the sacraments is not dependent on the "piety or intention" of the man administering them.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

"TUaD,

Correct in terms of Catholic sacramental theology, but, on the other hand, most if not all Catholic theologians have insisted that Catholics should shun the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, of clergy whom they know to be immoral, or in rebellion against Church teaching and discipline"

Dear Professor William Tighe,

Thanks for the additional clarification. It's helpful. Look at this excerpt from this post:

"Let me start with a personal story. In 1974, when I was 23 years old my uncle from Louisiana came to visit our family. It just so happened that, at the time, my uncle was a Supreme Court Judge in Louisiana. (He was later elevated to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.) One evening when my uncle and I were talking he shocked me when he told me that he agreed with Roe v. Wade, the abortion decision that had been handed down the year before by the U. S. Supreme Court. “How can you be Catholic and support abortion?” I asked incredulously.

He began to speak to me about a priest who he admired. The priest was Jesuit Father Robert Drinan, who had been elected to Congress a few years before the Roe v. Wade decision. (Father Drinan served 5 terms in Congress, 1971 – 1981.) It turned out that Father Robert Drinan supported abortion and was one of the originators of the slogan, “I am personally opposed to abortion but … I can’t impose my morality on a secular society.” My uncle basically told me that if a Catholic priest could support Roe v. Wade why couldn’t he.

In the years that followed I could see the sinister influence Drinan had on numerous leading Catholic Democrats, many of whom, changed from a pro-life position to a pro-abortion position. When the people of Massachusetts elected Drinan to serve 5 terms in Congress they were sending the slyest of foxes into the hen house of Congress. He gained instant prestige as a priest/politician deceiving many because of his position in the Church.

Drinan was one of the chief architects of the culture of death in the United States of America."

So it looks to be the case that Father Drinan's parishioners could have refused to take the Eucharist from him based upon the fact that many Catholic theologians have insisted (Curious, do they have the imprimatur of the Magisterium?) that laity should shun sacraments from clergy who are in rebellion to Catholic Church teaching. But was Father Drinan really in rebellion to Catholic Church teaching?

After all, him saying “I am personally opposed to abortion but … I can’t impose my morality on a secular society” does not technically constitute overt rebellion to Catholic Church teaching, does it?

And so I surmise that most of Father Drinan's parishioners took the Eucharist from him anyways, knowing that they'll be receiving the Real Presence regardless.

[Benighted Savage]

Rob G writes:
"Bingo. We are not to do evil so that good may come, correct? This presumes that a good can come from evil means."

Some good can come from an evil means, but the evil means taints the good. Sometimes, when we're talking about a mortal sin like murder, that involves a heck of a lot of taint.

This is the position I have been defending since the first. As I wrote much earlier, "we're talking about means AND ends, I'd say the justness or goodness of the ends is directly proportional to the goodness or licitness of the means. Illicit means taints licit ends."

If you want to attack a straw man, Rob G, that's your prerogative. If you want to ignore the relevance of my argument to your earlier post -- that you see no problem about being happy at the result of Roeder's murder -- so be it. But don't pretend that you have addressed the argument I've been making.

"I am not happy that Tiller is dead. I am happy that he's no longer doing abortions. Is this really so difficult to understand?"

Tiller is no longer doing abortions because he is dead. He is dead because he was murdered by Scott Roeder. Murder is a mortal sin. I don't think that's hard to understand at all. For you to form a moral cordon sanitaire around the end result, proclaim your happiness about its goodness, and ignore the chain of facts that lead to it, bespeaks a very troubling form of moral blindness.

"Who's being the sophist here?"

You tell me, o Dionysodorus.

"Your child punches the playground bully and breaks his nose; as a result your son is suspended from school for three days, but the bullying stops. Did the end justify the means? No. Is it still a good or 'happy' end? I'd say yes."

I'd say no, for the reasons I have outlined above. I'm still not clear about what reasons you would give for your saying "yes," just that your saying "yes" is informed by what you consider a moral principle (that applies to Tiller's murder, to war, and now to the schoolyard). Are you willing to bring this subterranean principle forward, so that I and others can examine it in the light of day?

