Not using a means for an end...is there a biblical basis for this?

[hellopeople]

I always hear that you shouldn’t use a means for an intended end (Kantian ethics over utilitarianism)…is there something in the bible that supports this? I am personally a utilitarian myself (do whatever act causes the greater good), but have yet to say anything in the Bible stating it is not right.

So where exactly does this teaching come from?

 

[GEddie]

I always hear that you shouldn’t use a means for an intended end (Kantian ethics over utilitarianism)…is there something in the bible that supports this? I am personally a utilitarian myself (do whatever act causes the greater good), but have yet to say anything in the Bible stating it is not right.

So where exactly does this teaching come from?

The classical example in Scripture is the denunciation of our LORD: “It is better that one man perish than the entire nation,” it was said. Yet those who used it are implicitly blamed.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Moscati]

I always hear that you shouldn’t use a means for an intended end (Kantian ethics over utilitarianism)…is there something in the bible that supports this? I am personally a utilitarian myself (do whatever act causes the greater good), but have yet to say anything in the Bible stating it is not right.

So where exactly does this teaching come from?

I did some digging. This is from Romans 3:
__
“7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.”
__

Paul is being falsely accused of teaching that the ends justify the means, i.e. “let us do evil that good may result”. He’s outraged. That seems to say to me, pretty clearly, that Paul believes the ends do NOT justify the means, and he takes great pains to explain his position (I think the context is the squabble over Gentile circumcision).

And . . . just for the record, Catholics don’t do Sola Scriptura, so the fact that a teaching isn’t found explicitly in Scripture doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, for us.

 

[hellopeople]

I did some digging. This is from Romans 3:
__
“7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.”
__

Paul is being falsely accused of teaching that the ends justify the means, i.e. “let us do evil that good may result”. He’s outraged. That seems to say to me, pretty clearly, that Paul believes the ends do NOT justify the means, and he takes great pains to explain his position (I think the context is the squabble over Gentile circumcision).

And . . . just for the record, Catholics don’t do Sola Scriptura, so the fact that a teaching isn’t found explicitly in Scripture doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, for us.

You are missing verses 5 and 6 which are critically important to Paul’s message. Just reading those verses, I agreed and said “hmmm, that does seem to be what Paul is talking about.” But with verses 5 and 6 before it, it has a totally different meaning.

5But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

Paul is saying that there is an argument that being unrighteous actually helps to show God’s righteousness. This isn’t talking about a means for an end, it is talking about doing evil to show that God is righteous. It is completely different. He is talking about the law here and people not following it properly.

 

[hellopeople]

The classical example in Scripture is the denunciation of our LORD: “It is better that one man perish than the entire nation,” it was said. Yet those who used it are implicitly blamed.

ICXC NIKA

I am not sure what exactly you are saying, but this definitely goes along with my line of thinking more so than the Church’s

 

[St_Francis]

I am not sure what exactly you are saying, but this definitely goes along with my line of thinking more so than the Church’s

Are you saying it is better to kill one person than to have several or more perish? For example, a killer holds several members of your family hostage, hands you a gun and says, kill one of these people or I will kill all of you. Would you kill one member of your family to save all of you?

 

[St_Francis]

I am not sure what exactly you are saying, but this definitely goes along with my line of thinking more so than the Church’s

Consider that this was used to justify the crucifixion of Christ. The Church is against that. You think it’s ok?

 

[hellopeople]

Are you saying it is better to kill one person than to have several or more perish? For example, a killer holds several members of your family hostage, hands you a gun and says, kill one of these people or I will kill all of you. Would you kill one member of your family to save all of you?

If I knew that we would all die if I didn’t kill someone, then yes I would…and I would think it would be the right thing to do.

To be honest though, isn’t this kind of like the just war theory? Killing people for the greater good is the basis behind the just war theory, isn’t it?

 

[hellopeople]

Consider that this was used to justify the crucifixion of Christ. The Church is against that. You think it’s ok?

I think what is OK? Do I think that one person dead is better than a nation of people dead…of course. Do I think it was OK to crucify Jesus? Doesn’t seem too moral to me.

 

[Trishie]

You may find some biblical answer if you read 2 Maccabees Chapter 6 and 7.

"Not long after this the king sent an Athenian senator to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the laws of God;…

Those in charge of that unlawful ritual meal took the man aside privately, because of their long acquaintance with him, and urged him to bring meat of his own providing, such as he could legitimately eat, and to pretend to be eating some of the meat of the sacrifice prescribed by the king: in this way he would escape the death penalty, and be treated kindly because of their old friendship with him.

But he made up his mind in a noble manner, worthy of his years, the dignity of his advanced age, the merited distinction of his gray hair, and of the admirable life he had lived from childhood; and so he declared that above all he would be loyal to the holy laws given by God." 2 Maccabees Chapter 6: 1, 21-23

This saintly man rejected his friends’ suggestion that the end justifies the means.

