The Preamble: I was having a chat with a friend of mine the other day about the recent Saddleback Presidential Forum that was aired on CNN when he brought up the mind-numbingly complex, hot-button-of-all-hot-button issues: abortion. During the forum Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, asked both Senators Obama and McCain about their particular impressions of Roe v. Wade and the current debate between the so-called "pro-life" crowd and the so-called "pro-choice" crowd. Now - I'm not going to get into too much about the actual debate on the social/political/moral issue of abortion, but I mention this conversation because it rekindled the desire in me to write about the single most important ethical question of human history. I don't think that many people would argue - regardless of whether you're "pro-life" or "pro-choice" - that the fewer abortions the better. I mean, even every "pro-choice" advocate I've met has been adamant that they would like to see less abortions (even no abortions) if at all possible. So I think I'm on somewhat solid ground when I say that it would take a very inhumane personality to enjoy the fact that we've had over 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. But the ethical question that came up was not really about abortion or any specific "hot-button" issue, but rather this one: do the ends justify the means?
The Case: This, to me, really is the most important question we can ask of ourselves as individuals, as social groups, as a country, and as a race. This question is as central to our worldview as a question can be and if you truly ask yourself this question when debating an ethical problem - I can nearly guarantee that you will find yourself unsatisfied with much of the commonly accepted answers. While this post is truly about asking the question, I do have some thoughts on it that I would like to, briefly, share.
During the course of the conversation (mentioned above) over abortion, my friend referred to the current situation as a "holocaust" and likened it to the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis. He is certainly entitled to his opinion and, depending on your point of view, the death of 40 million unborn babies (or "fetuses" if you prefer) could be perceived, legitimately, as a holocaust of sorts. I, personally, hope to refrain from that kind of potentially inflammatory rhetoric simply because of the fact that the rhetoric is inflammatory. More to the point, however, he made the point that it is incumbent upon the morally upright in this country (i.e. a "conservative" or "evangelical" Christian) to fight the "holocaust" of abortion via the political, legislative, and judicial avenues in this country in the same way that it was the responsibility of the morally upright to fight the Nazi regime and "kill Hitler." This is where the question turned from morality to ethics.
He was, I'm sure, assuming that I would never disagree with the commonly held assumption that it was the right thing for the U.S. to jump into WWII and fight the Nazis back to Berlin. He was very shocked to find out that I do not agree with that commonly held assumption. I suppose I could be more clear about it: I do not believe that the prosecution of World War II by any of the so-called "Allied" nations was an appropriate response to the atrocities and crimes propagated by the Nazi regime in Germany. I am not particularly fond of U.S. military campaigns in World War II, despite the "good" it achieved by ridding the world of one of history's most notoriously evil dictators and ending a very unquestionable Holocaust. That might make me "unpatriotic" or even a "traitor", I suppose you'll have to decide that for yourself. I cannot support the actions of the U.S. government in World War II (or any other war for that matter) because I do not believe the ends justify the means.
Allow me to explain. Let's take the war out of the context for a moment and just go to, arguably, the central goal of the war: killing Hitler. Let's say it was a matter of just killing Hitler to end the war: kill one evil man to save millions of lives (innocent, guilty, or otherwise). Would saving 100 million lives (a good "end") be justified by the means of killing one man? I have no doubt that most people would respond with an enthusiastic "YES!" Ok, that's understandable. But let's up the number to 100. What then? Yes? How about 1,000? Still feeling good? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? How about letting 75,000,000 men, women, and children die in order to save the lives of, potentially, 1.925 billion others? Is that still a fair trade? Do the ends still justify the means? There were over 51 countries on Earth that we directly affected by World War II and they represented nearly 2 billion people in 1939. By the end of the war nearly 73 million people had died. That was almost 4% of the world's population in 1939! As individuals, as a country, and as a race we answered "yes" in 1939 and four people out of every hundred died because of it.
World War II represents one of the most catastrophic and multi-faceted failures in all of human history, but it certainly isn't the only one. This fundamental ethical evaluation does not only apply to war, either. It applies to every response and every approach to solving problems that we must deal with as responsible stewards of the human race and our planet. The way that I see it, the ends cannot justify the means because the means and the ends are the same. Waging the horrors and evils of war (and many soldiers and veterans will readily concur with my descriptions), even for a "good" or "just" cause is still evil and taints the cause with evil as well. Dr. Greg Boyd reminds us that all too often we have sacrificed the long, slow, patient path of (what he calls) "holiness" for the short, quick, and (relatively) immediate road to "good". In other words, Greg is saying that the "holy" (or ideal) path to which all of humanity appeals is going to achieve acceptable long-term means, ends, and will have acceptable long-term repercussions.
The Question: Do the ends really justify the means? What is the criteria for taking someone's life? The quality of character for the person whose life is being taken? The cost-benefit analysis of that person's life in exchange for another's life? Who should decide these questions? Government officials? Religious leaders? You? What is the ratio of acceptable deaths to "lives-saved" when saying a war is justified? 4:96? 10:90? 49:51? What kinds of wars, if any, are truly justified? Are the means and the ends the same? If they are the same, how broadly does this get applied? Legislation? Crime management? Interpersonal conflicts? Personal ambitions and personal gains? So many questions...
