Situation Ethics (Part 8): The Fifth Proposition - Love Justifies its Means

“The Fifth Proposition: Only the end justifies the means; nothing else.” (Joseph Fletcher)

What Justifies a Means?

In Christian ethics, it has been generally unpopular to suggest that in living the Good Life, the end can justify the means.* For Fletcher, this is nonsense, because for him without having an end in sight means an act is simply meaningless, random, or pointless. We would literally have no reason for doing anything. Even the very notion of ‘a means’ is only meaningful in light of some end. No, we do x (means) because of y (end).

However, the question begs; what end justifies a means?** The first thing to note is that not any end will justify any means. We also cannot do anything we want (anarchy). Instead, we are to act appropriately and according to the situation. Also, a means to an end in one situation may not be the right means to an end in another. As such we are not to create universal principles out of one specific and unique act. Doing so has the potential to become dangerously legalistic.

We should also seek to act with care. We cannot do anything to achieve an end. The means we choose should be reflected in the end we are seeking to reach, meaning we will act appropriately according to what the situation requires. ‘Means’ are “proximate ends”, as Thomas Aquinas called them. They are not “ethically indifferent”. The end truly justifies the means! (For more on this see “The Four Factors” below.)

“The means used ought to fit the end, ought to be fitting. If they are, they are justified.” (Joseph Fletcher quoting H. R. Niebuhr)

Of course, the Legalist might counter that if the end justifies the means, then this can lead people to commit an evil act in the name of doing Good. Fletcher rejects this criticism on two counts:

1. To say doing evil is good violates the rule of non-contradiction
2. We are not to ascribe to any act the formal property of Good or Evil. In itself an act is neither intrinsically good or bad (for more on this see: Love Only is Good)

Law Entangles Itself

Fletcher believes Legalism ultimately leads people to act dubiously. For instance, the philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that there is never a time when telling a lie is justified. This is because telling a lie would contradict the Categorical Imperative; that one should only do those things you would wish others to do. As we normally prefer people not to lie to us, so we cannot be justified in lying to others. Also, successfully telling lies relies on the notion that most of the time people are telling the truth, meaning lies can be disguised as truth-claims. Yet if lying became the norm, then the very act of lying would be undermined. It would be logically impossible to successfully tell a lie because we would have no reason to think people are ever telling the truth. We would just assume they are lying (which they would be). Thus, Kant concedes that lying is illogical, wrong and never justified.

However in practical terms this would mean that, according to Kant’s logic, Germans hiding Jews from Nazis during the Second World War would be morally wrong to lie if asked, “Are you hiding Jews?” Yet for all one would commend the intent to never lie, one cannot help feel that answering “Yes!” to the Nazis in this situation would be morally dubious.

In the end, Legalism creates logical problems. When one is tied to the notion that value is inherent in an act, one cannot justify using a ‘Bad’ means to achieve a ‘Good’ end. If the means is deemed inherently wrong then no matter how good the end is, one cannot ever be justified in doing it. If we do then we arrive at the absurdist notion that we have committed the ‘lesser of two evils’, or in this instance maybe ‘told a white lie’. This is legalism entangling itself up. Either an act is wrong and should never be done, or an act is not wrong and can sometimes be done. We cannot say something is inherently wrong and should never be done, but then in some instances justify doing it.

“Love could justify anything. There is no justification other than love’s expedients.” (Joseph Fletcher)

The Four Factors

Situation Ethics has much in common with Utilitarianism, the most basic comparison being that they justify a means (act) in light of the positive end it achieves. In the case of Utilitarianism, it is the maximisation of pleasure (or happiness) which makes an act Good (or not). In the case of Fletcher’s Situation Ethics, it is the promotion of Love:

“There is only one end, one goal, one purpose which is not relative and contingent, always an end in itself. Love.” (Joseph Fletcher)

In Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism, he introduced a calculus as a means to examine situations in order to act appropriately. Although Fletcher does not propose using a calculus, he does consider the following four questions vital in determining the best course of action in any situation:

1. What is the end being sought?
2. By what means can this be achieved?
3. What is the motive behind the act?
4. What are the foreseeable consequences of the action?

