RSS
Home
Is it ever right to do wrong? Part 2
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
In a previous column, I explained how the morality of an act is not an intrinsic quality of the act, but was instead determined by the context in which the act took place.
There are two elements which form this “moral context.” So far, I have mentioned the relevant circumstances surrounding the act. The second element is “result”: what did the act accomplish?
Let’s revisit the situation from the previous column. A hit man asks if we know the whereabouts of his intended victim. We know where he is – back in our bedroom hiding in the closet. Our choice is to tell the truth or lie.
The likely outcome of honesty would be that the hit man goes into the bedroom, throws open the closet door and murders our neighbor. The likely outcome of lying would be that the hit man continues his search elsewhere and the neighbor is saved – for the moment, at least. So in this situation, telling the truth would be the evil, the bad, the immoral act.
“But I didn’t ask to be put in this situation. I was just sitting at home, watching TV, minding my own business when my neighbor knocked. I was forced into the situation so whatever happens is not my fault!”
While it is true that we became involved in the situation without your permission, it is also irrelevant. While we can control some of the situations that affect us – and we work hard to exercise what control we can – for the most part life comes at us beyond our control and without our permission. Moral decisions are constantly being thrust upon us. This in no way relieves us of responsibility for our actions.
“But I played no part in the situation. I didn’t hire the hit man, I didn’t ask my neighbor to seek my help. So whatever happens is not my fault.”
Again, it is true we played no part in the initial situation but now we are in a position where our actions affect the outcome. This is our moral involvement and we can’t escape it.
But isn’t “outcome” or “result” the same thing as “end”? So aren’t we just saying the same thing as “the end justifies the means”?
Not at all. The difference may be subtle but is critically important. The end is the anticipated result of our action – it is our goal. So another way of saying “the end justifies the means” is “if our intentions are good, any actions we take in pursuit of them are also good.”
However, it is not the intended result but the actual result that determines the morality of an act.
There are two important reasons for this.
- Morality is a judgment. We can only make judgments based on objective referents. Intentions are subjective; results are objective.
- As we all know, there can be a huge difference between intentions and results – best laid plans and all that. “He meant well,” is small consolation to someone who’s life lies in tatters due to the disastrous actions of a well-meaning fool.
This brings up an important implication: the morality of an act cannot be ascertained with absolute certainty before the act is taken. This is not a big problem for most of us. We know there is never absolute certainty anywhere in life. When we get into our car, we know there is a small chance we will not live to reach our destination. Life happens. We are used to spending our entire lives making small decisions and great decisions based on probabilities. We know that, every now and then, even very high probabilities fail us.
There are some people, however, who are more risk averse than others, especially in the moral arena. (I mean “risk averse” as an euphemism for “moral cowardice.”) These people are the ones who insist of being judged on what they meant to do rather on what they actually did. There are even a few who desire to be free of all judgment altogether – “who are we to judge?”
The claims that intentions should be the basis of moral judgment or the ends justify the means both move morality from the objective realm to the subjective. This would mean that morality is nothing more than a matter of opinion and thus plays no important role in human life.
