Do the ends ever justify the means for us?

[CDM]

Do the ends ever justify the means for us? The question concerns Christian ethics.

Yes? No?

If neither, and you believe truth is somewhere in between, please explain from Scripture (sorry, has to be said).

The Christian's opinion and position should find warrant in Scripture.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [Col. 2:8]

**the poll's results are hidden**

 

[DonP]

yes

but it depends what you are talking about.

Sometimes it is OK to speed to get to the hospital

But not if it is to visit someone who has been there a week and is not in eminent danger.
And yes if you have someone bleeding to death in the car with you.

 

[CDM]

yes

but it depends what you are talking about.

Sometimes it is OK to speed to get to the hospital

But not if it is to visit someone who has been there a week and is not in eminent danger.
And yes if you have someone bleeding to death in the car with you.

I understand what you mean. But, I am not sure this gets to the heart of the matter.

Considering your thoughts, It's entirely possible I am not framing the question properly.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Here's the problem as I see it: The question is phrased in such a way that one of the internet philosophers here can obviously make reference to some innocuous situation and thereby affirm that sometimes the end justifies the means. Ok.... fine... whatever...
However, in the real world, the language "the ends justify the means" is only ever really employed in situations in which someone is trying to justify questionable - or outright "bad" - actions by appealing to the results or intended results.

So because I live in the real world I will base my answer on the real world use of the phrase... and my answer is: No.

 

[MW]

Never; the means justify the end; wisdom is justified of her children.

 

[DonP]

yes

but it depends what you are talking about.

Sometimes it is OK to speed to get to the hospital

But not if it is to visit someone who has been there a week and is not in eminent danger.
And yes if you have someone bleeding to death in the car with you.

I understand what you mean. But, I am not sure this gets to the heart of the matter.

Considering your thoughts, It's entirely possible I am not framing the question properly.

Well if you say can we break a clear command of scripture or the Decalogue because we think the ends are important.
No.

 

[Rich Koster]

I voted no because the thread survey was modified with "for us" in the post. When we are tempted to use improper means to reach an end, God gives us a way out. 1 Cor 10:13, Heb 2:18 for a short list.

With God the ends and the means are both just because He would not contradict Himself or sin. Psalm 145:17

 

[larryjf]

yes

but it depends what you are talking about.

Sometimes it is OK to speed to get to the hospital

But not if it is to visit someone who has been there a week and is not in eminent danger.
And yes if you have someone bleeding to death in the car with you.

First, i don't think it's illegal to break the speed limit if you have an emergency and need to get to the hospital. As a matter of fact, the police may even escort you and help you get there quicker.

Second, "ends justifying means," especially as posted, is a question of morality, and the speed limit is not in and of itself a moral law...which is why it can be broken in certain situations.
In the hospital situation you would be breaking the moral law (preserving life) if you did not break the speed limit and the person died because moral duty was compromised by civil regulation.

 

[DonP]

First, i don't think it's illegal to break the speed limit if you have an emergency and need to get to the hospital. As a matter of fact, the police may even escort you and help you get there quicker.

You didn't see the recent news where a man got a ticket for a red light run when going in emergency to the hospital?

Where in the law does it say, unless its an emergency?

Obey the laws of your govt is a command
There are times we ave to make a judgment.

I would never judge the covenanters who killed those government officials hunting them. Nor would I judge the one's who chose not to fight and went to jail or stocks.

 

[ClayPot]

The ends sometimes justify the means. If my end is having a full belly then that is proper justification for going to the fridge and getting food. If my end is being able to pay may mortgage that is NOT justification to steal money from my neighbor to pay it. So sometimes the end justifies the means and sometimes it doesn't.

-----Added 4/22/2009 at 10:12:50 EST-----

I voted no because the thread survey was modified with "for us" in the post. When we are tempted to use improper means to reach an end, God gives us a way out. 1 Cor 10:13, Heb 2:18 for a short list.

