The end does not justify the means

By  Engr. Carlos V. Cornejo

You must have heard of this famous Robin Hood scheme of winning the hearts of the people: that it is ok to steal from the rich and give it to the poor. The intention is good but the method of acquiring the money is questionable. This was actually done in a slightly different way, by the notorious and perhaps the richest drug lord in the world, the late Pablo Escobar. He would hand dole-outs to the poor in the form of cash and housing in Colombia from the proceeds of his drug trafficking. We might reckon that it justifies his illegal drug trade because he had helped the poor, even more than the Colombian government could help its people.

The two cases above would fail the test with the moral rule of “the end does not justify the means.” The “end” refers to your goal or intention which can be good as in the case of Robin Hood and Pablo Escobar which is to help the poor but the method or the means of helping is wrong which is to steal from the rich and drug trafficking. Moral Theology gives us three things necessary for an act to be morally right: first, the action itself has to be right, second, right motive, and third, right circumstances. All three should be present for an action to be morally upright.

In applying rule number (1), let’s take the case of abortion. Abortion as the Church would classify it, is an “intrinsically evil act” or the act itself in essence is evil. It is always wrong to kill an innocent unborn child in all circumstances even if the child is a product of rape. The only exception to this rule I know of is the rare medical case of trying to save a mother and her unborn child in a medical operation that if you save the mother, you can lose the child, or save the child and lose the life of the mother in the process. In this situation you can only save one person but not both. If the doctors would decide to save the mother and lose the child in the process, they have done no wrong since their intention is to save a life. This rare medical case actually happened, in a news I read sometime, but the heroic mother gave up her life for her unborn child.

Second, we should have the right motive in carrying out a right action. If you give alms to the poor with the motive of receiving praise from the public or out of vainglory, then your action as a whole is wrong.  It might not be a big sin or a mortal sin but sin, nevertheless. Even though our motive is something within us and is hidden from others (as many sins and saintly acts are), and we don’t offend others directly, but we do offend God who can read our hearts. Right action therefore should go with right intention.

And lastly, right circumstances. If you tell the truth but that truth can harm the others, then the circumstances of telling the truth is wrong or immoral. If you disclose a company information you have been sworn to keep or a priest tells others of the sin confessed by a person, then it is a circumstantial sin even though their intentions might be good. Circumstances can worsen a sin or make a good act more meritorious. If you murder someone inside the Church the circumstances of taking another person’s life makes the sin more grave because of the sacrilegious act of committing a sin in a holy place.  On the other hand, if you give to the poor a bigger amount of money that could pinch more your pocket, then the circumstances of the act make it more deserving of a greater heavenly reward. Right action, right motive and right circumstances are the requirements for a morally right act.