Is doing good ever bad?

[Geremia]

I find your example somewhat disturbing.  Nobody should be trying to punish irresponsible mothers or even making that sort of judgement.  Also giving a child up for adoption is extremely difficult and it does not make much sense to refer to it as a reward.  As far as I can tell the consequence of adoption is that it makes abortion less likely.

It's only a hypothetical example.

Let me clarify: Is doing what immediately seems good still good even if it has negative, unforeseeable consequences?

[Geremia]

I find your example somewhat disturbing.  Nobody should be trying to punish irresponsible mothers or even making that sort of judgement.  Also giving a child up for adoption is extremely difficult and it does not make much sense to refer to it as a reward.

So, as a culture, we should encourage the entitlement / welfare mentality?

As far as I can tell the consequence of adoption is that it makes abortion less likely.

Perhaps, even if only 1% of pregnancies end in adoption and ¼ end in abortion.

[Jayne]

Since the question of the OP has already received a good answer, I hope people do not mind if I go off on a side issue.

I find your example somewhat disturbing.  Nobody should be trying to punish irresponsible mothers or even making that sort of judgement.  Also giving a child up for adoption is extremely difficult and it does not make much sense to refer to it as a reward.

So, as a culture, we should encourage the entitlement / welfare mentality?

Something is really wrong when one's concern for preventing entitlement is a higher priority than helping babies.  Besides, I see no reason to think adoption does encourage this mentality.  Paying welfare to single mothers does this far more obviously that adoption does. 

[LouisIX]

I find your example somewhat disturbing.  Nobody should be trying to punish irresponsible mothers or even making that sort of judgement.  Also giving a child up for adoption is extremely difficult and it does not make much sense to refer to it as a reward.  As far as I can tell the consequence of adoption is that it makes abortion less likely.

It's only a hypothetical example.

Let me clarify: Is doing what immediately seems good still good even if it has negative, unforeseeable consequences?

If the nature of the act is good, and the intention is good, then negative unforeseeable consequences are not the fault of the one performing the moral act in question.  If the principle of double effect allows for us to do good things with good intentions even if there are foreseeable negative consequences, then the existence of unforeseeable negative consequences would certainly not affect the status of the moral act.

[james03]

Nobody should be trying to punish irresponsible mothers or even making that sort of judgement.

Making any sort of judgement?  Totally disagree.

As far as punish, single motherhood should be discouraged.

As far as I can tell the consequence of adoption is that it makes abortion less likely.

Adoption is a grand gesture for the one reason that it takes a kid from the horrible life of single motherhood headed family and gives the baby a real family to be raised in.  The consequences on abortion are secondary.  Beware the utilitarian heresy.  But yes, adoption is a great thing.

[ts aquinas]

" Is doing good ever bad?"

Yes. For example, natural goods done for the wrong reasons are bad. In this sense, one is objectively "doing good," but it is wrong for such and such a person to do that good if done for the wrong reasons.

For example, it is good that I give alms to the poor, but if I do it for vainglory, it is evil that I should do it.

This, we must distinguish between the doing in the abstract and general sense, which is the action, and the motive or reason behind the action on behalf of the concrete or specific doer or agent, which is what determines the moral rectitude of the action.

We see this confirmed in Scripture whereby Jesus enjoins His apostles not to forbid those who were casting out devils in God's name--but who were not with Jesus--from doing so. As St. Augustine comments on this passage in "On Baptism, Against the Donations (Book I)," the work that they were doing was good and was in substance the same work as that done by the apostles, but it was wrong for these former to do it insofar as they did it while rejecting Christ.

The work itself was good, but the doing of it by these men (because of their improper motive) was bad.

Which chapter is that quote in from Book I? Having difficulty finding it.


To the rest, would it not be simpler to say in the negative because the person was not "doing good" to begin with? Yes, the object of the will is good prior to the act of the will but execution makes it subsequent and thus corruptible. But in "doing" we consider the order of execution. If one single defect is found within the order, the act is evil. Additionally, for it to a good simply, it must be good in every respect.

