Do the ends justify the means?

Answer

The response to this inquiry relies on the objectives and methods being employed. If the objectives are virtuous and the methods utilized to attain them are also virtuous, then indeed, the objectives justify the methods. However, this is not the common interpretation of the phrase. It is often used as a rationalization to achieve goals by any means necessary, regardless of how unethical, illegal, or unpleasant those means may be. Typically, the phrase implies: “It is irrelevant how you acquire what you desire as long as you acquire it.”

The concept of the “ends justifying the means” typically involves committing wrongful acts to achieve a positive outcome and rationalizing the wrongdoing by emphasizing a beneficial result. For instance, falsifying information on a resume to secure a desirable job and justifying the deception by claiming that the higher income will better support one’s family. Another example could be justifying an abortion to save the mother’s life. Both lying and taking an innocent life are ethically incorrect, but providing for one’s family and preserving a woman’s life are ethically right. So, where should the boundary be drawn?

The ethical dilemma of ends/means is a common scenario in ethical debates. The question often posed is: “If you could rescue the world by sacrificing one person, would you do it?” If the answer is “yes,” then a morally correct outcome validates the use of unethical methods to achieve it. However, three distinct aspects must be considered in such a scenario: the morality of the action, the morality of the outcome, and the morality of the individual carrying out the action. In this case, the action (murder) is evidently unethical, as is the perpetrator. Yet, saving the world constitutes a positive and ethical outcome. But is it truly? What kind of world is being preserved if murderers are permitted to determine when and why murder is justified and then walk away unpunished? Or should the perpetrator face consequences?It is for his crime in the world that he has saved? And would the world that was saved be justified in taking the life of the one who had just saved them?

From a biblical standpoint, of course, what is missing from this discussion is the character of God, God’s law, and the providence of God. Because we know that God is good, holy, just, merciful, and righteous, those who bear His name are to reflect His character (1 Peter 1:15-16). Murder, lying, theft, and all manner of sinful behaviors are the expression of man’s sin nature, not the nature of God. For the Christian whose nature has been transformed by Christ, “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17), there is no justifying immoral behavior, no matter the motivation for it or the outcome of it. From this holy and perfect God, we get a law that reflects His attributes (Psalm 19:7; Romans 7:12). The Ten Commandments make it clear that murder, adultery, stealing, lying, and greed are unacceptable in God’s eyes, and He makes no “escape clause” for motivation or rationalization. Notice that He doesn’t say, “Don’t murder unless by doing so you will save a life.” This is called “situational ethics,” and there is no room for it in God’s law. So, clearly, from God’s perspective, there are no ends that justify the means of breaking His law.

Also missing in the ends/means ethics discussion is an understanding of the providence of God. God did not simply create the world, populate it with people, and then leave them to muddle through on their own with no oversight from Him. Rather, God has a plan and purpose for mankind which He has been bringing to pass through the centuries. Every decision made by every person.No man in history has been supernaturally applied to that plan. He states this truth unequivocally: “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. From the east I summon a bird of prey; from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose. What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do” (Isaiah 46:10-11). God is intimately involved in and in control over His creation. Furthermore, He states that He works all things together for good for those who love Him and are called according to His purpose «And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. », (Romans 8:28). A Christian who lies on a resume or aborts a baby would be violating God’s law and denying His ability to provide for a family and preserve a mother’s life if He purposes to do so.

Those who do not know God may be forced to justify their means to an end, but those who claim to be children of God have no reason whatsoever to break one of God’s commandments, deny His sovereign purpose, or bring reproach to His Name.