 |
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/28/2001 5:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | Message
TGB
04/25/01 9:01 AM
Justified Necessities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Seekers-
"The necessary means to a justified end are themselves justified."
Can you weigh in on this? Is it correct? Always? Any exception?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
04/25/01 9:48 AM
Sweet Question, Tom!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sup, Tom
"The necessary means to a justified end are themselves justified."
Interesting statement. The primary issue, I feel, is one of subjectivity with regard to the evaluation of the means and the standard of justification for the ends. These two things can be so subjective as to diminish the actual supposed power of the statement.
All that aside, I weigh in like this. I wouldn't categorically say that the ends ALWAYS justify the means, nor that they NEVER justify the means. Especially since I work a hierarchical moral system that allows for subordination of lesser goods for greater goods...or the allowance of lesser evil to prevent a greater evil. Basically the main argument against Kant's Categorical Imperative. However, any rational person should be able to FULLY account for there actions in the areas delineated:
1.Evaluation of the means as being TRULY necessary
2. Evaluation of the ends as being TRULY justifiable.
Thus, it is genuinely possible to allow some evil to occur that some greater evil or greater good may result. Sometimes people say that this idea contradicts Paul's idea in Romans 3:3-8 (NIV)
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." But 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.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 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.
One of the things I love about Romans is that Paul, as the questioner, asks some VERY poignant philosophical questions. The questioner is basically saying that if the greater good is truly God's glory...and he gets glory by being compared to sinfulness...then, by all means, let's be even MORE sinful so that God can get MORE glory. Classic "ends justifying the means" type stuff. Now, when Paul argues against this, notice that he is NOT arguing against any type of moral system. He is primary arguing against the "brazen" attitude of the questioner who asks the question not because he is perplexed by the question itself and wants to engage the problem, but because he obviously wants LICENSE to do whatever he sees fit. Paul sees through the argument and hits home. Unfortunately, many Christians take this thought to mean that any type of utilitarian ethic is COMPLETELY out of the question. This is plain not so, in my opinion.
Hope this helps.
Later,
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
04/25/01 6:04 PM
RE: Justified Necessities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good question Tom and good answer Mephi. I think M2K picked out a wonderful counterexample that is worth a second look. The reason that the ends cannot justify the means (for me at least) is because the ends we live for cannot be separated from the means by which we obtain them. This is an idea that Martin Luther King planted in my head. According to him all ends are pre-existent within the means. So we can see very clearly by Mephi’s example that God’s glory is not pre-existent in our sin therefore sinning to give God an opportunity to be gracious and thereby increase his glory is not a moral good. Rather we are encouraged to seek actions that embody the glory they would bring God by doing them.
Annie Dillard says the same thing, I think, in her book “The Writing Life.” She writes about how she learned how to chop wood. The trick, she learned, is to aim past the wood at the chopping block. If you aim at the wood all you end up with is wood chips. She uses this as a metaphor for writing and life. Our lives are very full ones—most of what they are filled with is just filler. Often times it feels as if all this filler is just more work than it is worth—that our lives are merely the sum of the trivial things which make them up. Where is the Truth? Where is the Beauty? Where is the Goodness? When we write as when we live we must resist nearsightedness. We must see through all the filler to the ideals (or God) that we do them for. Aim at the chopping block! For by doing so the ends we live for will be pre-existent in the means by which we seek them.
That’s how I weigh in at least.
–Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
04/25/01 6:12 PM
Welcome back
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa! I was wondering if you were ever going to come back. Nice to have a fellow Dillard fan back on board. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
04/25/01 10:47 PM
What I meant was...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa writes: The reason that the ends cannot justify the means (for me at least) is because...
Tom:
Hi Wislawa! To begin with, I'm a huge Dillard fan. To end with, you (and Mephi to SOME extant only) are leaving something important out of my question. I asked whether the NECESSARY means to a JUSTIFIED end are also justified.
OVers argue on the basis of the truth of this when they argue that God HAD to create us with genuine free will IF he was going to get what he wanted out of creation, i.e. freely chosen loving relationships. Free will was necessary because it was the NECESSARY means to a justified end (loving relationships). I was just boiling this down to a sort of formula.
Clearer?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Wislawa
04/25/01 11:03 PM
RE: What I meant was...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh...in that case then I would still say even NESSISARY means to a JUSTIFIED end are still not justified. God should have picked nice ends to which the nessisary means are good ones. A loving God is an evil God. Yes I know that sounds nonsensical but the warfare theodicy says as much. I’m trying to put together a post that explains how I got to this conclusion but it might take another day or so.