“Legalism often takes the position that to be wrong an action need be at fault on only one of these four scores, whereas in order to be right it must be right on all four.” (Joseph Fletcher)

The important point to note here is that for Fletcher both the means and the end are contingent and relative. There are no absolutes. No act has any intrinsic value attached to it. We are to address each situation uniquely and on its own terms. The right thing to do in one situation does not justify us making a rule or law to be applied everywhere (this is Legalism). The right thing to do in one situation may be the wrong thing to do in another. Likewise, the wrong thing to do in one situation may be the right thing to do in another.

“There is only one end, one goal, one purpose which is not relative and contingent, always an end in itself. Love.” (Joseph Fletcher)

Critics of Situation Ethics are quick to point out the slippery-slope argument associated with this way of thinking: What if everyone did this? For example, in justifying euthanasia in one situation the Legalist might suggest this will lead people to kill elderly relatives when they are being inconvenienced by their failing health, or what’s the point of keeping them alive any longer and waste vital medical resources?

As persuasive as this might be, the slippery-slope argument is actually grounded on the notion that in order for an act to be moral, it must be universally applicable (a form of Kant’s Categorical Imperative). But how reasonable is this claim? For one, every act given the right context is capable of inflicting harm on others. Also, the fact that there will always be some who ‘abuse the system’ does not mean the system is bad, or that decision-making should be limited (“Abuse does not bar use”). However the truly problematic nature of universals is that they basically overlook the varieties of human life, and this is something Situation Ethics keeps at the heart of the moral question.

The cry of, “What if everyone did this?” is not a valid counter-argument, but simply a way of letting the law remain in control.

Hallowing the Means

Some final thoughts…

“However you decide your choices, the end justifies the means… the only self-validating end in the Christian situation ethic is love.” (Joseph Fletcher)

“We may always do what would be evil in some contexts if in this circumstance love gains the balance. It is love’s business to calculate the gains and losses, and to act for the sake of its success.” (Joseph Fletcher)

“We have to refuse to admit doing a preponderantly good deed just because the necessary means happens to be evil “generally” or because it entails some evil. For us, whether it is good or evil, right or wrong, is not in the deed but by its circumstances.” (Joseph Fletcher)

The Sixth Proposition - Love Decides There and Then 

Notes

* “The idea that "the ends justify the means" admits that there is something inherently wrong with "the means". Indeed, it admits that "the means" are actually unjustified by themselves. The claim, then, is that although "the means" are unjustifiable in themselves, that a particular outcome that is achieved by them results in the justification of the unjustified. Christianity certainly does not have any basis for this idea, and it doesn't need any. I know of a particular religion that believes it's alright for its followers to lie in a conversation with someone of another religion if lying helps them win the argument. Christianity, however, does not need to do this, because Christianity believes that truth is on its side. That's a key point, because Truth invites questioning, whereas lies and falsehoods do not.” (Is “the ends justify the means” compatible with Christianity?. Web. July 25, 2015. http://christianity.stackexchange.com.

**Although Fletcher claims Christian ethics has largely rejected the notion of the end justifying the means, this is not entirely true. For the aim (end) of most Christians has been first and foremost to glorify God in their lives. So these people only do those things they believe will please God (such as following God’s commandments). However, on a lesser scale yes; Christian morality has tended towards rejecting moral tenets such as ‘working to increase pleasurable outcomes in the world’ for example, as these are largely deemed to be putting human interests before God’s.

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative: Introduction and Overview

Key terms

• Consequentialism (Teleological ethics): Actions are deemed right or wrong based on the result of doing them (E.g. Utilitarianism).
• Deontological ethics: Actions are deemed right or wrong independent to the consequences. We do something because it is right to do it.