With God the ends and the means are both just because He would not contradict Himself or sin. Psalm 145:17

That's the real question we have to ask ourselves. If the end is proper, are there also proper means?

Improper (i.e., sinful) ends never justify any means since we should not sin. Romans 12:9 9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Proper ends justify proper means.

Proper ends do not justify improper (sinful) means. Romans 12:9 applies also.

Do proper (moral) ends justify proper (moral) means? Of course!

Let's say my end is to see people converted to faith in Christ (certainly a proper goal). Proper means to accomplish that goal is to share the gospel with them. So clearly the end of seeing people converted to Christ justifies (or warrants) the act of sharing the gospel. It does not justify ALL means, but some means certainly are justified by proper ends.

Though I'm assuming everyone will agree with this last point, the original poster wanted to some scripture references, so . . .

Romans 10:14-17
14How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" 16But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" 17So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

 

[larryjf]

Something else about the speed limit thing...first, i know there may be instances where someone got a ticket or two, but it is a rarity.

If the speed limit were a moral law wouldn't the cop be breaking that moral law if he exceeded the speed limit to catch the violator?

I'm not sure how far this can go before we get into issues of undercover cops lying to keep their cover. Some undercover cops break the law to keep their cover.

 

[Grace Alone]

Of course the ends sometimes justify the means. If my end is having a full belly then that is proper justification for going to the fridge and getting food. If my end is being able to pay may mortgage that is NOT justification to steal money from my neighbor to pay it. So sometimes the end justifies the means and sometimes it doesn't.

-----Added 4/22/2009 at 10:12:50 EST-----

I voted no because the thread survey was modified with "for us" in the post. When we are tempted to use improper means to reach an end, God gives us a way out. 1 Cor 10:13, Heb 2:18 for a short list.

With God the ends and the means are both just because He would not contradict Himself or sin. Psalm 145:17

That's the real question we have to ask ourselves. If the end is proper, are there also proper means?

Let's say my end is to see people converted to faith in Christ. Proper means to accomplish that goal is to share the gospel with them. So clearly the end of seeing people converted to Christ justified (or warranted) the act of sharing the gospel. It does not justify ALL means, but some means certainly are justified by proper ends.

I believe Joshua is correct. It depends on whether the means are sinful or not.

 

[DonP]

Something else about the speed limit thing...first, i know there may be instances where someone got a ticket or two, but it is a rarity.

If the speed limit were a moral law wouldn't the cop be breaking that moral law if he exceeded the speed limit to catch the violator?

I'm not sure how far this can go before we get into issues of undercover cops lying to keep their cover. Some undercover cops break the law to keep their cover.

The OP said ethics, he said nothing of moral law.

Maybe his intention was only to address moral law, but I think obeying the law of your govt is moral law. It is submitting to authorities. The parents one.


What was discussed on another thread was,
Can we lie in War
Can you lie to save your life
I would add can you take food without asking if you and your family are starving to death
Can I say yes to someone who asks if they look nice even if I think they don't, to be kind, or avoid unkind.
If you want to focus it.

Question 124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?

Answer: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God's ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.

Question 125: Why are superiors styled father and mother?

Answer: Superiors are styled father and mother, both to teach them in all duties toward their inferiors, like natural parents, to express love and tenderness to them, according to their several relations; and to work inferiors to a greater willingness and cheerfulness in performing their duties to their superiors, as to their parents.

Question 126: What is the general scope of the fifth commandment?

Answer: The general scope of the fifth commandment is, the performance of those duties which we mutually owe in our several relations, as inferiors, superiors, or equals.

Question 127: What is the honor that inferiors owe to their superiors.?

Answer: The honor which inferiors owe to their superiors is, all due reverence in heart, word, and behavior; prayer and thanksgiving for them; imitation of their virtues and graces; willing obedience to their lawful commands and counsels; due submission to their corrections; fidelity to, defense and maintenance of their persons and authority, according to their several ranks, and the nature of their places; bearing with their infirmities, and covering them in love, that so they may be an honor to them and to their government.