I agree with you that the ends never justifies the means. But to argue that I can be happy with the ends and yet ignore the means doesn't seem much of a step up out of that moral abyss. That's the point I attempted to make with my cases of the Benighted Bishop and the Foolish Husband. However, given your caginess throughout this thread, I don't doubt that I'll have a long wait before you address the cases or the questions I asked about them.

[David Gray.]

>I'll have a long wait before you address the cases or the questions I asked about them

This is an ironic comment oh anonymous one.

[Benighted Savage]

David Gray writes:
"This is an ironic comment oh anonymous one."

Well, I'll get back to you when you show you have a better grasp of the distinction between the Assyrians as the instrument of God's justice and the Assyrians as mere men.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Benighted Savage: "However, given your caginess throughout this thread, I don't doubt that I'll have a long wait before you address the cases or the questions I asked about them."

A subtle way of calling out Rob G.

Here's the irony. Rob G. was calling out Francesca on another thread. Now the tables are turned and he's getting called out here. Funny.

[David Gray.]

>Well, I'll get back to you when you show you have a better grasp of the distinction between the Assyrians as the instrument of God's justice and the Assyrians as mere men.

I doubt it.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Let's see if this works.

[TimC]

Benighted,

I'm not trying to step between you and Rob, but it seems to me that you are building an argument that can't support its own weight. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.

I think that you are saying that if there is an illicit action in the chain of means preceding a particular end, then we can never "be happy" about that end. In other words, because there is murder in the chain of murder=>death=>no-more-abortions, we can't legitimately be thankful for the end to abortions.

Maybe I'm going overboard in arguing a fortiori here, but couldn't the same argument be applied to our redemption through Jesus's death and resurrection? Can I not rejoice that Jesus is risen because the chain of causation is (simplistically): perjury=>unjust judgment=>death=>resurrection=>redemption?

In fact, taken ad infinitum, wouldn't your position logically suppress nearly all joy, for in this fallen world what happy ends do not have sin somewhere in the chain of causation?

[Rob G]

I don't believe that the means NEVER taint the ends; I just believe that they don't ALWAYS do so. Thus my 'subterranean principle' isn't really a principle at all, other than the realization that each particular case must be examined on its own merits. As David Gray said above, means and ends aren't always intricably tied together in the manner you think they are. I'm not sure how less "cagey" I can be here; I think it's fairly blunt, actually.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

>Well, I'll get back to you when you show you have a better grasp of the distinction between the Assyrians as the instrument of God's justice and the Assyrians as mere men.

I doubt it.

-----------

Clarification question: Do you doubt that you'll be able to get a better grasp of the distinction or do you doubt that Benighted Savage will get back to you once you've shown that you have a better understanding of the distinction asked for?

[David Gray.]

>Do you doubt that you'll be able to get a better grasp of the distinction or do you doubt that Benighted Savage will get back to you once you've shown that you have a better understanding of the distinction asked for?

Neither. I doubt he'll understand the concept sufficiently to be satisfied.

[Benighted Savage]

TIMC writes:
"I think that you are saying that if there is an illicit action in the chain of means preceding a particular end, then we can never "be happy" about that end. In other words, because there is murder in the chain of murder=>death=>no-more-abortions, we can't legitimately be thankful for the end to abortions."

That's not the point that I'm trying to make. That's why I've been trying to be careful about choosing my words. To modify your construction of my argument: if there is an illicit action or actions in the chain of FACTS that precede a particular end, then the "goodness" of that end is tainted or lessened. MOREOVER, the degree of taint is directly proportional to the degree to the elements in the chain have an evil or immoral character.

For example, let's say that someone tells me these bare facts that will count as ends: "Your sister-in-law has had a baby"; "Your neighbor Mrs. Huang has paid off all her gambling debts," "Mr. Gein the abortionist has stopped performing abortions."