[INPEFESS]

" Is doing good ever bad?"

Yes. For example, natural goods done for the wrong reasons are bad. In this sense, one is objectively "doing good," but it is wrong for such and such a person to do that good if done for the wrong reasons.

For example, it is good that I give alms to the poor, but if I do it for vainglory, it is evil that I should do it.

This, we must distinguish between the doing in the abstract and general sense, which is the action, and the motive or reason behind the action on behalf of the concrete or specific doer or agent, which is what determines the moral rectitude of the action.

We see this confirmed in Scripture whereby Jesus enjoins His apostles not to forbid those who were casting out devils in God's name--but who were not with Jesus--from doing so. As St. Augustine comments on this passage in "On Baptism, Against the Donations (Book I)," the work that they were doing was good and was in substance the same work as that done by the apostles, but it was wrong for these former to do it insofar as they did it while rejecting Christ.

The work itself was good, but the doing of it by these men (because of their improper motive) was bad.

Which chapter is that quote in from Book I? Having difficulty finding it.

9. For, in the next place, that I may not seem to rest on mere human arguments—since there is so much obscurity in this question, that in earlier ages of the Church, before the schism of Donatus, it has caused men of great weight, and even our fathers, the bishops, whose hearts were full of charity, so to dispute and doubt among themselves, saving always the peace of the Church, that the several statutes of their Councils in their different districts long varied from each other, till at length the most wholesome opinion was established, to the removal of all doubts, by a plenary Council of the whole world: — I therefore bring forward from the gospel clear proofs, by which I propose, with God's help, to prove how rightly and truly in the sight of God it has been determined, that in the case of every schismatic and heretic, the wound which caused his separation should be cured by the medicine of the Church; but that what remained sound in him should rather be recognized with approbation, than wounded by condemnation. It is indeed true that the Lord says in the gospel, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad." Matthew 12:30 Yet when the disciples had brought word to Him that they had seen one casting out devils in His name, and had forbidden him, because he followed not them, He said, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us. For there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me." If, indeed, there were nothing in this man requiring correction, then any one would be safe who, setting himself outside the communion of the Church, severing himself from all Christian brotherhood, should gather in Christ's name; and so there would be no truth in this, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad." But if he required correction in the point where the disciples in their ignorance were anxious to check him, why did our Lord, by saying, "Forbid him not," prevent this check from being given? And how can that be true which He then says, "He that is not against you is for you?" For in this point he was not against, but for them, when he was working miracles of healing in Christ's name. That both, therefore, should be true, as both are true—both the declaration, that "he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad;" and also the injunction, "Forbid him not; for he that is not against you is for you,"— what must we understand, except that the man was to be confirmed in his veneration for that mighty Name, in respect of which he was not against the Church, but for it; and yet he was to be blamed for separating himself from the Church, whereby his gathering became a scattering; and if it should have so happened that he sought union with the Church, he should not have received what he already possessed, but be made to set right the points wherein he had gone astray?

To the rest, would it not be simpler to say in the negative because the person was not "doing good" to begin with? Yes, the object of the will is good prior to the act of the will but execution makes it subsequent and thus corruptible. But in "doing" we consider the order of execution. If one single defect is found within the order, the act is evil. Additionally, for it to a good simply, it must be good in every respect.

Well, what was done was good, but the doing of it with a defect by such and such an agent was evil. So it depends what the OP meant by "doing good." If by this he meant the object of good simply, then the answer to his original question would be in the negative; if by this he meant the means to this end (considered in light of the agent), then the answer would be in the affirmative.

[The Harlequin King]

I just realized that the best analogy for this whole discussion comes from Lex Luthor. Luthor believes that Superman is ultimately bad, because the people of Metropolis come to rely on him rather than rise to their own challenges. According to Luthor, people will eventually wait for Superman to save them, rather than just cross the train track. Or they'll wait for Superman, rather than build a military force that can stand up to Darkseid. And so on.