Question 128: What are the sins of inferiors against their superiors?

Answer: The sins of inferiors against their superiors are, all neglect of the duties required toward them; envying at, contempt of, and rebellion against, their persons and places, in their lawful counsels, commands, and corrections; cursing, mocking, and all such refractory and scandalous carriage, as proves a shame and dishonor to them and their government.

 

[larryjf]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but ethics is the philosophy of morality. Perhaps "moral law" was too strong a word, but the point i was making was that it was addressing moral issues because he referenced ethics.

If the question was "is it every ok to break the civil law?" i would have said yes. Civil and ethical are not parallels.
And it is never immoral to break a civil law that contradicts a moral/ethical law.

 

[DonP]

do you disagree then with the LC quoted above which states obeying the civil law is a moral law?
------------------------------
Is this situation ethics?

posted on another thread

Dabney,himself, seems to have been confused on the subject of Cain's wife:-

Quote:
This curious fact may perhaps throw some light on the difficult question whence Adam’s son’s drew their wives without incest. We, who hold to the unity of the race, must answer that they married their own sisters. Must we admit then, that an act which is now monstrous, was then legitimate? Does not this admission tend to place the law against incest among the merely positive and temporary precepts? The only reply is that the trite say, "Circumstances alter cases," has some proper applications even to problems essentially moral. The peculiar condition of the human family may have rendered that proper at first, which, under changed conditions became morally wrong. Among these circumstances, was the purity or homogeneity of the blood. There was absolutely but the one variety of the human race, so that deterioration of the progeny by physical law could not follow. But now, in consequence of the dispersions and immigrations of the race, the blood of every tribe is mixed, and breeding in becomes a crime against the offspring. But we know too little of the scanty history of the first men, to speculate with safety here. The command to replenish the earth was given to Adam and Eve in their pure estate, in which, had it continued, incest, like every other sin would have been impossible. Who can deny, but that the marriages contracted between the sons and daughters of the first parents, after the fall, were sinful in God’s eyes? It is not unreasonable to suppose that, thus, the very propagation of the degraded race, to which its present earthly existence under the mercy of God is due, began in sin and shame; that its very perpetuation is the tolerated consequence of a flagrant crime!

 

[larryjf]

do you disagree then with the LC quoted above which states obeying the civil law is a moral law?
------------------------------
Is this situation ethics?

Obeying the civil law is not obeying the moral law if that civil law is immoral. It's not situational, simply putting God's moral law above the civil law of governments.

If it was a civil law that i could only have one child and after that had to abort any other children that would be conceived, it would be utterly immoral for me to follow that civil law.

 

[DonP]

do you disagree then with the LC quoted above which states obeying the civil law is a moral law?
------------------------------
Is this situation ethics?

Obeying the civil law is not obeying the moral law if that civil law is immoral. It's not situational, simply putting God's moral law above the civil law of governments.

If it was a civil law that i could only have one child and after that had to abort any other children that would be conceived, it would be utterly immoral for me to follow that civil law.

Yes I agree, there are exceptions.

 

[Wannabee]

Simply put, the means must be confined and constrained by the command of God. Regardless of the ends, if the means defies the parameters of God's law then we are in sin. Furthermore, as has been stated somewhat differently, if the means are corrupt, then the end is corrupted by the very means by which it is attained, even if apparently noble and just. Self-justification is an abomination and denigrates the work of the cross.

 

[OPC'n]

no

 

[CDM]

So should we understand from those who do believe the ends justify the means that as long as the means employed are *small* transgressions (like speeding to the hospital to assist a person) then the ends are justified? Wouldn't this reasoning conclude that, sometimes, you can sin (breaking the civil law) in order to do good?