–Wislawa
Message
TGB
04/25/01 9:01 AM
Justified Necessities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Seekers-
"The necessary means to a justified end are themselves justified."
Can you weigh in on this? Is it correct? Always? Any exception?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Mephi2K
04/25/01 9:48 AM
Sweet Question, Tom!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sup, Tom
"The necessary means to a justified end are themselves justified."
Interesting statement. The primary issue, I feel, is one of subjectivity with regard to the evaluation of the means and the standard of justification for the ends. These two things can be so subjective as to diminish the actual supposed power of the statement.
All that aside, I weigh in like this. I wouldn't categorically say that the ends ALWAYS justify the means, nor that they NEVER justify the means. Especially since I work a hierarchical moral system that allows for subordination of lesser goods for greater goods...or the allowance of lesser evil to prevent a greater evil. Basically the main argument against Kant's Categorical Imperative. However, any rational person should be able to FULLY account for there actions in the areas delineated:
1.Evaluation of the means as being TRULY necessary
2. Evaluation of the ends as being TRULY justifiable.
Thus, it is genuinely possible to allow some evil to occur that some greater evil or greater good may result. Sometimes people say that this idea contradicts Paul's idea in Romans 3:3-8 (NIV)
What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." But 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.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" 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.
One of the things I love about Romans is that Paul, as the questioner, asks some VERY poignant philosophical questions. The questioner is basically saying that if the greater good is truly God's glory...and he gets glory by being compared to sinfulness...then, by all means, let's be even MORE sinful so that God can get MORE glory. Classic "ends justifying the means" type stuff. Now, when Paul argues against this, notice that he is NOT arguing against any type of moral system. He is primary arguing against the "brazen" attitude of the questioner who asks the question not because he is perplexed by the question itself and wants to engage the problem, but because he obviously wants LICENSE to do whatever he sees fit. Paul sees through the argument and hits home. Unfortunately, many Christians take this thought to mean that any type of utilitarian ethic is COMPLETELY out of the question. This is plain not so, in my opinion.
Hope this helps.
Later,
Meph
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Wislawa
04/25/01 6:04 PM
RE: Justified Necessities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good question Tom and good answer Mephi. I think M2K picked out a wonderful counterexample that is worth a second look. The reason that the ends cannot justify the means (for me at least) is because the ends we live for cannot be separated from the means by which we obtain them. This is an idea that Martin Luther King planted in my head. According to him all ends are pre-existent within the means. So we can see very clearly by Mephi’s example that God’s glory is not pre-existent in our sin therefore sinning to give God an opportunity to be gracious and thereby increase his glory is not a moral good. Rather we are encouraged to seek actions that embody the glory they would bring God by doing them.
Annie Dillard says the same thing, I think, in her book “The Writing Life.” She writes about how she learned how to chop wood. The trick, she learned, is to aim past the wood at the chopping block. If you aim at the wood all you end up with is wood chips. She uses this as a metaphor for writing and life. Our lives are very full ones—most of what they are filled with is just filler. Often times it feels as if all this filler is just more work than it is worth—that our lives are merely the sum of the trivial things which make them up. Where is the Truth? Where is the Beauty? Where is the Goodness? When we write as when we live we must resist nearsightedness. We must see through all the filler to the ideals (or God) that we do them for. Aim at the chopping block! For by doing so the ends we live for will be pre-existent in the means by which we seek them.
That’s how I weigh in at least.
–Wislawa
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
ghost-dog-girl
04/25/01 6:12 PM
Welcome back
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa! I was wondering if you were ever going to come back. Nice to have a fellow Dillard fan back on board. GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
TGB
04/25/01 10:47 PM
What I meant was...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wislawa writes: The reason that the ends cannot justify the means (for me at least) is because...
Tom:
Hi Wislawa! To begin with, I'm a huge Dillard fan. To end with, you (and Mephi to SOME extant only) are leaving something important out of my question. I asked whether the NECESSARY means to a JUSTIFIED end are also justified.
OVers argue on the basis of the truth of this when they argue that God HAD to create us with genuine free will IF he was going to get what he wanted out of creation, i.e. freely chosen loving relationships. Free will was necessary because it was the NECESSARY means to a justified end (loving relationships). I was just boiling this down to a sort of formula.
Clearer?
Tom
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
Wislawa
04/25/01 11:03 PM
RE: What I meant was...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh...in that case then I would still say even NESSISARY means to a JUSTIFIED end are still not justified. God should have picked nice ends to which the nessisary means are good ones. A loving God is an evil God. Yes I know that sounds nonsensical but the warfare theodicy says as much. I’m trying to put together a post that explains how I got to this conclusion but it might take another day or so.
–Wislawa
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:34 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|