Let's predicate some good or morally neutral means to these ends:

A.)"Your sister-in-law has had a baby; your brother is a very happy father!"
B.)"Your neighbor Mrs. Huang has paid off her all gambling debts; the money she got from her second job at the hospital is the reason why."
C.)""Mr. Gein the abortionist has stopped performing abortions; he has heard the word of the Lord, closed down his abortion mill, and intends to spend the rest of his life repenting of his many sins."

So, here there is more or less a concord here between means and ends. No reason to not be happy about these ends.

Now let's predicate some morally evil means to these ends:

A.)"Your sister-in-law has had a baby; the mailman is the father!"
B.)"Your neighbor Mrs. Huang has paid off her all gambling debts; she got the money from selling her two young daughters into prostitution."
C.)""Mr. Gein the abortionist has stopped performing abortions; he was murdered by some poor sap who shot him in the head."

See the difference? See how, in the second set of situations, the goodness of the end is lessened? In some situations it can be lessened quite a bit. It is this difference that I have been trying to capture in my posts. I'm not saying that one can never be thankful or happy about the end result, just that one's thankfulness and happiness is necessarily conditioned and at least partially determined by that preceding chain of facts.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Well, that settles that. When you have all parties claiming that the other party lacks sufficient understanding then it's just useless.

Benighted Savage: "You don't grasp the distinction or nuance in the argument here."

David Gray: "No, it's you who don't understand what's being argued."

Stalemate.

Call it a draw and leave happy.

[Benighted Savage]

TIMC writes:
"Maybe I'm going overboard in arguing a fortiori here, but couldn't the same argument be applied to our redemption through Jesus's death and resurrection? Can I not rejoice that Jesus is risen because the chain of causation is (simplistically): perjury=>unjust judgment=>death=>resurrection=>redemption?"

I suppose it could, but if you would review my exchange with David Gray on this thread you'll note that I've previously said that I don't think my argument applies to the actions of our Triune God. My argument is not an universal one: it's only for purely human actions.

"In fact, taken ad infinitum, wouldn't your position logically suppress nearly all joy, for in this fallen world what happy ends do not have sin somewhere in the chain of causation?"

Sure, if I were making an argument with absolute claims. Which I am not. At the most, you might claim that it entails that we cannot be perfectly happy in our fallen world. I don't see how such an entailment would contradict Scripture, the Church Fathers, or common sense.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Benighted Savage: "See the difference?"

Yes. I don't see how any clear-thinking Christian could not see the difference.

"It is this difference that I have been trying to capture in my posts."

You've done an excellent and admirable job in capturing and showing this difference. If it turns out that you were casting pearls because there have been some who have objected vigorously to your posts, well, what can you do?

[Rob G]

Seems to me, Savage, that you're making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't see too much of a difference between what you're saying in your last post and what David and I have been saying all along. What I'd say is:

A) Ends do not justify means.
B) Evil means can, but do not necessarily always, taint a good end.
C) The level to which evil means taint a good end is dependent upon the specific situation.
D) There are some instances wherein one can detect an unalloyed good resulting from a more or less evil means.
E) Likewise, there are situations in which the evil of the means far outweighs the good that results, to the point where any purported good remains questionable.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Is it just me, or did someone let out the dufflepuds again?

[TimC]

Benighted,

I can generally agree with your responses (I don't think we quite agree on the crucifixion), but let me turn the first of your exemplary ends around again:
A.)"Your sister-in-law has had a baby; oh, by the way, she had an appointment at Mr. Tiller's clinic for the Monday following his death!"

Would it be wrong to rejoice in the birth of this child knowing that the possibility of birth was directly contingent on his murder? Can we even say that our happiness is tainted by the knowledge of murder? I hesitate to do so ("I would be happier you were alive if...").

And so when I agree with Rob that I am happy with the end of no more abortions, I do so out of happiness for the lives that have (I hope) been saved.

[TimC]

"Is it just me, or did someone let out the dufflepuds again?"

That's right, that's right, couldn't have said it better myself, chief.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Benighted Savage: "Still waiting for you or Rob G to address my case of the foolish husband or the example of the benighted bishop."

