"Let us do Evil that Good may Result"

walshy — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 04:18:00 GMT

In my last post, I talked about embryonic stem cell research and "the greater good". Thanks for your comment Chelsea.

This week in Credo small group, we looked at this passage from Romans 3:7-8:

Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

Now this passage is primarily about how Christians shouldn't justify sinning by saying that it allows God to forgive them more. To do so is to misunderstand God's grace! But it's interesting that Paul compares this to "doing evil so that good may result", which in Paul's eyes is obviously also worthy of condemnation.

Many Christians, who believe that an embryo is a person, use this verse to refute abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and the like. (And for the record, I think that they are right on all counts).

But if killing an innocent unborn child for "the greater good" is wrong, why isn't killing dozens of innocent civilians in the hope of killing a terrorist?

"The Greater Good"

walshy — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:19:00 GMT

In the SMH today, there was an interesting opinion piece on embryonic stem cell research, and why it's a moral (not scientific) issue:

Science is good at telling us how to do things. It can tell us how to achieve certain ends and provide the means to do so. However, the decision as to whether those ends are good ends or whether the means to achieve them are ethical is not a scientific question ... For example, scientists were good at telling us how to build nuclear weapons, but whether to use them or not is a moral, not a scientific, question.

Reading this got me thinking about the concept of "the greater good". Most powers today believe that killing innocent people is justified if more people are saved through it. This is true whenever Israel bombs civilian areas in Lebanon, or America bombs towns in Iraq. If we have to kill civilians to get the terrorist, we will, because we believe that we will save more lives in the long-run. It all about "the greater good".

But it gets you thinking, doesn't it: how far can this concept of "the greater good" go? Think of WWII, when America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing at least 214,000 people. The bombs ended the war, and thus saved many lives. So good was served, right?

I think it's really interesting that the SMH article compares killing embryos for stem cell research to dropping nuclear bombs. It begs the question: when is it ok to take innocent human life? What if the research into these stem cells finds a cure for cancer, and thus saves millions of lives? Is it ok then?

Yeah you say, but we're not certain that the research will save anyone. Fair point - but what if we were sure? What if we knew that killing 1 person would cure cancer. Would it be ok then? What about 10 people? 1 thousand? 1 million? Where do we draw the line?

Comments welcome.

Brighter Horizons : ethics

"Let us do Evil that Good may Result"

"The Greater Good"