Does the end justify the means? Some say that the end never justifies the means. Others say that the end always justifies the means. Still others say that sometimes the end justifies the means. So, who is right? Further, is it right to say that God was just and right to create a world with evil because he had good ends for so doing? If so, is that not a case of the end justifying the means?
Of course, the previous chapters showed that the bible writers, and Christ himself, affirmed that in God's case the end did justify the means. For instance, the crucifixion was a bad thing that brought about infinite good. That does not mean, however, that an end justifies any and all means. It only means that some cases oftentimes necessitate using means that are not good in themselves. So, my belief is that the end sometimes justifies the means and sometimes not. If there are no other means to bring about the greater good, then it is justified. Though in some cases the end justifies the means, that should not mean that any and every means is justified towards achieving an end. The means are justified only if there is no other or better way to achieve the end. Also, the means do not become good because they are used to bring about a good. It is in actuality a case where evil served a good purpose as we saw in the case of Joseph and Christ. Because God brought good from Joseph being sold into slavery by his brothers does not therefore make what the brothers did to be right and not a sin. Because God brought good out of the evil of the crucifixion does not make the murderers good in their murder.
"The end justifies the means" is similar to another maxim that says "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" or of the one. That maxim means that when making a decision, the well-being of a large group of people should be prioritized over the needs of a smaller group or a single person, even if it means sacrificing the interests of the few or the one. This makes us think of what is called "lifeboat ethics." If you have a lifeboat that holds only ten people and where any more in the boat would sink it and kill everyone and where twelve people are in the water and will drown if they are not in the boat, then two people must be allowed to drown (a bad thing). This has literally happened many times, such as in the sinking of the Titanic, and in such cases the rule is to to let women and children go into the boat first. Still, lifeboat ethics requires that two people in the above example sacrifice themselves for the good of the ten. We see this in instances of "altruism." That is where someone puts the needs of others ahead of his own, such as when a person sacrifices himself to save others. Many soldiers have died in combat because they put themselves in danger to save fellow soldiers. Paul referred to this when he wrote: "For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die." (Rom. 5: 7 nkjv)
We also see altruism and as an example where 1) the end justified the means, and 2) where the needs of the many outweighed the needs of the few or the one, in the words of Caiaphas the high priest who was holding court over the trial of Jesus for blasphemy and other presumed crimes. Caiaphas the high priest said by the Spirit - "nor do you consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and not that the whole nation should perish.” (John 11: 50 nkjv)
Notice the word "expedient." Another word would be "profitable" (from the Greek word sympherei). Other words used in the KJV for it are good, better, profit. Caiaphas did a mental "cost/benefit" analysis and concluded that the nation should murder Jesus for the good of the entire Jewish population, a case where the end justified the means. Caiaphas meant it one way, a wrong way, but not in the way in which it was actually a right thing.
The idea that the end justifies the means is also an integral part of what is called consequentialism and utilitarianism. Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by its consequences. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would help save a person's life, consequentialism says it's the right thing to do. Utilitarianism is practically the same, affirming that an act is right only if it causes “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” Of course there are many caveats to keep in mind when discussing these issues philosophically. Whether it be consequentialism, utilitarianism, of a cost/benefits analysis, the force of the argument for justification rests on a judgment or appraisal of what is the good end in view and whether that good is really worth the cost. And, no finite creature has that ability and is why creatures must not lean upon their own understanding but seek answers from God and his oracles.
Therefore, the apologetic I have offered (as well as others) to show that God is just in spite of the fact that evil occurs in accordance with his will (either his permissive will or his will of decree) will not be accepted by those who think that the end never justifies the means. In Muslim theology God did not need to have his Son, Jesus Christ, to die as a sacrifice in order for men to be forgiven of sin. They say that God (Allah) simply forgives when he chooses to do so. Therefore they would say that there was no need for Christ to die and his death did not bring about any greater good, but actually had bad consequences. However, I think the examples that we have given in the preceding chapters show that the end good justified the evil means, even though those means were moral evils.
Paul's Input
"Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world? 7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say, “Let us do evil that good may come”?—as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just." (Rom. 3: 4-8 nkjv)
This text bears directly upon our discussion of whether a good end justifies the use of evil means. Those who Paul thought spoke "as a man," or in common language and belief, argued that since Paul taught that God brings good things from bad things, therefore doing those bad things is really doing good. If my sin proves that God was right and just in his condemnation, then my sin is the occasion for some good, and I ought not to be punished by God for sin. Take the case of God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as an example. That destruction displayed God's justice, sovereignty, and omnipotence. That display is a good thing. Since it was a good thing (revealing something about God), the argument of men says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was therefore not sin but good and God had no just right to condemn Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin.
Every time a person sins he may say "God, you were right in designating me a sinner." God is "justified" in his judgment and condemnation of people for every time they sin they prove God right, and every time they suffer punishment or retribution for their sins, they also prove God right. But, even though evil is a means of demonstrating God's justice and rightness it is still nevertheless evil and God is just to punish for it. That is Paul's retort.
So, we need to keep in mind the truth that affirms that an evil remains an evil even though good may come from it.
Also, while the apologetic or theodicy I have offered that says God is not to be denied or condemned or judged as being unjust, for his allowing evil, is unacceptable to some, I nevertheless believe it to be the reason most often given in scripture. We can say "God is sovereign and can do whatever he pleases," yet this really does not say anything about whether God is seen as righteous and just by mere sovereignty alone. So, it is not a persuasive answer to simply plead for God's sovereign right to create or allow evil. Many want to know why God has done what seems to them to be unjust or unfair.
No comments:
Post a Comment