"Lesser of Two Evils" fallacy

[JonC]

I was reading A Clash of Kings (by George Martin) and ran across a very used secular idea. The notion is that one can be placed in a position where they must act wrongly in order to prevent a greater wrong from occurring.

Years ago I watched a Johnny Depp movie along the same lines (Nick of Time) where Nick’s (Depp) child was kidnapped with the demand Nick kill a man. The idea was that the man would choose to kill either his child (via the kidnappers) or the one marked for murder. The man had no option but to choose what he considered to be the most appropriate action.

I started thinking how common this idea is in our culture (through media, like movies and books) yet how foreign it is to Christianity. The world places not only our decisions but their outcomes in our hands. Scripture places our decisions in our hands but the outcome in God’s.

What I am getting at is that as Christians we are responsible for acting as we are commanded to act, not acting in opposition to God in order to bring a more godly outcome to a situation or set of circumstances.

Is the “lesser of two evils” idea simple faithlessness in God, or are there times when God blesses disobedience provided the intentions are to foster a better result?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you have an example or two of when the lesser of two evils is disobedience to God?

 

[JonC]

Do you have an example or two of when the lesser of two evils is disobedience to God?

Sure. George Whitefield supported slavery because the slaves could be exposed to Christianity.

While a fair argument could be made that while perhaps appalling in and of itself slavery is not necessarily morally wrong, I don't think that this can be applied to the institution of slavery contemporary to Whitefield. The institution of slavery was IMHO an evil and a disobedience to God.

 

[Reynolds]

I was reading A Clash of Kings (by George Martin) and ran across a very used secular idea. The notion is that one can be placed in a position where they must act wrongly in order to prevent a greater wrong from occurring.

Years ago I watched a Johnny Depp movie along the same lines (Nick of Time) where Nick’s (Depp) child was kidnapped with the demand Nick kill a man. The idea was that the man would choose to kill either his child (via the kidnappers) or the one marked for murder. The man had no option but to choose what he considered to be the most appropriate action.

I started thinking how common this idea is in our culture (through media, like movies and books) yet how foreign it is to Christianity. The world places not only our decisions but their outcomes in our hands. Scripture places our decisions in our hands but the outcome in God’s.

What I am getting at is that as Christians we are responsible for acting as we are commanded to act, not acting in opposition to God in order to bring a more godly outcome to a situation or set of circumstances.

Is the “lesser of two evils” idea simple faithlessness in God, or are there times when God blesses disobedience provided the intentions are to foster a better result?

Rahab lied and is listed in the hall of faith for the lie and deceit.

 

[JonC]

Rahab lied and is listed in the hall of faith for the lie and deceit.

Do you believe that that lie was an evil? (Scripture does state that God hates a lie, after all).

Personally, I believe that example (this is one we often see) is out of context with the prohibition against lying. As proof - God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. If Adam were completely honest every time Eve asked about a dress, or asked him if he would like to accompany her to the mall, he would not have lived long enough to have been as fruitful as God commanded him to be.

 

[JonC]

Another example (although not as concrete) is Christians who support euthanasia. As a compassion these people believe that the elderly can be provided a pain-free and peaceful death. This is justified by redefining suicide (suicide only referring to those who could have otherwise lived what they deem as purposeful lives). It is not good to kill the elderly, but it is worse to force the elderly to live if their preference is death.

 

[Reynolds]

Do you believe that that lie was an evil? (Scripture does state that God hates a lie, after all).

Personally, I believe that example (this is one we often see) is out of context with the prohibition against lying. As proof - God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. If Adam were completely honest every time Eve asked about a dress, or asked him if he would like to accompany her to the mall, he would not have lived long enough to have been as fruitful as God commanded him to be.

I think it goes to show that "evil" is sometimes good.

 

[JonC]

I think it goes to show that "evil" is sometimes good.

I guess it depends on how we define "evil" (e.g., God did "evil" to the Hebrews).

 

[Dave G]

Rahab lied and is listed in the hall of faith for the lie and deceit.

She lied to the king of Jericho in order to protect the Lord's anointed, who were doing His will ( Joshua 2:1-22 )

Do you believe that that lie was an evil? (Scripture does state that God hates a lie, after all).

All lies are sin.

However, since she is in the "hall of faith" in Hebrews 11, then that means her sins were forgiven, as she is a child of God.
No one outside of a believer has true faith ( Romans 10:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:2, 1 John 5:4 ) and a true "fear" of God ( Psalms 33:18, Psalms 147:11 ).

The kind of faith that would cause her to hide the servants of the Most High is the kind that accompanies salvation ( Romans 4:5-8, Ephesians 2:8 ) and was delivered to the saints ( Jude 1:3 ) of which Rahab, by being in Hebrews 11, was a possessor of.
She not only believed God, but acted in that belief.

" By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace." ( Hebrews 11:31 )

She had what is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ( Hebrews 11:1 ).
Since true faith is a fruit of the Spirit ( Galatians 5:22-23 ), then she was saved.

To me, the lie is irrelevant.
She acted in faith, knowing that she was doing the will of God ( Matthew 7:21 ) by hiding the two spies.