Leave the light on.
The Unvarnished Doctrine
14 years ago
2 comments:
Wow! So is this like a record for how long a post has hung out there with no responses. You put forth some difficult questions when considered on a personal level.
First applying your "does the end justify the means" question to the abortion issue. It's not really clear to me what you think is the "end" and what you think is the "means." The "end" I infer, is the right to choose one's fate to become a parent or not. The "means" I infer is the method by which parenthood is avoided. You blogged some time ago about basing your beliefs on facts. I've yet to hear any, much less significant, statistics on the number of abortions relative to the possible causes of pregnancy. My guess, and it is purely a guess, is that most are abortions of convenience. No doubt the decisions are emotionally difficult but I'm guessing that few are the result of two causes that I would consider, per my convictions (pro-life), challenging - rape and a threat of the mother's life. The reason abortion has become such a hot-button topic is that much of the "pro-choice" movement is not about terminating pregnancies nor does is address "when does life begin." The pro-choice argument has instead become a pile-driver for women's rights! I'm not sure that the right to terminate a pregnancy is as much the issue as the Gov't telling women what they can and cannot do with their pregnancy. If the "end" is to avoid parenthood, I think a reasonable means would be adoption. Let's put all the money and energy that's been spent on pro-choice initiatives over the last twenty years see how we can streamline the cost and complexity of adoption. If adoption were a simple affordable process, I suspect that would still not be an acceptable "means" to the assumed "end" of the pro-choice community. It would still require a pregnant woman to carry her unwanted baby to full term. It may be a unpleasant reality but it is still a reality of life. Seems to me if one doesn't know when life begins (as in its about my pay grade, sorry couldn't resist) then one should err on the side of caution, particularly when we the life of living thing!
Now on to war... What is the criteria for taking someone's life ... and so on ... all good and difficult questions
I think you have to recognize there there are different moral requirement for governing a nation and governing my own individual behavior. Assuming you believe the ten commandments really were given to Moses by God, and that Israel did receive special favor from God, and the entire story of the exodus, its' fairly clear that while God condemned killing for personal gain, the wars Israel engaged in was clearly ordain and blessed by God.
How about this. Suppose someone burglarizes my home. It would be morally and ethically wrong for me to track that person down, subdue them and imprison them in my basement (if I had one). But it's certainly not morally wrong for local law authorities to do so. Without Gov't authority acting in behalf of the individual, the world would be complete anarchy. The scriptures tell us for pray for those "in authority" that we might lead quite and peaceable lives. If you buy that local Gov't can act in behalf of social injustice then can't that occur at the national and world level.
I disagree that the end and the means are the same. The end is freedom, equity, safety, deliverance for the oppressed, provision for the poor. If someone attacks my wife, I'm not going to drop to my knees in hopes that my holiness and moral character will save her. I'm going to do all I can to stop the attack, that's my moral duty to her. I can then do all I can to enlighten the perpetrator to the love and mercy of God, that's my moral obligation to him.
I agree wholeheartedly that, "Righteousness exalts a nation..." and that the nation can be changed through the moral character and Godly devotion of its citizens, but to say that war is never a means that justifies an end is a conviction of convenience.
Answer to the questions:
1. Some means are justified
2. National defense
3. Personal character is not a deciding factor in the context of war
4. Gov't obviously makes the decision to go to war
5. This question is clearly above both our pay grades but my answer is if one person is being attacked and needs to be defended then all who are attacking (one to one million) are eligible for death.
6. War the defends the innocent and defenseless
7. No, the means and the end are not the same.
8. Again, you must make a distinction between personal vindication and the application of the law and order by authorized governmental authorities.
9. You're right. so many questions
I would turn your question around a bit. Is there a level of injustice that would justify forceful action?
If so, what would it be, for example?
Jeremy, I agree with you on many points. You brought up something that really strikes me when you said someone compared abortion to the Holocaust. A few years ago PETA had a campaign called "Holocaust on a Plate" comparing meat-eating to the slaughter of millions of human beings. When people use loaded words, especially ones that bring about a strong emotional response like the Holocaust, you ask for trouble. I am a pro-choicer and many of my evangelical friends have called me a baby killer or a pro abortionist. These kinds of words not only wound me deeply but anger me. I am not pro abortion; I am one of those people who like to see less abortions over all. In the case of rape, incest, etc. sometimes abortion cannot be avoided. But the line is drawn with no gray area which is why this topic is controversial. Some people are so little informed about things, that some women refuse to use the "morning after pill" because they think it is abortion. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if you're going to argue a point, don't use loaded words because at that point the argument falls apart and the opinions no longer matter as they are replaced by emotion and misplaced anger.
Anyway, that's all...just wanted to add my two cents
Post a Comment