Introduction

The categorical imperative is something we are fundamentally required to do irrespective of how we feel about doing it. In other words, we should ALWAYS do it. Categorical imperatives are also innately good and as such we have a duty to recognise (and accept) their moral authority and validity in our life. They are not judged 'good' (or determined to have moral worth) based any beneficial outcomes they might produce, or even because someone tells us to do it. A categorical imperative is good in itself, and that is all.

A rational (and reasonable) morality

The philosopher who is most widely known for his discussion of categorical imperatives is Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant argued we had a 'duty' to always do certain things irrespective of the consequences of doing them. For example, he believed people should never tells lies no matter what the consequences for being truthful ended up being. He also believed it was important to understand our 'moral duty', and that this could be done using cold hard logic (reason). THEORETICAL REASON concerns things such as math and logic, whilst PRACTICAL REASON is the basis for discovering moral truth. 

Kant believed practical reason was superior to theoretical reason because it had the ability to show us how to live well. Kant also held that practical reason was grounded in a sense of ought. In others words, through a careful consideration and evaluation of choices, people can come to realise what their moral duty is, and do it. By working out what we ought to do we begin to understand how we should and must act. Logically this suggests it is impossible for practical reason to lead us into a sense of ought about something we cannot or should not do. While all this sounds simple (in theory), Kant believed acting morally should be hard to make it meaningful. If we simply did what we felt like doing all the time, then we would never have any reason to consider if we were doing the right thing.

For example, what would happen if we only did things that made us happy? All we would be interested in is personal gratification. What if we said that everyone can live in ways that made them happy all the time? It should be quickly evident that what makes us happy cannot be a reliable guide for what counts as good because what makes us person happy may not necessarily make other people happy too. Also, our happiness might be dependent on making someone else unhappy, which is clearly problematic if acting morally is about everyone being happy. So rather than pursuing self-gratification and acting on the basis of how we feel, we need to take a breath, pause, step back, and think about what we are doing and why.

All this means moral judgements need to be separated from emotion in order to avoid doing the wrong thing. Although an emphasis on logic and reason might suggest we need to become emotionally vapid to live a good life, this is not the case. Reason is simply the means by which we learn to do the right thing. We don’t do things we feel like doing, just those things it makes sense to do!

“Moral actions, for Kant, are actions where reason leads, rather than follows.” (McCormick M., Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics, I.E.P.)

The importance of freewill

Kant's stress on the importance of freewill has significantly influenced moral enquiry, with any viable morality involving us making real choices (and being allowed to make them). When we speak of having freewill we mean a genuine and free ability to do something, rather than being forced to do it. Kant refers to this as the 'autonomy of the will'. Freewill is so important to Kant that he regarded it as one of the three fundamental truths of the universe (the others being God and Immortality). 

Freewill is necessary in order for us to be morally accountable beings, for without true freedom there is no real choice, and without real choice there is no actual struggle to do 'good'. One needs to be faced with a genuine opportunity to do good. To only do what one feels like doing, or to do something because we have been told to do it is not a sound basis for acting morally. To act in a truly moral way means we must have a free choice to do something, for having freely chosen to do something our actions become significant and we can be held accountable.

Hypothetical imperatives

An imperative is something that needs to be done. For instance, a teacher might say to a pupil that it is imperative they do their homework (meaning they must do it). However, the imperative to do homework is normally grounded in some reason for doing it, for example in order to get good grades or to avoid punishment. This means doing homework is conditional on a pupil being interested in getting good grades, or wanting to avoid being punished. If they are unmotivated by either of these, then they have no reason to do their homework.

Kant described any imperative (or command) as hypothetical when certain conditional factors are present: We do x because of y. This means hypothetical imperatives function as a means to an end, and derive their moral authority on the basis of this end. If someone is interested in the end result (y), then a hypothetical imperative will have the authority (and moral basis) to cause someone to act accordingly.

