Is there ever a situation where the means justify the end?

[public hermit]

Consider the problem of "dirty hands," which concerns whether or not a national leader is ever justified in committing some immoral act for the sake of the greater good. For example, we generally assume murder is always wrong. However, would it be acceptable for a national leader to kill an innocent person if in doing so the nation would be saved?

Do the means ever justify the end? As you think about this consider John 11:47-50.

 

[Tolworth John]

No the ends do not justify the method.
Right and Wrong are absolutes , they are not relative.

 

[-Sasha-]

I don't think good can come from evil means, except that God intercedes and overcomes the evil, allowing for good to happen in spite of it. Another way of putting this is that an outcome which is truly good can only be achieved through good means.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

 

[Willie T]

Yes, Rahab, Abraham, and I believe it was, Isaac all lied, and God seems to have been OK with it each time.

 

[thecolorsblend]

If we’re talking specifically about government then I don’t see a way of governing unless you’re willing to kill. As a leader, it will probably come to that.

I think the state (in a generic sense) has broad authority from God to do what’s necessary to preserve law and order. It’s not always pretty but it’s necessary at times.

 

[public hermit]

If we’re talking specifically about government then I don’t see a way of governing unless you’re willing to kill. As a leader, it will probably come to that.

I think the state (in a generic sense) has broad authority from God to do what’s necessary to preserve law and order. It’s not always pretty but it’s necessary at times.

That's an interesting take, and I am somewhat inclined to agree. Given that line of reasoning, would you say that Caiaphas was justified (given what he knew at the moment of utterance) in asserting that Jesus should be put to death for the good of the nation? (see John 11:49-51). Not trying to throw a trick question at you, just curious how you might navigate that particular instance.

 

[thecolorsblend]

That's an interesting take, and I am somewhat inclined to agree. Given that line of reasoning, would you say that Caiaphas was justified (given what he knew at the moment of utterance) in asserting that Jesus should be put to death for the good of the nation? (see John 11:49-51). Not trying to throw a trick question at you, just curious how you might navigate that particular instance.

I can't really judge somebody else's heart.

Still, Caiaphas had plenty of opportunities to meet Our Lord and find out the truth for himself. Our Lord pronounced several woes against the Pharisees, which I assume includes Caiaphas. For that reason, I think Caiaphas's concern about the good of the nation may very well have been a smokescreen.

In the end, I think objectivity on this is probably impossible. I assume we all confess Our Lord as the Son of God so we can't try to be impartial. God will judge Caiaphas. But if I were a betting man, I'd guess that Caiaphas probably won't like God's judgment against him very much.

 

[public hermit]

I can't really judge somebody else's heart.

Still, Caiaphas had plenty of opportunities to meet Our Lord and find out the truth for himself. Our Lord pronounced several woes against the Pharisees, which I assume includes Caiaphas. For that reason, I think Caiaphas's concern about the good of the nation may very well have been a smokescreen.

In the end, I think objectivity on this is probably impossible. I assume we all confess Our Lord as the Son of God so we can't try to be impartial. God will judge Caiaphas. But if I were a betting man, I'd guess that Caiaphas probably won't like God's judgment against him very much.

Thank you for your reply. I agree that objectivity is impossible. I also confess that Christ is the Son of God, but that is not why I think objectivity is a problem. When it comes to the means justifying the end, it is virtually impossible to guarantee the end one is shooting for. In this instance, Caiaphas clearly missed the mark. But, under other circumstances, maybe his advice would have achieved the desired result. One of the problems with the means-to-end approach is that achieving the end is not a guarantee. Humans are bad consequentialists, precisely because we don't know the future outcome of our actions. I assume only God is in a position to be a successful consequentialist.

I understand why one might argue that the State is in a position to use the means-to-end approach. Mostly because there is so much at stake, i.e. the good of the whole. But, the State is in no better a position to guaruntee a good outcome than the individual. Or, so it seems to me.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I understand why one might argue that the State is in a position to use the means-to-end approach. Mostly because there is so much at stake, i.e. the good of the whole. But, the State is in no better a position to guaruntee a good outcome than the individual. Or, so it seems to me.

For me, what it comes down to is that the state has the authority to make the decision. Whether it's right or wrong, the authority is theirs.

So while a civilian might have a bit more to answer for if a poor decision is made, I suspect that heads of state have a lot more leeway simply because they bear so much more responsibility.

 

[-Sasha-]

So while a civilian might have a bit more to answer for if a poor decision is made, I suspect that heads of state have a lot more leeway simply because they bear so much more responsibility.

What do you think of this: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" in the context of your post?

 

[thecolorsblend]

What do you think of this: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" in the context of your post?

Since you ask, I think it's so unrelated as to border on being off-topic.

 

[-Sasha-]

Since you ask, I think it's so unrelated as to border on being off-topic.

How so?

 

[public hermit]

What do you think of this: "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" in the context of your post?

I think this is a legitimate question. If heads of state have given so much responsibility, then aren't they held to a higher bar? Or, at least, they aren't given more leeway simply because they have more responsibility. Which goes back to the argument about "dirty hands." Are heads of state justified in committing immorality if it is for the greater good? I am inclined to say not.

By the way, I am not considering the state defending its citizens as an act of immorality. But, would killing an innocent person be acceptable if it saves the nation? (I probably should have clarified that in the initial post)

 

[thecolorsblend]

.

 

[public hermit]

I'm not sure what happened here, but I don't want to be the cause of discord. I'll drop this line of argument. My apologies.

 

[SkyWriting]

No the ends do not justify the method.
Right and Wrong are absolutes , they are not relative.

That depends. Is it right or wrong to kill a mosquito?
Is self defence justified?
Is defending your family justified?
Is defending your life justified?
Is stopping a speeding car justified?
Is stopping a rape justified?
Is jail time justified?
Is stopping crimes against others justified?
Non-violent crimes?
Misdomeners?
Felonies?
Is divorce right or wrong?
Is kidnapping your own child right or wrong?
Is spanking right or wrong?
Is slapping right or wrong?
Is non-violent protest right or wrong?
Violent protest?


Yes, the end result justifies the means. But not always.
I can walk, jog, ride a bus, drive, hitchhike, or crawl over broken glass to get to work.
I always justify the means with the desire to be to work on time.
There are many things that I can come up with that would not be justified.
But mostly, yes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Do the means ever justify the end?

Is your family in danger? Most jurries will allow you
to do almost anything in your pursuit of their safety.

 

[SkyWriting]

No the ends do not justify the method. Right and Wrong are absolutes , they are not relative.

One time I threw my father on the ground.
Was that right or wrong?
One time my father hit me. Was he right or wrong?

 

[public hermit]

Is your family in danger? Most jurries will allow you
to do almost anything in your pursuit of their safety.

To the best of my knowledge, no. I asked the question because I am truly curious how other Christians think about this particular ethical approach. I assume most Christians believe right is right and wrong is wrong. However, I do wonder if Christians make an exception for those in positions of power. This is a Christian forum, so I thought it would be a good place to learn.

 

[public hermit]

forgive the repeat