Can the ends justify the means?

[robin]

I have been thinking about this for some time and I wanted to get the thoughts of anyone who has an opinion on the subject. It is often said that "the end doesn't justify the means". But I believe that there can be case where it does.

People will generally fall into one of three categories. That being:

*Consequentialism refers to those moral theories which hold that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.

*Deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek äÝïí, deon, "obligation, duty"; and -ëïãßá, -logia) is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of intentions or motives behind action such as respect for rights, duties, or principles, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions.

or

*Virtue theory is a branch of moral philosophy that emphasizes character, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. In the West virtue ethics was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the ancient and medieval periods. The tradition suffered an eclipse during the early modern period, as Aristotelianism fell out of favor in the West. Virtue theory returned to prominence in Western philosophical thought in the twentieth century, and is today one of the three dominant approaches to normative theories.

*Definitions taken from Wikipedia

I find myself a little confused on the issue, but at this time I find myself siding with the Consequentialism view. However, I must say that there are certainly exceptions, and questions would have to be answered prior to making any moral judgment in any case.

Any thoughts?

Robin

[marcus]

My thoughts are pretty well documented, but since this is a slightly different angle, here goes:

Consequentialism is what naturally resounds inside my head. It seems to me to be the most logical choice in a secular world. But as a Christian I can't defend that position very well at all (I could better argue that Christianity is the exact opposite). Neither am I a "deontologist" as you defined the term, since Jesus defined for us a specific way of thinking and acting that allowed no room for individual motives or good intentions. By default that would make me a Virtue theorist, but I'd like to see a more thorough explanation of the term.

I can't think of a scenario where Jesus would perform an immoral act in order to acheive a moral outcome. He made it very clear that immoral outcomes are to be expected, and he gave us reassurance that if we ignore human consequences and outcomes we can look forward to divine consequences and outcomes. The ends never justify the means.

[Josh]

*Consequentialism
*Deontological ethics
*Virtue theory

"Are those the only choices?"
- Chicken Run (said in an chickeny English accent)

Well, I'm sure there's a lot of different ways to parse the various perspectives on ethics/morality (the two terms aren't synonymous, but they are closely intertwined)

Elsewhere on this forum, I took a nod from C.S. Lewis and discussed several of them in turn:

Morality as Herd Instinct

Morality as Social Convention

Pragmatic Morality (this one aligns most closely with "Consequentialism"

Morality as an Instrument of Power

Lewis finds some fault with each of these partial definitions of morality/ approaches to ethics. He goes on to bring in the concept of universal moral law, which, though it has some kinship with "virtue theory" really stands on it's own as a Christian perspective.

Be right back... time for bath time....





for the kids, that is

Anyway, the thing that I think is missing is the above categories is a place for moral or ethical absolutes. Also missing is a consideration of God's special revelation to us about the nature of right and wrong. And for Christians, "righteousness" takes on a whole new definition in light of the teachings of Christ, which ask us to go beyond fairness and justice.

Here are some problems that I see with each of the above definitions (and some questions/ considerations as well)

Consequentialism, as Marcus said, seems in conflict with the moral absolutes that Scripture says make up the fabric of our existence. For instance, bearing false witness is always wrong- even if it would end up in the conviction of a criminal. Adultery is always wrong, even if the people aren't satisfied with their marriage- even if as a result of leaving their spouse they end up with a "better" relationship in the process.

Still, there are considerations the Christian must wrestle with that do seem to have to do with the ends justifying the means.

For instance, lying is generally considered an evil. Yet, lying to save someone's life from an enemy is condoned in Scripture, and I think most of us would agree it was justified for those hiding Jews during the Holocaust, for a more modern example.

Still, I don't think even in these cases that one could say that "lying isn't bad". It's just that lying is by far the "lesser evil". And sometimes we must make a choice between the lesser of two evils.

Probably the most crystalline example of this in Church history I can think of is Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer's tortuous decision (from the perspective of a pacifist) to become part of the assassination plot against Hitler.

Bonhoeffer doesn't excuse what he was attempting to do. He knows murder is a moral evil. But he chose to be part of the plot because he ended up viewing it as the lesser evil. It was in his power (or so it seemed) to help stop the Holocaust and the destruction of Europe. Knowing the good he could do and doing nothing- he considered this a sin as well. In the end he believed what he was doing was the lesser of two evils.

I don't know if he was right. Maybe it's up to the individual. Bonhoeffer failed, bringing to mind that verse from Revelation, "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword". Yet, who can deny the force of the argument that to stand by and do nothing was to commit a greater evil? Should he have done something different? Maybe. Yet I venture to say on the judgment day, though it's conceivable he may have to face the consequences of his choices in some way , God will be his witness that he made the best choice he could. (OK, so I can't hide the fact that he's one of my heroes

Deontological ethics

Though I think the Christian must say that there is more to ethics than intent, I think God does bring intent/motive into consideration as an important factor in his judgment of our actions.

All a man's ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the LORD. Prov. 16:2

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God. 1 Cor. 4:5

for the LORD searches every heart and understands every motive behind the thoughts. 1 Chron. 28:9b

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares. Romans 2:14-16

I think there will be surprises at the judgment- surprises when we find out the true motivations of our own hearts and of other's hearts.

For instance, I imagine the judgment of some of those Christians who perpetrated certain aspects of the Crusades will be quite stiff, yet I wonder about those who went on a Crusade for more noble reasons, and yet got muddied in the moral conundrums of the times. I envision God as being able to see each heart truly, free of the cloudiness of vision we have when we look at others actions.

Virtue theory is most closely aligned with Lewis' view, that morality rests not primarily on abritrary rules, but on the consideration of virtures/ ideals. Still, he would say that there are so many specific actions that can be almost always shown to be wrong or right that there is still a place to speak of "rules" in the narrow sense that the above definition seems to devalue.


OK, those are thougths on this for now.

Does this stir any further thoughts, questions, rejoinders?