Don't hold your breath waiting.

Anyways, as Dr. Albert Mohler said: "But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause."

[Benighted Savage]

Rob G writes:
"I don't believe that the means NEVER taint the ends; I just believe that they don't ALWAYS do so. Thus my 'subterranean principle' isn't really a principle at all, other than the realization that each particular case must be examined on its own merits. As David Gray said above, means and ends aren't always intricably tied together in the manner you think they are. I'm not sure how less "cagey" I can be here; I think it's fairly blunt, actually."

You're just repeating the truism that rules are always abstract (or abstractions), and that every set of facts to which a rule can be applied is a concrete entity that is not necessarily identical with that rule. Thus, the judge's difficulty...

That's a nice meta-legal point to make, and obviously true, but it's not exactly a new idea to me and it seems beside the point. Thus the "caginess": when I bring up a specific case, you assert that it doesn't apply (and don't provide supporting reasons); when I bring up a principled argument, you misstate the principle I introduce as being absolute and universal and present in response truisms about how laws are applied to cases.

So, let's go back to the beginning: would you please provide a reasoned account of how the fact that Tiller was murdered in cold blood does not taint or diminish your enjoyment of the end result of the murder: Tiller is no longer performing abortions? If you believe that means don't ALWAYS taint the ends, perhaps you can explain to benighted folks like me how that "is the case" with Tiller's murder.

[Benighted Savage]

Rob G writes:
A) Ends do not justify means.
B) Evil means can, but do not necessarily always, taint a good end.
C) The level to which evil means taint a good end is dependent upon the specific situation.
D) There are some instances wherein one can detect an unalloyed good resulting from a more or less evil means.
E) Likewise, there are situations in which the evil of the means far outweighs the good that results, to the point where any purported good remains questionable.

Response:
A.) I concur.
B.) Disagree. In situations involving purposeful human action (without divine intervention), means partially determine ends. So, evil means necessarily taint or adversely condition what would otherwise be a good end.
C.) Agree (albeit with a strong sense of unease).
D.) Strongly disagree.
E.) Strongly agree, minus the "likewise."

3 out of 5 ain't bad. Perhaps one basis for our points of disagreement is that I am taking the "ends" or "end-situations" to be pragmatically defined. I don't think you are. Still baffled by your claim regarding Tiller's murder.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Benighted Savage: "In situations involving purposeful human action (without divine intervention), means partially determine ends."

I, for one, appreciate your careful thinking in this matter. Because you have knowingly pre-empted the example that I was going to give about Rahab the Prostitute's lies. And how her lies were used as a means to an end.

[Benighted Savage]

TIMC writes:
"Would it be wrong to rejoice in the birth of this child knowing that the possibility of birth was directly contingent on his murder? Can we even say that our happiness is tainted by the knowledge of murder? I hesitate to do so ("I would be happier you were alive if...")."

I don't think it would be wrong to rejoice in the birth of a child even if it were the product of adultery (or fornication). Once again, I'm just stating that someone's joy -- and the goodness of the birth -- would be sullied and reduced by the "reproductive circumstances." At the very least because things could have been done better, more in accordance with God's law.

As for your example -- you don't think that the mother's (or others) joy at her child's birth would be tainted by the knowledge that she had intended to pay for her child's murder the week before he/she was born? We're talking real people here, not Hallmark card sentimentality.

[Benighted Savage]

TUAD writes:
"I, for one, appreciate your careful thinking in this matter."

Eh, not so careful. "B" should read:

"In situations involving purposeful human action (without divine intervention), means partially determine ends. So, evil means necessarily taint or adversely condition what would otherwise be AN UNALLOYED good end."

There. That's better.

[Truth Unites... and Divides]

Benighted Savage revises to: "In situations involving purposeful human action (without divine intervention), means partially determine ends. So, evil means necessarily taint or adversely condition what would otherwise be AN UNALLOYED good end."

That qualifier "without divine intervention" also knocks out the example of the Caanite genocide command in the Old Testament.

Well done. You are anticipating the objections of those who might otherwise commit the blunders for yada-yada.