 

[JonC]

She lied to the king of Jericho in order to protect the Lord's anointed, who were doing His will ( Joshua 2:1-22 )

All lies are sin.

However, since she is in the "hall of faith" in Hebrews 11, then that means her sins were forgiven, as she is a child of God.
No one outside of a believer has true faith ( Romans 10:17, 2 Thessalonians 3:2, 1 John 5:4 ) and a true "fear" of God ( Psalms 33:18, Psalms 147:11 ).

The kind of faith that would cause her to hide the servants of the Most High is the kind that accompanies salvation ( Romans 4:5-8, Ephesians 2:8 ) and was deliverd to the saints ( Jude 1:3 ) of which Rahab, by being in Hebrews 11, was a possessor of.

" By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace." ( Hebrews 11:31 )

She had what is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ( Hebrews 11:1 ).
Since true faith is a fruit of the Spirit ( Galatians 5:22-23 ), then she was saved.

To me, the lie is irrelevant.
She acted in faith, knowing that she was doing the will of God ( Matthew 7:21 ) by hiding the two spies.

I do not know that all "lies" are sin (I believe intent comes into play). Here is my reasoning -

All deciet is not sin (God effectively decieved Pharaoh when He prevented him from recognizing the signs as they were not for Pharoah but for Israel). The purpose of Jesus' use of parables were along the same lines. But God was not being deceitful.

We are told to be honest and compassionate. Often these are contrary (the evil man may tell the truth while the good man may provide a compassionate false statement).

When Scripture speaks against a lie I believe it is speaking to the intent (whether good or evil).

 

[Reynolds]

I guess it depends on how we define "evil" (e.g., God did "evil" to the Hebrews).

It brings up the discussion of situational morality.

 

[Dave G]

All deciet is not sin (God effectively decieved Pharaoh when He prevented him from recognizing the signs as they were not for Pharoah but for Israel). The purpose of Jesus' use of parables were along the same lines. But God was not being deceitful.

I agree.

God hiding the truth from someone, is His right to do.
God allowing a man to be deceived, is also His right.

God blatantly lying to someone?
That He cannot do ( Numbers 23:19 ).

We are told to be honest and compassionate. Often these are contrary (the evil man may tell the truth while the good man may provide a compassionate false statement).

If you look at God's word carefully, I think that you will find that we as believers are under different rules than the Lord is.

We have a code of conduct ( for example, deferring vengeance to the Lord's judgment and timing ), while God can take His vengeance out on someone any time He wants, or recompense tribulation to those who trouble His children.

 

[JonC]

I agree.

God hiding the truth from someone, is His right to do.
God allowing a man to be deceived, is also His right.

God blatantly lying to someone?
That He cannot do ( Numbers 23:19 ).

If you look at God's word carefully, I think that you will find that we as believers are under different rules than the Lord is.

We have a code of conduct ( for example, deferring vengeance to the Lord's judgment and timing ), while God can take His vengeance out on someone any time He wants, or recompense tribulation to those who trouble His children.

The issue may be that God submitted Himself to the same standard God requires of us when God became man in the person of Jesus the Christ.

Another issue is that God did in fact tell man things that proved false (e.g., Hezekiah). One could call this a lie (it may be by human standards) but I think it is not as evidenced by the result of the encounter (I believe God intended his word to produce the result it did).

 

[Dave G]

Another issue is that God did in fact tell man things that proved false

Where?
2 Kings 20:1-6?

 

[JonC]

Where?
2 Kings 20:1-6?

No.
Isaiah 38:1-9

Point is the illness was unto death....then it wasn't.

I do not believe God intended him to die from the illness but to live those extra 15 years.

 

[Dave G]

Remember, Hezekiah was under the Law of Moses, not grace.
Per the terms of the Law, if the Lord determined evil ( calamity, death, etc. ) upon someone under the Law, and they earnestly sought Him with all their heart, He would heal them.

See Ezekiel 18:1-24 as an example.
There are other passages I'm not listing that also detail this principle under the Law.

 

[JonC]

Remember, Hezekiah was under the Law of Moses, not grace.
Per the terms of the Law, if the Lord determined evil ( calamity, death, etc. ) upon someone under the Law, and they earnestly sought Him with all their heart, He would heal them.

See Ezekiel 18:1-24 as an example.
There are other passages I'm not listing that also detail this principle under the Law.

I do not believe things have changed in terms of seeking God. That said, God is not "under the Law" and those words (God's words) proved untrue based on the same criteria.

 

[Dave G]

Point is the illness was unto death....then it wasn't.

I do not believe God intended him to die from the illness but to live those extra 15 years.

I agree.

 

[Dave G]

That said, God is not "under the Law" and those words (God's words) proved untrue based on the same criteria.

Are you saying that He lied?

or that He, instead, "repented of the evil that He determined upon someone"?

 

[JonC]

Are you saying that He lied?

or that He, instead, "repented of the evil that He determined upon someone"?

I'm saying I do not believe God's word or Rahab's "lie" constitutes a lie as a sin. Sin (in terms of God's command) is always in relation to God (even God's command that we love one another). The sin would have been for Rahab to betray God's representatives.