Christian ethics, means, and ends

[Guest]

I am curious what my fellow believers consider an acceptable approach to Christian ethics. The means justifies the ends. The ends justifies the means. Or is there some other variation which is acceptable?

I realize this is bit abstract, so we can add some test cases if needed.

 

[Vic C.]

It's not the destination, but the journey?

 

[Imagican]

I am curious what my fellow believers consider an acceptable approach to Christian ethics. The means justifies the ends. The ends justifies the means. Or is there some other variation which is acceptable?

I realize this is bit abstract, so we can add some test cases if needed.

While men may well consider such statements to actually MEAN something, I think that matters concerning truth and enlightenment go well beyond such simple statemets.

We have the Word. In IT is contained TRUTH and understanding when led BY The Spirit.

Maybe I am confused as to what you are actually asking, but ethics are not dictated by a necessary truth but what men have created in acceptable belief.

So, if an answer could be offered by ME, it would be that the ONLY ethics INVOLVED with being a TRUE follower would be TRUTH.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Guest]

Consider the following hypothetical situation. You have only two options. You can tell the truth or lie.

(i) You tell the truth and your friend will be killed. Means justifies the end.
(ii) You lie and your friend lives. End justifies the means.

 

[Veritas]

Interesting question, how about this for a solution:

Does the:

ends + means = justified

so, in your example we would have to add the two up to decide what is right. If telling a lie is going to cause thousands to die but allow your friend to live, then the means carries a greater negative value and therefore pushes the equation to the unjustified. If the telling a lie is nothing but a white lie about something unremarkable as "what did you eat this morning?", then the means only carries a slight negative value and the equation remains justified. Granted, you'll still have a problem when the two, (ends and means) are inverse and completely equal. Likewise, I think this equation will break down when we look beyond the human spectrum to the Godly (considering God sees all sin as equally bad). Those are solutions only derivable by God.

 

[Guest]

ends + means = justified

It's like being on a cooking show. Take a little ends, add a dash of means. Wha-la, you have a beautiful justification. (Yes, this is a potential solution as well.)

so, in your example we would have to add the two up to decide what is right. If telling a lie is going to cause thousands to die but allow your friend to live, then the means carries a greater negative value and therefore pushes the equation to the unjustified. If the telling a lie is nothing but a white lie about something unremarkable as "what did you eat this morning?", then the means only carries a slight negative value and the equation remains justified. Granted, you'll still have a problem when the two, (ends and means) are inverse and completely equal. Likewise, I think this equation will break down when we look beyond the human spectrum to the Godly (considering God sees all sin as equally bad). Those are solutions only derivable by God.

Norman Geisler calls this position, or at least one close to it, conflicting absolutism. The perspective considers it to be the duty of the Christian to do the "lesser of the two evils." It also believes the Christian has still sinned because they have chosen evil.

An alternative perspective given by Geisler is called graded absolutism. This perspective considers it to be the duty of the Christian to do the "greater of the two goods." It believes the Christian has not sinned in doing the greater of the two goods. To place this on in your context, the Christian, by choosing to save the lives of the thousands over the friend, would have been choosing the greater of the goods (i.e., saving a life).

Ultimately, these two perspectives see values on a weighted scale. When these values are in conflict, then the scale is used to choose the lesser of the two evils or the greater of the two goods. For example, is loyalty more important than honesty? Is protecting the innocent more important than sexual purity? And the list can go on.

Something I have always been curious about is the degree to which culture plays a part in the value scale. Is the value scale taught in the Bible? (Geisler points to a number of passages which seem to suggest so.) If so, then to what extent can be establish a value scale from Scripture? Can the value scale differ from culture to culture? That is, is it acceptable, from a biblical point-of-view, to value loyalty more than honesty in some cases based on culture? Anyways, I am digressing.

 

[JoJo]

Consider the following hypothetical situation. You have only two options. You can tell the truth or lie.

(i) You tell the truth and your friend will be killed. Means justifies the end.
(ii) You lie and your friend lives. End justifies the means.

I admit I would probably lie to save my friend (especially if I somehow foresaw the outcome). But in doing so, I would be sinning by taking matters into my own hands and trusting myself instead of God's sovereignty. In the world's eyes, the end would justify the means. But I believe God might see it differently.

 

[Guest]

I admit I would probably lie to save my friend (especially if I somehow foresaw the outcome).

I would also.

But in doing so, I would be sinning by taking matters into my own hands and trusting myself instead of God's sovereignty.

With regards to sinning, see my post above. I find the second element interesting. What do you mean by trusting in God's sovereignty? The situation is posed with only two options, but I am guessing you are proposing a third option of "inaction." Would that be a correct understanding? (And, I don't believe inaction is necessarily sinful. That's something I'm still exploring myself.)

 

[JoJo]

Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that God knows the outcome and doesn't need me to lie to stop something bad from happening. If it's His will to allow the friend to die, then who am I to break one of His commandments? In doing so, I would be showing my lack of faith by trying to control the situation myself in a sinful manner.

It all comes to down to a battle between the flesh and the spirit.

 

[JoJo]

The situation is posed with only two options, but I am guessing you are proposing a third option of "inaction." Would that be a correct understanding? (And, I don't believe inaction is necessarily sinful. That's something I'm still exploring myself.)

Actually, I hadn't thought of a third option of inaction. I'll have to think on that for a few minutes.