[Rob G]

**If you believe that means don't ALWAYS taint the ends, perhaps you can explain to benighted folks like me how that "is the case" with Tiller's murder.**

Again, I don't see how it is any different than saying that while I strongly object to the atomic bombing of the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral, I am glad that the Japanese surrendered to end WWII.

Likewise, while I think that the Civil War was unnecessary and a huge mistake which cost 600,000 Americans their lives, the one positive result of it was the end of slavery.

Let me propose alternate endings to these scenarios. What if the result of the A-bomb drops on Japan was not the surrender of that nation, but simply a crippling of their infrastructure so that instead of being able to continue fighting the war for another year or two, they were able only to fight for another six months?

What if the result of the Civil War was not the end of slavery, but simply the reuniting of the North and South, with things continuing on as they were, the only exception being a complete Northern political and economy hegemony, with a condition that the South would have to end slavery on its own by the year 1880?

What if the result of the murder of Tiller was simply that the operation of his clinic stopped for a day or two, as his primary assistant stepped in to carry on his work without a break?

The means are still evil, IMO, but in these cases the "goods" are substantially less, and they are therefore more tainted. After all, there is rather a difference between stealing a loaf of bread to feed your child and stealing one to feed the fish in your backyard pond. In other words, there is the matter of proportionality to consider (which, given letter A above, can only be evaluated in hindsight).

From another angle you can look at it like this. Let's say that the Civil War didn't happen, but that slavery was ended by a combination of diplomacy and threatened economic consequences against the South. In both situations the result is exactly the same: slavery is ended, correct? Does the fact that one scenario required a horrific four-year war and the other didn't reduce the overall "good" of the ending of slavery? Is emancipation somehow less desirable or praiseworthy because it came as the result of a war? Of course not, because emancipation is a good in and of itself.

Yet, one can envision a situation in which even emancipation might be tainted. What if the North had invaded the South and simply killed every single farmer or plantation owner who owned slaves, then set all the slaves free?

Likewise with Tiller: what if the murderer had gone into the church with an Uzi and just started shooting everyone in sight, in order to make sure he got him? Would that not change things? Tiller would be doing no more abortions, but at what cost? In that situation the end of the abortions would be a far more alloyed good.

[Benighted Savage]

Rob G writes... quite a bit!

The reason I called your Japan/WWII case a red herring earlier was that it is a much, much more complex moral situation than what we have with the Tiller-Roeder murder. That's why I tried to keep it "simple" with the cases I discussed. I see the same problem with the your new example of the US War of Succession. I didn't, and don't, want to lose focus and get lost in the details.

Considering in hindsight counterfactual outcomes for the events that led to the end of the Pacific War and the War of Succession may be rewarding. We can speculate about results that would seem better to us, and others that would appear to be worse. However, I don't see how this would change the basic situation of there existing a chain of facts that result in an outcome and that conditions (if not more or less determines) the moral status of that outcome.

In terms of retrospective analysis of an event like Tiller's murder, or the Pacific War, we are dealing with an already realized concrete situation or end, not an ideal. It's past; we can't do anything to change it. However, some ideals, like the end of legal elective abortion, are an unalloyed good. As ideals they point to the future; they elicit efforts towards that ideal goal. Unfortunately, since our future is built out of the crooked timber of humanity I don't doubt that even if God graces our efforts with success, and legal abortion is abolished, that the realized end result will be tainted. In fact it already is, given the murderous actions of Roeder and his ilk. I'd very much like to keep that taint to a minimum.

[David Gray.]

>That qualifier "without divine intervention" also knocks out the example of the Caanite genocide command in the Old Testament.

TUAD, only if one thinks God does not ordinarily use means.

>I don't doubt that even if God graces our efforts with success, and legal abortion is abolished, that the realized end result will be tainted.

BS, everything we do is tainted.

[Rob G]

Savage, my point in bringing up those examples and the multiple potential outcomes was to demonstrate the complexity of the issue at hand; application of moral principles is not nearly as cut and dried as you seem to think it is.

