What makes something right or wrong? Where do you draw the line between good and evil? Contrary to what some post-modernists say, in order to punish anything by law or to commend anything in any way, some things must be objectively right and some things must be objectively wrong. If whatever is right or wrong for you is only right or wrong for you, then not only do you have no grounds for enforcing any law, but you can never critique or improve anyone’s morality. If Hitler thought it was ok for him to kill the people that he saw as inferior then post-modernism is bound to let him do so because that’s what he believes is right and we need to respect that.
There are three major schools of thought in deciding what’s right and what’s wrong. Whether an action is good or bad depends on either the action itself (deontological ethics), the consequences (consequentialism), or the motive (teleological ethics). To define actions as universally good or bad (deontological ethics) is the most difficult ethic to defend and the most objected to ethic by post-modernism. This is because it forbids you to choose the lesser of two evils if the greater evil is more passive than the lesser. This was famously demonstrated when Immanuel Kant (who championed deontological ethics) was asked what he should do if a murderer asked him where his children were. Kant replied that since lying was universally wrong he was bound to tell him the truth. By contrast, when God-fearing midwives lied in order to save life they are commended by God for doing the right thing (Exodus 1:15-21). Deontological ethics also forbids going to war as the lesser of two evils because allowing a country to invade is more passive than defending yourself.
Defining an action as good or bad based on its consequences (consequentialism) is easier to defend but it is ultimately flawed by our limited understanding of consequences. While consequentialism invariably chooses whatever is for the greater good, who decides what the greater good is, and whose good are we talking about? Consequentialism leads to an ethic where the end justifies the means and so if you’re ‘end’ is important enough then it doesn’t matter how many people you hurt along the way. Consequentialism is gaining more and more popularity today and is often used to justify abortion and euthanasia. However, as finite human beings we can never see the full extent of the consequences of our actions. If your consequential scope is too small then you might be willing to negotiate with terrorists even if it means more terrorists will arise because they could get their way. If your consequential scope is too big then you might be willing to kill people for your end because it won’t make a difference in the big scheme of things after a few generations have passed. In the end it doesn’t really answer the question of right and wrong because the greater good is still subjective, even Hitler thought he was doing the right thing. All a man’s ways seem right to him, but the Lord weighs the heart (Proverbs 21:2). Consequentialism is a slippery slope to the mind justifying whatever the heart desires.
To define an action as good or evil based on motive (teleological ethics) is the easiest ethic to defend and the most liveable. It allows you to choose the lesser of two evils provided you do so for the right reasons, and it condemns pursuing your own ends at the expense of others. Motive plays a major part in how the law punishes crime, mistakes are never treated as severely as preconceived law breaking. Moreover, teleological ethics allows for innocence and guilt to fall on different people involved in the same action. If you tell someone the time without knowing that they would use that information to detonate an explosion at the time that would kill the maximum number of people, then to what extent are you an accessory? If you’re just looking at the raw consequences then your action has contributed to the death of many, but your motive (or lack thereof) testifies to your innocence. When Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers as part of God’s plan to save lives, Joseph’s brothers are shown to be guilty because their evil intent while God is shown to be loving and merciful because of his good intent (Genesis 50:20). When Jesus was killed by men as part of God’s set purpose, the men are seen as wicked because their motive was jealousy and pride while God is seen to be good because his motive was the salvation of humanity (Acts 2:23). In the end, teleological ethics justifies everything done out of love and condemns everything done out of hate.
