On this blog I have been posting quite a lot on morality, reasoning about morality, and behaving morally. I admit that this is inspired by it being an election year. We Christians in the United States are asked to participate to some extent in the rule of our government by means of voting. We don’t have direct control (and some may argue much control), but we do have some. When we vote we chose people who may have a say in how our nation practices abortion, economics, public sexuality, social services, warfare, and much more. Our efforts to think clearly about tough subjects is virtuous in my estimation because “ignorance is bliss” is a lie.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on making decisions regarding morality from the starting point of “the greater good”. I don’t mean “the greatest good for the most” like utilitarianism argues, per se. Rather, let’s ponder two examples:
(1) If you have a Jewish family in your home in WWII Germany and some Nazi soldiers come to your door asking whether or not you have Jews in your home are you obligated to preserve their lives or tell the truth? Some argue that you should tell the truth because it is your moral responsibility. If the Nazi soldiers kill the Jews this is not something you have done, but something they did. Yet it is quite difficult to make this sequence all about the autonomous behaviors of the various people involved. Many realize in their gut that there is something intuitive about saving human life even if it means lying.
Could we suggest that this isn’t about “doing the lesser evil” (i.e. lying), or pure autonomy (i.e. what the soldiers do is their responsibility alone), but “the greater good”. In other words, could we argue that saving life makes the lie a good deed? If we were to lie for our own sake to gain or defraud others this would make a lie an evil deed, but this lie was to (A) save life and (B) prevent another from taking life–both good things.
(2) If someone enters your home seeking to harm your wife and children and you harm them (even kill them if it seems that murder was their intent) could it be argued that murder for many reasons is evil, but in this case it was good because it saved the life of those for whom you are most responsible? Obviously, you will notice that this scenario shifts a bit because your action is technically the same as the action you sought to prevent (taking human life) and objectively you chose one human’s life over another.
What do you think? In scenarios 1 and 2 does a “greater good” emerge? Does it nullify the deed that would have been evil (a lie, a killing) because it is submerged into the good action? Can we think about morality this way or do you see potential problems?
__________
Some who have discussed the merits of Christians in the military with me may see this as a softening of my stance, but I maintain that it is unwise for a Christian to give permission to the state to control their decision making to the extent that a soldier must submit to the state. On the other hand, this may allow for Christian participation in law enforcement where you usually are not placed in a position where a superior asks you to kill another human on the mere authority of the superior’s position.
the archives near Emmaus 
Let me ask this question, first: what is the proper definition, or nuance, of “truth” we should begin with in this discussion? Does the Bible have more to say about truth than simply that which is factually correct? Is it immoral to tell someone that 2 + 2 = 5 since, in reality, 2 + 2 = 4?
I think that when the Bible talks about truth, it more often corresponds with what is in alignment with the fear of God–righteousness, goodness, justice, etc. After all, Jesus is the Truth, which doesn’t simply mean he exists and no other religious deities or truths do; He is the embodiment of everything good, wise, loving, right, beautiful, and substantially in alignment with the fear of God.
Therefore, when considering the commandment “thou shall not give false testimony”, we should take into consideration what the Bible means by Truth, and the fact that this most likely refers to legal testimony in the public sphere. In that context, one must always speak with an eye towards the fear of God, so that justice might properly be administered. However, in the context of Nazi Germany, speaking in a way which would uphold justice and the fear of God means intentionally saying that which is contrary to the fact; and this is righteousness for you uphold the plight of the innocent.
So, if confronted by Nazis while hiding innocent Jews, I would call forth every ounce of acting ability I had so that, by the grace of God, I could lie through my teeth to those unrighteous machines of genocide. And when they left, I would thank God he led me to take acting classes.
No. The ‘GREATER’ good is not the starting place for thinking about morality; however the ‘GREATEST’ good is.
Brian, I think your examples are extreme and of no use for establishing a normative ethics. I say that because I am a pacifist who subscribes to the General Sherman Rule that “War is Hell” – which I take to mean a state to avoid, partily because human beings in wartime don’t usually function under peacetime rules of behavior. This is why I believe that people who wish not to become hell-beasts themselves should do absolutely everything they can to stop their government from ‘declaring war-time.’
But, if my nation has declared war, and I choose to remain a resident and to protect folks who are declared enemies of the state, then I should expect that men might come to my door with all the authority of my earthly government behind them and make me chose between being a patriot or a perjurer. If my acting is good enought to alllow me to perjure myself in the course of saving a Jew or a Muslim or a black man or a ‘radical’ who is outlawed by the Hell-state, I think I should, after sharing with McGill above a moment of thanks, do everything I can to become a fugitive of that state – i.e. I have become a traitor and a law-breaker, and I ought not to be living there anymore if I know what’s good for me.
@John: only Jesus will ultimately be able to absolutely banish war. Your desire for this to be true is undoubtedly a function of your desire for Christ’s return.
However, as long as man exercises his freedom to sin, war will be a reality. Having said this, ‘that war is a consequence of man’s sin’ does not mean that it IS sin since God permits it in certain circumstances.
While I was in Afghanistan, there were boys under 7 who were beheaded (heads severed with a knife) for simply accepting water from non-Taliban. To fail to act against something like this would be ‘sin’ (and immoral).
@Andrew T.: I share the majority view that Jesus will return only at the end of his triumphant spiritual transformation of the world – which includes human beings putting an end to war. This implies that Jesus is already here (in Spirit, since Pentecost) and ready to help in that endeavor as we are willing.
Your Afghanistan example is compelling, but Brian’s example deals with citizens living in a warfare state and not with soldiers intervening in a foreign nation’s civil war (to protect an oil pipeline).
@John: perhaps you do but minority view or not, the number of people who believe something to be true has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the belief.