 

[JoJo]

About the option of inaction:

I think in order to address this third option, we would need to be more specific in the hypothetical scenario. So let's say I found out that my neighbor's wife is cheating on him. And somehow I knew that if the husband confronted the wife and her boyfriend, the boyfriend would shoot the husband. Then if the husband came to me and asked, "Is my wife cheating on me?" I would then have three choices:

1) Tell the truth and say yes. By saying yes, I would be telling the truth, but having foreknowledge of the man's demise, I would later feel guilty about letting him go and confront the cheaters, knowing he would be killed. Would his blood also be on my hands because I foreknew the outcome and didn't lie to stop it?

2) Lie and say no. By saying no, I would only be delaying the inevitable. Eventually, the husband would find out, but at least it wouldn't be because I told him.

3) Do nothing. I could say, "I'm sorry, but this isn't my business." And then I wouldn't be involved at all. And I could use the opportunity to pray for the outcome.

In this case, I think option #3 would be best.

 

[Veritas]

Norman Geisler calls this position, or at least one close to it, conflicting absolutism. The perspective considers it to be the duty of the Christian to do the "lesser of the two evils." It also believes the Christian has still sinned because they have chosen evil.

So the question remains: can truths exist yet be conflicting as this is; or, have we not looked at the problem deep enough to resolve the apparent conflict?

After I wrote my response I began thinking about this a little more. Just so you know, I usually view ultimate truths in an absolute manner; yet, I do think from our perspective we usually can only see (in terms similar to what you've presented) on a graded spectrum. Personally, I think this question is tied to the Trinity. So, I was thinking - when talking of what is "just" (in the Godly perspective) perhaps it remains absolute only because of His perspective. If he is infinitely good, that would mean any gradation wouldn't amount to us being "more good". However, because God is man as well, He can relate with our perspective, and I think He acknowledges gradation as something we are forced to work with. Hence the Bible verses you've alluded to about scales of goodness.

Something I have always been curious about is the degree to which culture plays a part in the value scale.

I think this is certainly possible; and I think certain verses could be expanded to that (within reason). Consider the following verse on a broader scale:

Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall. 1 Corinthians 8:13

Paul is adjusting his value scale to that of his brothers; this is something that may be wise culturally as well.

 

[JoJo]

Then again, I have no idea what I would do. lol :

 

[Veritas]

number 3 is pretty good... always good to pray

 

[Gabe]

Sometimes number 2 is the Christian thing to do.

James 2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

 

[JoJo]

Great example, Gabe!

 

[inhopeofglory]

Sometimes number 2 is the Christian thing to do.

That depends on what Rahab is being commended for. Is she being commended for lying, or for her faith in the God of Israel as demonstrated by her willingness to a) take the spies into her home and b) send them out a different way, believing their words that she would be saved if she followed their instructions?

One point that those who hold to an absolutist position make with regards to this proposed dilemma is that God is perfectly capable of protecting the innocent party if He chooses to do so. The classic example that is usually used, a variation on Minnesota's example, is lying to protect the Jews during WW2.

So, you're hiding a Jewish family in your home when Nazi officers knock on the door and ask if there are any Jews in the house. Do you a) lie to protect the family or b) tell the truth with the virtual certainty that they'll be rounded up and killed?

The absolutists would argue that you mustn't sin, so you mustn't lie. In response to the argument that you'd then be condemning the Jewish family to death, they'd respond that God is capable of protecting them - e.g. by blinding the Nazi's eyes to their presence. In other words, a graded position doesn't trust God enough. The question the absolutist would ask is this: Does God ever require us to sin?

 

[Gabe]

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me James 2:25 is pretty clear; Rahab was considered righteous for what she did, and what she did was lie. Her actions were even referred to as kindness.

 

[JoJo]

Sometimes number 2 is the Christian thing to do.

That depends on what Rahab is being commended for. Is she being commended for lying, or for her faith in the God of Israel as demonstrated by her willingness to a) take the spies into her home and b) send them out a different way, believing their words that she would be saved if she followed their instructions?

One point that those who hold to an absolutist position make with regards to this proposed dilemma is that God is perfectly capable of protecting the innocent party if He chooses to do so. The classic example that is usually used, a variation on Minnesota's example, is lying to protect the Jews during WW2.

So, you're hiding a Jewish family in your home when Nazi officers knock on the door and ask if there are any Jews in the house. Do you a) lie to protect the family or b) tell the truth with the virtual certainty that they'll be rounded up and killed?

The absolutists would argue that you mustn't sin, so you mustn't lie. In response to the argument that you'd then be condemning the Jewish family to death, they'd respond that God is capable of protecting them - e.g. by blinding the Nazi's eyes to their presence. In other words, a graded position doesn't trust God enough. The question the absolutist would ask is this: Does God ever require us to sin?

Excellent example! For me, this sheds new light on the whole topic.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but to me James 2:25 is pretty clear; Rahab was considered righteous for what she did, and what she did was lie. Her actions were even referred to as kindness.

Corrie ten Boom is considered a "righteous Gentile" for her work in hiding Jews (which involved much secrecy and deception). In fact, I believe she addressed this very topic in her book, "The Hiding Place."

 

[radorth]

As I understand it, Rahab was called righteous because of her faith in the true God. Her works were the product of her faith.