Who decides what constitutes *small* enough transgression (i.e., sin) that would be permissible for the stated ends?

Would the *small* means increase in transgression depending upon the magnitude of the ends? Another words, let's change the *small* transgression (speeding) to a *larger* transgression-theft. Couldn't it be argued, according to the ends justifies the means philosophy, that it would be ok to rob a bank to buy food to feed your neighborhood which was starving to death?

Thank you for your responses.

 

[ClayPot]

So should we understand from those who do believe the ends justify the means that as long as the means employed are *small* transgressions (like speeding to the hospital to assist a person) then the ends are justified? Wouldn't this reasoning conclude that, sometimes, you can sin (breaking the civil law) in order to do good?

No, at least not in my case. The original questioner asked if the ends EVER justify the means. He did not say immoral means. Not all immoral. Please see my example above about witnessing to the lost. The end is seeing people converted to Christ. The means for that to happen is preaching the gospel. Both the means and end are moral and in fact Romans 10 justifies the use of preaching the gospel to bring about the conversion of unbelievers.

 

[CDM]

Simply put, the means must be confined and constrained by the command of God. Regardless of the ends, if the means defies the parameters of God's law then we are in sin. Furthermore, as has been stated somewhat differently, if the means are corrupt, then the end is corrupted by the very means by which it is attained, even if apparently noble and just. Self-justification is an abomination and denigrates the work of the cross.

If it can be established that God, in his word, has not authorized committing a *small* transgression in order to achieve a proposed good end, then we can draw a conclusion from scripture that the ends do not justify the means.

Correct?

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 08:12:49 EST-----

So should we understand from those who do believe the ends justify the means that as long as the means employed are *small* transgressions (like speeding to the hospital to assist a person) then the ends are justified? Wouldn't this reasoning conclude that, sometimes, you can sin (breaking the civil law) in order to do good?

No, at least not in my case. The original questioner asked if the ends EVER justify the means. He did not say immoral means. Not all immoral. Please see my example above about witnessing to the lost. The end is seeing people converted to Christ. The means for that to happen is preaching the gospel. Both the means and end are moral and in fact Romans 10 justifies the use of preaching the gospel to bring about the conversion of unbelievers.

I understand. I am the OP. As I said earlier, maybe the question wasn't properly framed. No Christian here, or anywhere, would argue against the use of MORAL means employed for MORAL ends. I specified ethics in the OP attempting to make the question clear.

 

[the Internet]

What, shall we sin that grace might abound?

The Pentateuch documents the law given by God. That body of law contained ceremonial, civil, and moral laws. Sinful man could not be perfectly obedient.

Since the Law was not abolished, but instead Christ fulfilled [became the capstone and similitude] that law, it is concluded that the Law prevails today for believers. Remember, not an iota or stroke shall not be fulfilled. [Matt 5].

None could obey the Law then, and none can obey the Law today. But we are mandated to do just that! The Law today stands stronger than it did 3,000 years ago as evidenced in Christ teaching that “Yes, it is sin to murder, but it is equally sin to think murder by hatred and intense dislike’.

Coupled with the enduring requirements of this Law are countless other principles enumerated in the NT. Obedience to the law of the land is one of those principles, and this has been thoroughly captured by the quote from the Shorter Catechism above. Under this head it is therefore not necessary to activate the call to ‘render unto Caesar’.

If the law of the land declares the speed limit, and, unless you have a special dispensation, you are in breach of that law and by default disobedient to God’s command, if you are exceeding this speed limit.

There is much today that evidences
A: a disrespect for those in authority,
B: a disdain for laws that we feel are ‘unjust’ or ‘silly’, and
C: a resulting increase in the tendency to either turn a blind eye, or to treat ‘minor breaches’ as ‘white lies’.

I apologise to those that feel differently, but ANY breach of the laws established by your Governments is disobedience to God.

