On the role of human suffering in ends justify the means debates

Question from a DM in Facebook: Kant teaches that the ends never justify the means, that we can't do harm to achieve good. Is this correct under Catholic Thinking?

My answer: I dabble in philosophy and theology, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt, but here is my answer. As far as I'm concerned- if a philosophical or theological point hasn't been debated for at least 10 centuries, we haven't thought about it enough yet.

I would rephrase it as the ends rarely justify the means- usually the means justify the ends.

Additional Question from the DM: Are you Catholic, and could you give me an example?

I consider myself a Zen Catholic. I started out as a cradle Catholic, wandered away in my 20s, after learning the value of paradox all the parables in the Bible suddenly made sense so I returned. Have been married for 25 years.

The ends justify the means in the protection of the common good- the classic is the assassination of a totalitarian dictator, or the original pre-1992 reason why the Church approved of the death penalty- in the protection of innocent life. The other classic example is Augustinian Just Warfare, where you battle on your own land against an invader in direct defense of your family.

[St Thomas Aquinas's rules of Just Warfare are more explicit and nuanced, but for this example, Augustinan Just Warfare's simplified three rules are enough]

The means justify the end is far more common however; for instance, promosting lifelong heterosexual monogamy as the normal way to have a family insures not only will there be a next generation, but that next generation will have the benefit of having their biological mothers and fathers raise them; a process that usually results in a functional human adult.

Audio DM, to the best of my ability to understand, transcribed: When people say that God allowed them suffering, to make them better, is this not an example of God breaking this moral rule [from Kant]?
I understand God can act differently than us. For example we cannot murder. But God can take life because He created life.
So can God act against this idea of the ends justifying the means? For us humans, we cannot cause someone to suffer even if the result will be good.
But for Our Lord, He permits suffering because it can bring about a greater good.
So does this mean for God the ends DO justify the means?

My Answer: The problem here is the problem of suffering. I do not consider suffering to be an automatic evil.

Like I said, there are exceptions and it's not an absolute rule. Having said that, "the ends justify the means" isn't about suffering. There are plenty of good examples of moral behavior that cause suffering.

This avoidance of suffering is the same reason I'm a Zen Catholic and not a Zen Buddhist. Suffering, in Catholic terms, is valueable both to your own salvation and to the salvation of others.

But let's go with something that is absolute. The two Greatest Commandments- Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, soul and strength, Love your Neighbor as you love yourself.

There are many cases of love that require suffering. Many acts of love that require suffering. The commandment is to love anyway- so for Catholics, "the means justify the end" which is the more normal version of what goes on in morality means "Acts done out of love, out of willing the good for others, are never wrong".

In this way you preserve the human dignity of others, because you are acting out of love for them.

Now let's take my two examples of the end justifies the means. I'll take them backwards if you don't mind. The third rule of Augustinian Just warfare is "Use tactics that show love for your enemy by giving them a fighting chance to survive". Not only are you showing love for your family by protecting them from an invader- you're showing love for the invader by using hopefully non-lethal means to neutralize his effect on your home (for this reason, I own a BB machine gun- all the stopping power of a Colt 45 with none of the lethality).

Likewise, as the current revision of the Catechism with respect to killing a mass murderer, paragraph 2267 must be considered: 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.