The End Justifies the Means?
Francisco C. Castro
Many would propose that right and wrong depend on results. We do good to bring about the happiness and well-being of others—as many others as can be. The idea here is that maybe there are government decisions that might be unjust now but will bring good fruits later. The government can close its eyes to human rights and dignity in order to start a “straight path” for a better future. Is this alright? Is it alright for the government to do this?
In today’s moral discussions, this is sometimes called “consequentialism” or “proportionalism”. It may have its roots in the older philosophy called “utilitarianism.” The general idea of all these—let us call them CPU—is “the ends justify the means”. Do what you want so long as the result is ok.
CPU would propose that the foundation of morality is in the ultimate outcome. The CPU thinks that it is not opposed to the Bible or Christianity. The Ten Commandments are still good guides, says the CPU. But they are general guides—that is all. We must apply them carefully, but they do not hold any absolute status. Lying is usually evil, according to the Ten Commandments, but there are exceptions. Sometimes we might have to tell a lie…so long as the result will do good for all and that everyone will come out ahead.
What must be the strategy of following this CPU? CPU would say: recognize that each situation is unique. We need to do a calculation of finding out what action in this unique situation would most lead to the best result.
In terms of conscience, the CPU will say that if conscience tells us to do bad now for the sake of a good result later, then follow the conscience. It is the conscience that will tell us the consequences. Anyway, we have good intentions.
So notice then the stand of CPU: we intend always the most effective means to bring about the good, fine, and so long as the good outcome outweighs any undesired evil.
There is, however, a problem here. We can never know always that what we do now will result in a greater good later. We cannot know with absolute certainty the future consequences. We therefore have to rely on something else. Our foresight is really limited. We cannot presume that we are all-knowing gods.
The premise of CPU is that we can always have good intentions. This is enough. The actual human act is morally neutral. The action becomes moral once it is linked with an intention for the good result. What I actually do is irrelevant, as long as the intention is ok. This is the CPU way.
In the Christian tradition—and in the Church—the dignity of the human person is absolute. The human is image of God. The human person can never become a means to an end. The CPU makes the human person a means—do something wrong now…anyway the end will be ok later. CPU would say that human rights can be violated…anyway later all will be ok. But, for the Church, human rights should not be violated at any moment.
In Catholic moral theology there are absolute norms. The Catholic has to stick to some absolute realities that will say what, at each moment of a moral action, is “good” or already “evil”. Moral decision is not easy, and conscience alone is not enough. Neither is result alone enough. In the line of Catholic moral theology, the Catholic needs to consult absolute norms—as present in the Scriptures, in Church tradition and in the Magisterium of the Church. Not everything can be determined by a single standard. A Catholic needs to look at the Catholic moral tradition.
In one of the encyclicals he wrote, Reconciliatio et Poenitentia, Pope John Paul II spoke of the loss of absolutes in the moral norm, the "overthrowing and downfall of moral values." (#18). He emphasized then that: "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object (#17)." In his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II insisted on the absolute feature of moral norms prohibiting evil: “When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal” (#96). The moral absolutes are so absolute that even God could not dispense with them! To do so would be to deny his very own being.
Of course we want a society from which corruption is eradicated. Of course we want to clean our government. This is a noble plan. It is righteous. But there is a danger when righteousness becomes self-righteousness. In another encyclical, Pope John Paul II said: “The State or the party which claims to be able to lead history towards perfect goodness, and which sets itself above all values, cannot tolerate the affirmation of an objective criterion of good and evil beyond the will of those in power, since such a criterion, in given circumstances, could be used to judge their actions” (Centesimus Annus #45). There is a danger in a state or party to claim that it can lead to a future—like passing through a “matuwid na daan”—without requiring for itself criticism and even opposition. Again it is a denial of something more absolute than its own stand. In this case, the state or party will justify the means—to the point of again, allowing violation of human rights and dignty—for its “matuwid na daan” ends.