Hypothetical imperatives can be identified by the presence of 'if... then' conditions in moral statements (E.g. If you want to get good grades, then you need to do your homework). Kant rejected hypothetical imperatives as a basis for morality because they are not universally applicable or valid. For instance, consider the following statement:

• It is wrong to tell lies because God has commanded us not to.

At first glance this statement might appear to contain an absolute imperative, to always act in a certain way (i.e. we should never lie). However, it is actually a hypothetical imperative because lying is deemed wrong simply because God has commanded us not to do it. Although there are many people who would be happy to ground moral behaviour on the belief that God wills it, the statement “It is wrong to tell lies because God has commanded us not to” only has moral worth to people believing God exists. For someone who does not believe in God there is absolutely no reason why they should pay any attention to what others say God has commanded, or live according to such things.

Categorical imperatives

Unlike hypothetical imperatives, a categorical imperative is something everyone must always do. We might say they are universally valid. A categorical imperative also has no condition attached to doing it. It is a fundamental, universal and indisputable moral truth. One might venture to say that if there were there no humans left in the universe, a categorical imperative would still be true.

Kant set out and explored his understanding of the categorical imperative in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785). He did this in response to two questions:

• What ought I to do?
• What is the highest good (or summum bonum) of humans actions (i.e. their 'end')?

Kant believed the highest good for humanity is to live according to the categorical imperative:

“Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature.”

To understand what Kant means here, let's consider if telling lies is ever the right thing to do. 

Although we might say there is nothing wrong in telling lies now and again, Kant would argue that the telling of any lie is logically problematic. For in order for a liar to be believed, they assume people tell the truth most of the time. However, if everyone lies when they see fit, then (logically) we end up with the situation where people don't know if someone is ever lying to them or not. In fact, this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in when people make excuses for things they have done, or not.

However Kant takes the logic of this situation further. If telling lies results in us not knowing when someone is lying to us, then in theory we cannot successfully tell lies. We simply do not know if anyone is ever telling the truth (or not). This means any act of lying (as far as Kant is concerned), is logically irrational. People have no reason to think we are telling the truth all the time, so why lie on the assumption that they are? Such behaviour is absurd! If we know we have the chance to not to be believed, why act as if we are? Also, as most of us do not want to be lied to, this is a further reason why we should not lie. In this sense we are to follow the Golden Rule: To treat others as we want them to treat us. All this means that the best (and logical) scenario for us is to treat not lying as a categorical imperative (it is something we should never do).

So Kant’s categorical imperative, “Act as if the maxim of your action was to become through your will a universal law of nature,“ means we only act in ways we would be happy for others to act like. You don’t want to be lied to, then don’t tell lies. Following on from this are two other rational principles:

“Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but at the same time as an end.”

“Act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.”

Hypothetical imperatives treat people as a means to an end, whereas a categorical imperative never will. For instance, to say that when it suits me I will tell lies is putting my needs before others. It is also forgetting that we are all part of a wider community and that we cannot live as we please without due regard and respect for others. Although Kant is adamant that we each have the right to live in any way we see fit to, we also have to keep in mind that others also have that same right too, and that as a result no-one should ever become a pawn in someone else's 'game of life'.

Summary

In terms of Kant's categorical imperative, the most logical and rational thing we can do in terms of acting correctly is to think about how our actions will affect those around us, and to only do those things that will not impinge on another’s right to freely live their own life. It is like looking into a mirror and saying to ourselves, “What would happen if everyone did this?” If we conclude that what we are about to do is not going to impinge on the liberty of others to freely live their own life, and it is something everyone else could (logically) do, then we have a duty to do it. If we cannot see everyone acting the way are or want to, or we wish people not treat us as we wish to treat them, or we want to do something just for personal or emotional gratification/gain, then we should not do it. This is why Kant said the categorical imperative will never lead to do something we ought not to do. Ought implies can... and can, implies we should do it.