[TimC]

Benighted,

The problem I see with some of your counter-examples is that they do not necessarily represent intrinsic goods. I don't think that "paying off gambling debts" or "receiving a raise" are goods in and of themselves. In those cases, the means are important in determining of the quality of the ends themselves. However, "ending abortion" or "ending a war" are intrinsic goods. As such, though we can't legitimize "any means possible," we can be thankful that those ends have been reached however they came about.

As you implicitly acknowledge at the end of your 10:26 post, this extreme scrupulosity toward means leads to an inability to recognize any end as entirely good. Doesn't this prevent us even from singing O felix culpa? To argue that the case of our redemption is different because God is involved seems to me to be special pleading. Isn't every case of good coming from evil ultimately tied to God's working in creation?

[Benighted Savage]

TIMC writes:
"The problem I see with some of your counter-examples is that they do not necessarily represent intrinsic goods. I don't think that "paying off gambling debts" or "receiving a raise" are goods in and of themselves. In those cases, the means are important in determining of the quality of the ends themselves. However, "ending abortion" or "ending a war" are intrinsic goods. As such, though we can't legitimize "any means possible," we can be thankful that those ends have been reached however they came about."

I wasn't that focused on the question of intrinsic vs. instrumental goods, but I don't see how that would significantly change the point I was making. I'd argue that both intrinsic and instrumental goods can be debased by their having been achieved by illegitimate means, sometimes to the point that to say that you are happy or thankful that the end was achieved would be morally objectionable. If a war is ended through a phyrric victory, how thankful or happy should the "winning" side be?

If legal abortion in the US finally ends only through civil war that kills many thousands and results in the destruction of the Union, I fail to see how my happiness or thankfulness that the legal murders had ended would not be tempered by a great deal of sadness.

Once again, what initially bothered me was what I felt to be an unwarranted abstraction of a moral good from a larger context (chain of facts). Specifically, in the case of the Tiller murder. That sort of abstraction strikes me as involving a kind of moral short-sightedness that can ignore too much in its intense focus on the "good." Finally, I don't quite understand how exchanging an "ends justifes the means" rationality with a principled statement that "the intrinsic good is such that it doesn't matter how it is achieved" makes for much of a difference.

For example: several years ago, a professor in one of my classes answered a question about world-wide communist revolution by stating that a universal communist society was such a significant good that it wouldn't matter to him if half of the earth's population died in the struggle that would achieve it. This statement was embedded in a utilitarian context: the desirability of a communist society, along with the good achieved by ending capitalism, greatly outweighed the evils that would be necessary to achieve them. What bothers me is that if intrinsic goods are as isolated from the "chain of facts" as you say they are, the professor could just as easily have abandoned his utilitarianism and said that the instrinsic good of communism is such that we are to be thankful or happy when it is achieved no matter how destructive or vile the means that brought it about.

"As you implicitly acknowledge at the end of your 10:26 post, this extreme scrupulosity toward means leads to an inability to recognize any end as entirely good. Doesn't this prevent us even from singing O felix culpa? To argue that the case of our redemption is different because God is involved seems to me to be special pleading. Isn't every case of good coming from evil ultimately tied to God's working in creation?"

To be honest. I'm not very happy that my position is as secular as it is; unfortunately, I can't think of a way to re-cast it at the moment. My "special pleading," as you call it, is a kind of placemark: work to be done!

Some thoughts however: the only entirely good end I can think of is God. I'm wary of asserting the existence of unalloyed goods-in-themselves in our post-lapsarian world lest they inappropriately distract me from He Who Is Good and the source of all goods. The fact that goods are incomplete and tempered by evil serves to point me towards He who is neither.

So, no, I don't see how my position would prevent me from singing "O felix culpa," since I'm not arguing for an absolute position and I'm not suggesting that God's Creation is completely evil (as the gnostics would).

And now I must sleep!

[Benighted Savage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eItTyiykdiI&feature=channel_page

[Stain Teeth]

Great site,this information really helped me , I really appreciate it.Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it.