Good and Wrong -- At the Same Time
Pharaoh’s law commanded midwives were to kill all baby boys born to the Hebrew slaves. The midwives disobeyed and would not kill the babies. Saving the babies was good, but illegal. A thing can be good and illegal at the same time.
If a teenage son has a bad temper that is always getting him into trouble, the father who always rescues his son from the consequences has good intentions but his actions are foolish (Proverbs 19.19). A thing can be good and unwise at the same time.
When Peter drew his sword to protect Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked Peter for interfering. Peter’s impulse to protect Jesus was good—but wrong. A thing can be good and wrong at the same time.
Giving to those in need is a good thing, but obtaining the goods you wish to give by stealing them from someone else is immoral. A thing can be good and immoral at the same time.
David, while running from Saul, took the holy bread from the tabernacle as sustenance for himself and his supporters. Yet Jesus used this example to show that some violations of holiness are not evil. A thing can be good and profane at the same time.
Some may protest that I’m complicating things. I would counter that reality can be quite complicated.
When we learn how to make moral decisions as children, our young minds can only handle simple categories—what I’m calling “binaries”. A thing is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, wise or foolish, right or wrong, good or evil. All good things (holiness, legality, morality, wisdom, right) cluster at the “good pole”; all bad things (uncleanness, illegality, immorality, foolishness, wrong) at the “bad pole”.
This is the best way to teach little children moral behavior and decision-making. But childhood is only the foundation of life—the starting place, not the finish line. Maturing and growing wise requires more.
We assess reality using, not one spectrum (good and evil), but several—and they don’t always overlap perfectly. I’ve identified six that I use regularly when I’m making moral decisions.
There are likely a few more (e.g. beneficial/harmful, loving/unloving, beautiful/ugly, public/private).
The foundational spectrum is good versus evil. It describes what a thing is in its nature, prior to or apart from choices made. A sunset is good, but it isn’t a moral agent making choices. On the opposite end, evil doesn’t have to involve choices either. Birth defects, diseases and natural decay (e.g. rust) are examples of “evils” that do not involve choice.
Right and wrong bring good and evil into the realm of choice. Choices are weighed against a standard. If they meet the standard we call them “right”; if they don’t, they are “wrong”. To determine right and wrong we must ask “What does the chooser owe?”, i.e. is she doing what she ought to do?
Morality involves right and wrong behaviors as understood by a particular group of people. To determine the morality of an action one must ask “What does this particular group currently approve (or shun)?”
Another particular expression of right and wrong is legality. Legality measures an action against a standard demanded by a civil authority.
Holiness (vs. commonness or “profanity”) is a spectrum that asks “whether and how a thing has been set apart (or not set apart) for God”.
The sixth spectrum is wise versus foolish. It is the practical outcome that leads to final decision-making. It asks this: “Given everything I’ve culled from the other spectrums, what is the prudent course of action in this circumstance at this time?”
Sometimes these spectrums all overlap perfectly, but often they do not. When they don’t, wisdom must recognize where the distinctions lie and make decisions accordingly.
If a teenage son has a bad temper that is always getting him into trouble, the father who always rescues his son from the consequences has good intentions but his actions are foolish (Proverbs 19.19). A thing can be good and unwise at the same time.
When Peter drew his sword to protect Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked Peter for interfering. Peter’s impulse to protect Jesus was good—but wrong. A thing can be good and wrong at the same time.
Giving to those in need is a good thing, but obtaining the goods you wish to give by stealing them from someone else is immoral. A thing can be good and immoral at the same time.
David, while running from Saul, took the holy bread from the tabernacle as sustenance for himself and his supporters. Yet Jesus used this example to show that some violations of holiness are not evil. A thing can be good and profane at the same time.
Some may protest that I’m complicating things. I would counter that reality can be quite complicated.
When we learn how to make moral decisions as children, our young minds can only handle simple categories—what I’m calling “binaries”. A thing is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, wise or foolish, right or wrong, good or evil. All good things (holiness, legality, morality, wisdom, right) cluster at the “good pole”; all bad things (uncleanness, illegality, immorality, foolishness, wrong) at the “bad pole”.
This is the best way to teach little children moral behavior and decision-making. But childhood is only the foundation of life—the starting place, not the finish line. Maturing and growing wise requires more.
We assess reality using, not one spectrum (good and evil), but several—and they don’t always overlap perfectly. I’ve identified six that I use regularly when I’m making moral decisions.
There are likely a few more (e.g. beneficial/harmful, loving/unloving, beautiful/ugly, public/private).
The foundational spectrum is good versus evil. It describes what a thing is in its nature, prior to or apart from choices made. A sunset is good, but it isn’t a moral agent making choices. On the opposite end, evil doesn’t have to involve choices either. Birth defects, diseases and natural decay (e.g. rust) are examples of “evils” that do not involve choice.
Right and wrong bring good and evil into the realm of choice. Choices are weighed against a standard. If they meet the standard we call them “right”; if they don’t, they are “wrong”. To determine right and wrong we must ask “What does the chooser owe?”, i.e. is she doing what she ought to do?
Morality involves right and wrong behaviors as understood by a particular group of people. To determine the morality of an action one must ask “What does this particular group currently approve (or shun)?”
Another particular expression of right and wrong is legality. Legality measures an action against a standard demanded by a civil authority.
Holiness (vs. commonness or “profanity”) is a spectrum that asks “whether and how a thing has been set apart (or not set apart) for God”.
The sixth spectrum is wise versus foolish. It is the practical outcome that leads to final decision-making. It asks this: “Given everything I’ve culled from the other spectrums, what is the prudent course of action in this circumstance at this time?”
Sometimes these spectrums all overlap perfectly, but often they do not. When they don’t, wisdom must recognize where the distinctions lie and make decisions accordingly.