The Resolution of Moral Conflicts

Jones titles his seventh chapter, “The Resolution of Moral Conflicts.” The chapters purpose is more of a “how to” resolve moral conflicts rather than a chapter resolving all moral conflicts. Jones goes through the many different types of ethical systems which offer ways to deal with these moral dilemmas. The first he examines is consequentialism.

In this system, “an act is right if it is intended to produce a greater balance of good over evil than any available option.” Jones describes current views on consequentialism and its close relation to utilitarianism. He interestingly notes that consequentialism claims to do away with moral dilemmas but in reality it only propagates them. The fundamental aspect of consequentialism is attempting to do the most good in each situation, not only for the individual but also for all of humanity. Jones correctly points out that, “One could never be sure of doing the right thing if it depended upon a balance of good over evil weighed in such a scale.” Jones therefore concludes that consequentialism is not the method one should take in resolving moral conflicts because it is impossible to know precisely what action will produce the most good. I found this to be very persuasive. Although I often use a consequential lens to consider what the right thing to do is, I had never considered my incredibly underwhelming knowledge of the consequences.

The second system is described by Jones as “Tragic Morality,” which is the theory more popularly known as “the lesser of two evils.” He cites J.I. Packer accepting this reality which states that in a fallen world, people are sometimes faced with a choice between two sinful options and the least sinful one must be chosen. He also cites John Warwick Montgomery as using a situation where you are faced with the decision to kill a sniper in order to save the lives of his victims. However, Jones points out that Montgomery is makes the mistake of assuming that the taking of human life is always wrong. Jones argues that to take a life in order to bring about public justice or the like is in no way wrong.

Jones eventually goes on to note that the incorrect assumption behind this model is that it makes sin necessary in some situations. In fact, Jones argues, “To hold that in a fallen world situations arise that make sin unavoidable renders the example of Jesus meaningless, for either he sinned…or else he never faced a really tough moral situation, and so was not tested at all points like us.” I found this to be very compelling. In either situation, there is much lost from the obedience and righteousness of Jesus and that is something no one wants to cause.

Jones moves on to critiquing “hierarchicalism” and “prima facie duties” in the next section. In spite of helpful things in both, Jones ultimately rejects them as still setting up systems in which sin is inevitable in certain circumstances. This brings Jones to his solution to these rejected systems. He argues for what he calls “case analysis,”  which he defines as, “the careful, devout effort to discover by reflection and discussion, the right course of action in typical circumstances.” This system claims to look to the whole of Scripture and the context of laws within the larger story of redemption to determine what is right or wrong in a given case. This I found to be very helpful because it looks to all of Scripture and shows that there are times in which we can look toward the motive of a law, or redemptive context of a command, in order to understand its application today.