St Paul in the New Testament argues that we must never do evil so that good may come from it. This is odd considering Jesus himself attacked people with violent abuse in public. 

He ranted and raved against the Jewish leadership in Matthew 23 knowing that when things like that are said, the children and spouses of these men would be targeted first. The Church says he was God and could judge.  But to rave that much?  Really?  He failed to give any concrete examples for why people should agree with him about those men.  Also, he did not say he was speaking as divine judge.  You can imagine that if Jesus could be God that he still had to be an ordinary man. Jesus did say that as man he only knew what God told him.  And the judgement he gave against the men could wait to judgement day.

Jesus caused grave trouble in the Temple in those tense times.   We don't know if people died that day.  The gospel of John says he went as far as to cause a disturbance in the Temple twice.  Despite the fantasies of some, nothing in the gospels says that when he hit workers in the Temple it was because they were thieving from the poor.  It only says they were thieving.  If people want to think Jesus only cared if the poor were stolen from then let them. 

The good versus evil and evil versus good way of thinking makes us see our lives which always mix both into grey as a battleground.  We look at the grey with black and white glasses.  That way we can create a placebo where we feel we are on the side of good when in fact it was not that good. Also, by making sides like that we get a comfort from the thought that by taking the good side, even if we are not doing it now, we will overcome.

So for some reason, people are comforted by the idea of moral being good or bad in principle even though they cannot give us any clear black or white examples.  This is a lie they tell themselves, it is a placebo.  They feel protected if morality is some kind of helpful clear law.  As religion erects itself on morality it follows that religion is just another expression of that placebo, an outworking.

There are those who don't admit that morality is grey anyway or not black or white.  There are also those who will assess any situation and say the answer is both right and wrong.  So morality can be foggy in principle.  Or even if it is not, you may not know what to do with it in any particular situation and make the best guess you can think of.  This guarantees that you will, over time, fall away from the principle.  Gradually.  If you are exposed all the time to a morality that is too hard to apply what would you expect?  You end up giving the principle lip-service.

Predictably, Christianity not only secretly thinks that as long as the goal is good you can do what you want to bring it about even if that means doing harm and evil but it outsources this "end justifies the means" to God.  If a person say at a point in time did not have the guts to be that viciously pragmatic, they comforted themselves by thinking God is doing it for them.

Christian teaching is that you can never do an objective evil to bring about some greater good even if you know your scheme will work.  So the evil then remains evil and wrong and intolerable no matter what happens after it.  This contradicts how they answer this question.  "It can be hard to tell if something is objectively evil so how do I know?"  Ans: "The consequences will be bad and they are bad for the act was evil in the first place."  So are we to commit the act and wait and see?  Or do we have to get others to do the evil for us so we can learn to avoid it? This is just another form of "the end justifies the means."  And an evil repented of the second after it is done will still have bad results.  So God is not doing a good job of fixing and healing and forgiving.  The faith proposition that evil is nothing before God falls apart.

The believer knows that each action is not a stand-alone but is linked to other actions.  All ethical systems choose to ignore that nobody can really tell how bad or good an action was for the results will get too complicated.  You cannot just phase out the other actions and pick some pieces out and treat that as if that is all you need to apply the conscience test to.  Following your conscience involves a lie.  You cherry-pick the data and phase things out.  What is left is what you apply your moral test to.  That is what your "good" intention is based on.

Good intention is an idol for we tend to overstate the good we expect to happen.  Good intention is an idol for even evil people like those who shoot drug dealers think they acted with the best light they had.  For that reason there is a deliberate attempt to go for objective evil in all that we do.  We condemn that but we do it.

I have to steal drugs from a dealer to save my son's life and there is no other way.  That looks like one subject.  It is not.  As we said, there are things that will happen down the line forever.  You are being used by moralists to validate their pretence of wisdom.  And just because you can't think of another way doesn't mean there is none.  You lie and act as if it does.

People in general, not just the Church, hide an orientation to care only about the goal regardless of the methods to obtain it.   Your neighbour will fear you if you make it clear they may be seen as collateral damage for your goal. If you are not being mercenary you cannot expect people, and they all know why you will hide it, to be very convinced.  It is no wonder the principle is unpopular and off-putting.  All admit that it is not very common but nobody admits that it might be virtually non-existent.

No matter how bad things get things seem to look good in many situations.  That is why we are here. Luck.  It is not because our morality is that great and wise and useful.


No Copyright