The only disclaimer that I can find to justify the means is where the secular law is in opposition to God’s law. Cases above were provided [abortion, etc] to strengthen this argument. However, even in such circumstances when compelled to act in a way that is disobedient to God’s law, the circumspection of Daniel and the wisdom of Solomon should be employed.

Christians should be as the salt of the earth – if we lower our guards and boast of our ‘slight misdemeanours’, justifying our unlawful actions for ‘righteous’ reasons, and all for the sake of some altruistic ‘end’, then our salt is diminishing and we become noiseless cymbals and fit to be trodden under foot.

 

[CDM]

The only disclaimer that I can find to justify the means is where the secular law is in opposition to God’s law. Cases above were provided [abortion, etc] to strengthen this argument. However, even in such circumstances when compelled to act in a way that is disobedient to God’s law, the circumspection of Daniel and the wisdom of Solomon should be employed.

If the secular law is in opposition to God it is immoral, therefore, this wouldn't qualify as an exception. Breaking immoral laws is moral.

It sounds like, according to your writing, that you believe the use of unlawful (i.e., immoral) means are NEVER justified by the ends. Good to hear, brother.

 

[a mere housewife]

I agree that the means justify the end rather than vice versa. However the law of God sometimes applies differently in different situations, depending on what end is in view. (That is a different statement than ends justifying an otherwise unlawful action: as the action itself in this case is neither lawful nor unlawful out of context).

I do think some of our particularizing of actions as being inherently sinful confuses the waters in this kind of discussion. Don's example in another thread of someone who pushes a blind man off a cliff to take his goods, and someone who pushes a blind man away from the edge of a cliff to save his life, comes to mind. In some areas it seems clear that one person believes, using this example, that it's always immoral to push a blind man: and assumes any person who ever does so for any reason is employing situational ethics. Whereas the person who does so to save the blind man's life may not believe that the law of God universally condemns pushing a blind man.

To use an example from this thread: that of going a certain speed to try to get a dying person or a person giving birth and in need of care etc. to the hospital. God does not condemn going a certain number of miles an hour. It is not in itself an inherently unlawful act. So the command of the govt to go 40 is in itself neither moral nor immoral: but in ordinary cases God's law applied to the situation actually makes something a 'moral' action that is not inherently so. It is a good to go 40 because it is God's will that we obey govt. where it does not conflict with His dominion. Yet God's law says to save life. In the extra-ordinary case of someone dying in the back of my car God's law applied to the situation might come out to a different moral action.

I don't present that case to argue it (I don't intend to argue further) merely to give an example of what I mean about how we tend to attach sinfulness to actions that are not inherently sinful but only normally so in view of God's law applied to the normal situation: so we wrongly think it is employing a different kind of ethic when the law of God applied to the abnormal situation comes out to a different action.

 

[the Internet]

A very interesting topic ...

Just one more note ... you are saving a person's life ... in this case if you don't get them to the hospital in 60 minutes they will die ... the speed limit is 50 miles per hour ... you must do 60 to achieve the ultimate end, that of saving a life. God would expect you to save this person's life - if it is within your means. If you drove slowly, the pain to you would be enormous as you know that you are 'killing' this person.

Your excessive speed causes another accident en-route, and a bus load of 35 pre-schoolers are killed. As a consequence 5 mothers suicide, 8 fathers cannot cope at work and finish up on the bludge queue, and the three ministers that performed the funerals throw in the towel and go brick-laying.

I rest my case

 

[Skyler]

The ends do not justify the means.

The Bible sometimes allows for certain actions in a given set of circumstances and not in others. I don't know that I would call this means-end morality though.

EDIT: And besides, doesn't the law make provisions for speeding in a medical emergency?

 

[a mere housewife]

. . . a bus load of 35 pre-schoolers are killed. As a consequence 5 mothers suicide, 8 fathers cannot cope at work and finish up on the bludge queue, and the three ministers that performed the funerals throw in the towel and go brick-laying.

