A Perspective: Evil and the Consequences of Consequentialism

There is a striking correlation between the underlying logic of the Argument from Evil and the Atheist ethic of Consequentialism.

[As a disclaimer, I realize full well that not all Atheists are consequentialists; some are just co-opting Judeo-Christianity, or have made up their own ethic; a great many Atheists are consequentialists, however].

Consequentialism is very simple: the end justifies the means. If an objective is declared good or moral, then any means to attain that end are also good and moral. The most recent instance of this is found in Obama’s teaching of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals”, in which Alinsky lays out 11 rules of ethics and means and ends”. Exerpts:

Rule #3: “in war the end justifies almost any means”.

Rule #10: “you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.

And, “Moral rationalization is required at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.”

Consequentialism insists that there actually be no consequences for any actions taken toward a chosen goal.

Contrast that position with the Argument from Evil, where humans would be shielded from the consequences of any bad decisions they might make. Insisting that a moral deity would remove all consequences places humans squarely on the path to mega-happiness. But the consequences exist, so the deity – if one exists – cannot be moral. And therefore can’t exist.

Now contrast those positions to the humanist position. The only moral consequence is human happiness, according to the atheist, the humanist, and the radical. Not individual human happiness, mind you, but bulk happiness for the chosen population. Other individuals are expected to find their happiness in submitting to the will of those in charge: the elites. Any activities that subtract from overall happiness must be dealt with and eliminated. So the elites suffer no consequences for enforcing their will.

The drive to be consequence-free is endemic now in our society. From homosexuals who blame straights for spreading AIDs, to feminists who blame men for their unhappiness, to adolescents who blame their parents, to the bankrupt who blame banks for lending to them, and on and on. But if God won’t remove consequences from our actions, then government must do it, yes? Government must cushion all consequences in order to provide happiness. This resulting ethic is common to a large portion of Atheists, humanists, leftists, and social activists.

It is spreading to our youth who feel entitled, another aspect of being consequence-free.

The denial of consequences is itelf evil. It is purely self-indulgent, and destructive. Arguing otherwise is irrational.