Thus, he died in God’s favor, “leaving in his death a model of courage and an unforgettable example of virtue not only for the young but for the whole nation.” verse 31

Chapter 7 demonstrates a similar rejection of
“the end justifies the means”
gruesomely, but powerfully.

 

[hellopeople]

You may find some biblical answer if you read 2 Maccabees Chapter 6 and 7.

"Not long after this the king sent an Athenian senator to force the Jews to abandon the customs of their ancestors and live no longer by the laws of God;…

Those in charge of that unlawful ritual meal took the man aside privately, because of their long acquaintance with him, and urged him to bring meat of his own providing, such as he could legitimately eat, and to pretend to be eating some of the meat of the sacrifice prescribed by the king: in this way he would escape the death penalty, and be treated kindly because of their old friendship with him.

But he made up his mind in a noble manner, worthy of his years, the dignity of his advanced age, the merited distinction of his gray hair, and of the admirable life he had lived from childhood; and so he declared that above all he would be loyal to the holy laws given by God." 2 Maccabees Chapter 6: 1, 21-23

This saintly man rejected his friends’ suggestion that the end justifies the means.

Thus, he died in God’s favor, “leaving in his death a model of courage and an unforgettable example of virtue not only for the young but for the whole nation.” verse 31

Chapter 7 demonstrates a similar rejection of
“the end justifies the means”
gruesomely, but powerfully.

I was hoping for NT references to be honest. Either way though, this is a bit of a different situation than I am talking about. This is about someone being faithful to the law…something that Christians do not do.

I was hoping for a quote from Jesus or even from one of the epistles that this church teaching was based on. Also, if it is not based on scripture, does anyone know where it is derived from?

 

[St_Francis]

If I knew that we would all die if I didn’t kill someone, then yes I would…and I would think it would be the right thing to do.

But you don’t actually know. He could be some insane mental sadist. Suppose you killed one of your relatives, and then he said, ha, ha, just kidding?

Self-defense is against the *attacker, *not some other person.

This is why the police don’t arrest people just because others think they are trying to kill them–we, and the police, have to wait until the attack is pretty much happening, not merely threatened. You have to wait.

To be honest though, isn’t this kind of like the just war theory? Killing people for the greater good is the basis behind the just war theory, isn’t it?

No, it’s not.

In the just war theory, the government, which has been granted the authority and responsibility to keep the members of the nation safe, react against an attacker. If they did not, they would not be fulfilling their obligation.

Plus, in the just war, the government attacks the attackers, not some innocent third party!

 

[St_Francis]

I think what is OK? Do I think that one person dead is better than a nation of people dead…of course. Do I think it was OK to crucify Jesus? Doesn’t seem too moral to me.

The quote was in reference to Christ. The Jewish leaders were saying that if Christ wasn’t gotten rid of somehow, the nation would die.

So, either it was ok to kill Christ or it wasn’t, but you are saying that both are moral.

 

[hellopeople]

The quote was in reference to Christ. The Jewish leaders were saying that if Christ wasn’t gotten rid of somehow, the nation would die.

So, either it was ok to kill Christ or it wasn’t, but you are saying that both are moral.

ahhh, I see. I should have read the quote in its context.

 

[Trishie]

"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’" Matthew 15:9

Origin/earliest record use of No. 6: END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS – “The Greek playwright Sophocles wrote in Electra (c 409 B.C.), ‘The end excuses any evil,’ a thought later rendered by the Roman poet Ovid as ‘The result justifies the deed’ in ‘Heroides’ (c. 10 B.C.).” From “Wise Words and Wives’ Tales: The Origins, Meanings and Time-Honored Wisdom of Proverbs and Folk Sayings Olde and New” by Stuart Flexner and Doris Flexner (Avon Books, New York, 1993).

"Why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), “Let us do evil, that good may come?” Those who say so are justly condemned." Romans 3:8

 

[Moscati]

You are missing verses 5 and 6 which are critically important to Paul’s message. Just reading those verses, I agreed and said “hmmm, that does seem to be what Paul is talking about.” But with verses 5 and 6 before it, it has a totally different meaning.

5But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

Paul is saying that there is an argument that being unrighteous actually helps to show God’s righteousness. This isn’t talking about a means for an end, it is talking about doing evil to show that God is righteous. It is completely different. He is talking about the law here and people not following it properly.

How is Paul not talking about a means for an end? The end is showing God’s glory, the means is doing evil. We know from Scripture that this can and does happen (the OT story of Joseph comes to mind), but Paul is saying that’s no excuse, and this is not permissible. Right?

 

[hellopeople]

How is Paul not talking about a means for an end? The end is showing God’s glory, the means is doing evil. We know from Scripture that this can and does happen (the OT story of Joseph comes to mind), but Paul is saying that’s no excuse, and this is not permissible. Right?

Yes, but in my mind he is just ruling out a justification for doing evil.