This can happen while going the speed limit as well -- an action that is only a moral one because of applying God's law to a normal situation. In either case one would want to be assured that one had been obeying God's law.

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 09:31:47 EST-----

PS. It's rather interesting to be posting along and suddenly be answered by 'The Internet'!

 

[the Internet]

. . . a bus load of 35 pre-schoolers are killed. As a consequence 5 mothers suicide, 8 fathers cannot cope at work and finish up on the bludge queue, and the three ministers that performed the funerals throw in the towel and go brick-laying.

This can happen while going the speed limit as well -- an action that is only a moral one because of applying God's law to a normal situation. In either case one would want to be assured that one had been obeying God's law.

Yes, it COULD happen even if you travelled at 30mph or whatever. But when you were exceeding the limit, you are breaching the secular law ... morality and ethics doesn't rate a mention here. I find nowhere in God's law stating anything like:

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's unless you think you can get away with it because in your judgment the chances of mishap are close to zero, or if you think the ends justify the means." The command to obedience is unconditional.

I too, if placed in that situation would probably lose the plot, and just go at it the best way I knew how, even if that meant 60mph. BUT, that does not make it right in any sense of true obedience to God.

Where do we draw the line? 70mph? 100mph? OK, so you would exercise common sense ... but THAT is exactly what the secular law has attempted [right or wrong] to do. Governments are ordained by God, and we are commanded to obey them.

The question seems more to be linked to defining when an action 'contradicts or opposes God's laws'. And therein too lies the rub. We are commanded not to murder. If we do we break not only the secular law, but God's law. If the Government rules that every adult must kill a teenager, then clearly we cannot. There is a clear mandate that this is sin and disobedient.

There are no clear mandates that we must protect, preserve, prolong, or anything, another's life - as in the 60mph case. We only strive to help based on compassion and the value of life, NOT because failing to try to get to the hospital is a sin against a command of God.

Thankfully though we err we find grace through forgiveness.

PS: the Internet is holding a debate with a mere housewife

 

[ClayPot]

Simply put, the means must be confined and constrained by the command of God. Regardless of the ends, if the means defies the parameters of God's law then we are in sin. Furthermore, as has been stated somewhat differently, if the means are corrupt, then the end is corrupted by the very means by which it is attained, even if apparently noble and just. Self-justification is an abomination and denigrates the work of the cross.

If it can be established that God, in his word, has not authorized committing a *small* transgression in order to achieve a proposed good end, then we can draw a conclusion from scripture that the ends do not justify the means.

Correct?

-----Added 4/23/2009 at 08:12:49 EST-----

So should we understand from those who do believe the ends justify the means that as long as the means employed are *small* transgressions (like speeding to the hospital to assist a person) then the ends are justified? Wouldn't this reasoning conclude that, sometimes, you can sin (breaking the civil law) in order to do good?

No, at least not in my case. The original questioner asked if the ends EVER justify the means. He did not say immoral means. Not all immoral. Please see my example above about witnessing to the lost. The end is seeing people converted to Christ. The means for that to happen is preaching the gospel. Both the means and end are moral and in fact Romans 10 justifies the use of preaching the gospel to bring about the conversion of unbelievers.

I understand. I am the OP. As I said earlier, maybe the question wasn't properly framed. No Christian here, or anywhere, would argue against the use of MORAL means employed for MORAL ends. I specified ethics in the OP attempting to make the question clear.

Gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Maybe a more straightforward question is, "Is it ever lawful to sin?" I think when you frame it that way then the answer is obvious: no. Sin can never be lawful, otherwise it is not a sin. Acts 4:29 says, "We must obey God rather than men!" And God says in 1 Cor 10:13, "And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it." If there were a situation where we had to sin to do what was right then God would be a liar since we would be sinning if we didn't try to do what was right, and we would also be sinning if used sinful means to do what was right.