Is there Moral Gray? (Part 2)

Image Credit: i_yudai

This post is a continuation of a series of articles. Click to go to "Is there Moral Gray?" (Part 1)

Many past writers have worked from the perspective of the clockwork universe. What I mean by this is a world where things run much like a grandfather clock. Like any machine all you do is wind it up and you know exactly what kind of outcome to expect. A child can play with a top over and over and have a similar experience every time because of how the toy will behave consistently. You give the top a good twist (means) and the top continues to spin, much to the delight of the child (end). The idea behind this is that if you could set up the entire universe as a machine in a lab you could turn the machine on and watch the future unfold.

Now, it is likely that you have heard “The end justifies the means.” This was first written by Machiavelli but has reappeared in many variations and forms since. Here the “end” is like our spinning top with our laughing child and the “means” is giving the top a good twist. Machiavelli makes a statement about how we should think the two are linked. In fact, most moral literature will incorporate these two terms, means and end, in one way or another and this article will be no exception.

From our clockwork universe framework it was thought that human beings were bound to a method of causality where one thing leads to another. This means humans, like our children's toy, were a predictable part of the predictable universe. You could wind them up and watch them tick like a complex toy or machine as they reacted, in a relatively predictable manner, to the world around them. Likewise, it is from this framework that we inherit a lot of our moral literature, thinking, and language.

Here it is easy to see how if you have one action, say one good action, you will have only one possible result. Any means combined with a little time will lead to a certain end. It is within this framework that the one good action vs. one evil action makes the most sense. After all, the end is always predictable and it depends solely on the starting conditions found within the means.

Unfortunately the world just isn't this simple. Various works such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle along with our own experience have demonstrated that the world isn't always predictable. One single action could potentially lead to any number of ends.

To demonstrate, let's return to our story of the husband faced with a choice to steal a drug and save his ailing wife or to let her die. In this case, our little dilemma could lead to any number of results. Say our dear friend Heinz decides to steal the drug, what is the outcome if he gets caught? What if the druggist catches him and lets him go? What if Heinz is unable to find the drug when he enters the secret lab? What if, despite his efforts, he is too little too late? Suppose he chooses instead not to steal the drug for his ailing wife. We could see her condition improve. Perhaps her last words would reveal the secret location of a hidden fortune. Is it possible that in his pursuit to save her he misses her last words?

The problem our experience has with the “one good means, one bad means” approach is that there is usually a multitude of different outcomes. In fact, the outcomes seem to be only loosely linked to the means. This causes us to become unsure of how one means is going to turn out in the end. We see that any single means could result in a variety of different ends. Because of this, it becomes natural to think of the means only in the terms of the possible ends it could produce. The means becomes a mixture of the ends.

Furthermore, since everything depends on the unknown we then begin to break down our choices into speculative categories that will produce better and better ends, or a better chance of a good end. This also brings ourselves into the equation, we are placed into the role of the evaluator of the various possible outcomes. We begin doing a "risk assessment" and trying to find out what is "best for us." Furthermore, we are only presented with half of the information we need to make an informed decision, our knowledge of any given situation is limited. It is like we are blindfolded and throwing an unknown object at an unknown target.

Suddenly trivial matters alongside the real dilemma become remarkably important. For example, in our dilemma what if the wife was a serial murderer? Should Heinz steal the drug now? What if she was an important political figure? What if the druggist has a less than savory past? What if Heinz decides to steal the drug, is caught, and finds himself holding an innocent bystander at gunpoint?

The problem with moral gray can be summed up: It depends.

But it depends on what? On a person? On the situation? On who or what is involved? If it depends who makes the decisions? Me? You? Our boss? The government? If so, what power group is the one that makes the decisions? Why? What do we do if those making the decisions become corrupt themselves? If you have seen the movie Who Watches the Watchmen, this is exactly the dilemma that is being addressed. If we are really going to state that our moral code is a system based on shades of gray subject to our own opinions how do we then turn around and make an account to ourselves or to each other. You may be able to think it is okay to stab your friends in the back, but does anyone else? What if everyone else thinks it is okay to kill, does that then make you, the minority, wrong?

This is why the Christian worldview asserts that the means is the end. This way of thinking is a view of morality that doesn’t require the existence of moral gray areas, it is one that still accounts for all the variety of choices and outcomes, and it is one that can produce an outcome that truly can be seen as good.

Next post we will discuss what this system looks like and how it works.

Greatest Blessings,

Carl Myhre