Therefore, whether or not you are in good company with your belief that the world will be transformed before Christ’s bodily return, the following can be said:
1. Given what the world has evolved into since the 20th century, with more wars in the last two centuries than at any other point in history, and more deaths due to war (in proportion to population) in the last two centuries, than in all of the previous centuries of human history combine, as well as the apparent decline of Christian faith globally (despite explosive growth of Christian faith in central America and China), you do not seem to have sufficient warrant to believing that anything save for Christ’s direct, immediate, and personal involvement will result in the change you hope for.
2. Given that Christ’s bodily return seems to be what heralds judgement (biblically), and the obvious biblical reference that tribulation in the world would be cut short specifically for the elect’s sake, you don’t even seem to have warrant for believing that this spiritual transformation of the world is taking place let alone that it is biblically taught. (Why would tribulation have to be cut short if the world was already being spiritually transformed.
No, as optimistic as your belief is, it doesn’t seem to be being born out by recent human experience or have sufficient biblical support to be deemed a true doctrine. Sin does not seem to be abating in the world due to some spiritual change, much as I join you in that hope.
@Jonathan
It sounds like morality is situational to some extent in your view. Of course, there would be some actions that never have a situation when they are made moral (e.g. adultery), but for the most part morality is in dynamic relationship with God’s will in the moment?
@John: I agree they are extreme examples…but that is often where ideas are pushed to their limit.
@Brian: Sin and Sinfulness in the world are not ‘the extreme’, they are the norm. Have you spent any significant time outside of the US, specifically in a non-Christian country?
What you see as the ‘limit’, I see as typical of the human experience. To not see it as such, suggests you’ve never been confronted with it (praise God!). Even so, I need not exaggerate man’s fallen state (not even a bit) to represent how reprehensible it is, or how common.
Andrew: John said I am using extreme examples. Sure, in wartime in some places the likelihood of facing these scenarios increases, but it isn’t day to day for most people everywhere. John is correct that my examples aren’t something everyone, everywhere face on a day to day basis.
I apologize. Thank you for pointing out my error.
No worries!
@ Brian
My view is kind of situational. Morality will always be objective (hence, adultery will always be wrong) because it always corresponds to God’s nature. Our actions are always viewed from two vantage points: (1) With regard to God, and thus, Truth, and (2) with regard to man. What I’m saying is that the first vantage point trumps (maybe a poor word choice) the second vantage point because it is the first point that determines the morality of the action–even with regard to things that would always be wrong.
Thus, saying something contrary to fact (2 + 2 = 5 or No, I have no Jews living in my basement) should only be judged moral or immoral based upon the God-man vantage point. Now, this could get screwy because there are certain actions and activities that always contradict God’s nature, but I don’t think saying something contrary to fact is one of those things. I mean, you’re reading through Walton’s book, right? Chances are, it really wasn’t seven days.
Here would be some potential problems we’d have to flesh out: is there such thing as a “greater good?” Do the concepts of good and evil exist on a sliding scale? How should we look at this action—-In other words, is lying to save hiding Jews a one action sort of deal? So lying to save life=good; rather than a lying vs. murder. We sort of do this all the time when we distinguish war, self-defense, murder, and justice. Just some thoughts on this interesting problem.
Reblogged this on nubkevin.
@barobin: I agree with you’re thinking here.
The idea is that the character of God is the source of all goodness, all morality, and God’s character is not a gradient. Our sense of God’s character might make it seem like some things are more or less moral, more or less good, but the defect here is our ‘sense’.
What seems ‘fuzzy’ now, will likely not seem fuzzy at all at Christ’s return.
Checking in again, I think I see an application of Kierkegaard’s ‘teleological suspension of the ethical’ here that I hadn’t noticed before.
Kierkegaard ‘solves’ the apparent horror of the story of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac by suggesting that Abraham goes to Mt. Moriah trusting in the previous promise of God to make him father through Isaac of a great nation ‘more numerous than the stars’ – my understanding of SK’s point is that Abraham believed that God would give him back his son somehow in order to make his promise good.
If I notice that two nazis are at my door seeking Jews, I may ‘sacrifice’ the duty of honesty in view of my absolute faith that God’s promise of a Kingdom through Christ will eventually negate and destroy the current tyranny which gives these two hoodlums a state’s right to be at my door with their evil question.
But the question of any ‘suspension of the ethical’ is very touchy and can be used by the worst terrorist to self-justify – so handle with care.
By the way Brian, I don’t remember that the nazis ‘asked permission’ to search houses, but only asked in order to entrap the householder along with the Jews whom he tried to protect by lying. Didn’t they usually show up with a warrant to search even when they didn’t have due cause to suspect? This is another problem with your example.
@ Barobin: I read Kant on the supposed right to lie, and I see part of his position is that, once I lied on behalf of the murderer’s intended victim, I became fully responsible for changing the course of history in regard to the person I did so protect. If my lie prevents him from escaping out the back door when the murderer shows up, causing him to be apprehended later on, etc.
@John:
If I remember correctly didn’t Corrie ten Boom actually describe a scenario similar to the one I presented in The Hiding Place?
@Brian: Was she writing fact or fiction?
Biography. You can visit the home of her family to this day: http://www.corrietenboom.com/index_en.html
@John I like your approach to this and appreciate your comments above.
I have to point out though, that even ‘an omission’ can be construed equivalent to a lie. Whether or not Nazis asked for permission to search remaining silent could be deemed to be a lie in this scenario as long as the bystander understands the intent of the searcher.
@Brian: Thanks for the link. I don’t think the story changes my point. That family built a secret room with a secret means of opening it, the whole purpose of which was to hide people from house search. When the nazis raided the house in 1944 it was without permission and with the help of an informant. I’m not sure they found the hiding place, but they arrested the family. They did not ask for permission to enter.