Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Is it lawful to amputate a member?

**Posted by Mateus** 7/02/2015 6:51 pm

Is it lawful to amputate a member when the overall good of the body demands it? How does that relates to the idea that is not lawful to bring about good by doing an evil action? Of course, I'm asking for a traditional natural law perspective.

**Posted by Etzelnik** 7/02/2015 7:00 pm

I would ask you first precisely what do you define as evil?

**Posted by Mateus** 7/02/2015 7:34 pm

Evil would be understood as a par with good. Good is the realization / actualization of a natural end, evil the opposite, that is, the privation of a natural end. Amputation, per se, it's obviously evil since it frustrates the ends of that body part.

Just to confirm, I'm not trolling or anything. This is a real doubt.

**Posted by Etzelnik** 7/02/2015 7:35 pm

Well then, how is the amputation against the good? A limb per itself has no just or unjust treatment.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 7/02/2015 7:36 pm

Presumably, he means the natural law sense of an immoral and unnatural act, one against the good.

I don't think the OP's question can be answered unless we know the circumstances. Is the amputation because the limb is injured and diseased and may cause death?

**Posted by Mateus** 7/02/2015 7:36 pm

Hi, Etzelnik. See my post above at 7:34 pm.

**Posted by Mateus** 7/02/2015 7:38 pm

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
Presumably, he means the natural law sense of an immoral and unnatural act, one against the good.

I don't think the OP's question can be answered unless we know the circumstances. Is the amputation because the limb is injured and diseased and may cause death?

I was thinking more about death (either you amputate it or you die); if anyone wants to talk about an injured limb, I would like to hear about it too.

**Posted by Etzelnik** 7/02/2015 7:39 pm

Yeah. I get it.

However, I don't think that a limb, when abstracted from the overall body, has any sort of independent purpose which could be frustrated, provided the amputations necessity to the rest of the organism.

Last edited by Etzelnik (7/02/2015 7:44 pm)

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 7/02/2015 7:44 pm

My understanding is that the natural law tradition sees it as permissible to amputate a limb, or remove an organ, if that is needed to save oné's life, because the ends of the limb are subsumed in the ends of the whole body. But I don't know where the line is drawn about diseased limbs (or organs). I don't think it would be considered permissible if one was someone who had a psychological condition and wished to have the limb amputated for this reason.

**Posted by Etzelnik** 7/02/2015 7:46 pm

Jeremy Taylor wrote:
My understanding is that the natural law tradition sees it as permissible to amputate a limb, or remove an organ, if that is needed to save oné's life, because the ends of the limb are subsumed in the ends of the whole body. But I don't know where the line is drawn about diseased limbs (or organs). I don't think it would be considered permissible if one was someone who had a psychological condition and wished to have the limb amputated for this reason.

In the case of psychological condition, couldn't we say that the soul's well being supercedes even that of the body?