We know that one cannot commit evil with the intention of a good outcome.
We also know an evil outcome from a good action can be tolerated.
But how do we determine the act from the outcome?
Example: A person gives a kidney to a family member on dialysis.
Note: I am not saying organ transplants are immoral as 2296 approves them.
The approving way of looking at it is.
*Good act: Giving a dialysis patient a kidney.
Tolerable result: Taking a kidney from another person. (With consent.) *
But how do we know to look at it that way instead of
Evil act: Mutilation by taking a kidney from someone.
Good intention: Getting a kidney for a dialysis patient.
Or how about the case of a woman with multiple babies and a near certain chance they’d die before viability of any of the babies.
Note: I know abortion is wrong.
How do we know to look at it as
Evil act: Killing an innocent
Good intention: Saving the mother
Good act: Removing a baby so that the mother can carry the remaining babies.
Tolerable result: A baby will die from removal.
Basically, I’m trying to figure out the method used to discern whether or not a situation is an evil act with a good intention or a good act with an undesired, but tolerable, evil side affect. This is causing me some confusion.