abstract: In today's sentimental climate, the liberals usually win the battle for public opinion. Good intentions are considered more virtuous than good consequences. Liberals appeal to compassion, while conservatives appeal to consequences.

Skip Navigation

by Andrew Sandlin

But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you (Matt. 21: 28-31).

To most of today's Christians, the son who agreed (and, no doubt, sincerely intended) to work but who did not follow through is preferable to the disagreeable son who finally did obey. This is because modern Christianity has fallen into the trap of stressing intent to the neglect of consequence. Intentions, to be sure, are vitally important. The Bible teaches us that as a man thinks in his heart, so is he (Pr. 23:7). The Bible unreservedly condemns evil desires. It is important to remember, however, that in most cases, man's intent is knowable by God alone. This is a cornerstone, by the way, of a Reformed ecclesiology. As James Bannerman observes, Presbyterians recognize a credible profession of faith, and not regeneration, as the criterion of church membership. Good Presbyterians know that they cannot read men's hearts--including whether men are truly regenerate. They can hope only to assess an externally faithful obedience. The Radical Reformation mentality, by contrast, seeks to suspend church membership on an infallible knowledge of another's spiritual condition. This is both futile and dangerous; futile, because no man can read another's heart, and dangerous, because to vest this sort of authority in the hands of church leaders paves the way for ecclesiastical tyranny. It is consequences, not intent, that man can judge. (In some cases, we do take intent to account, for instance, in assessing first-degree, or intentional, murder versus passionate, or second-degree, murder; but even here the judgment must be made according to consequences.)

The Intentions of Social Policies

Further, it is futile and dangerous to fashion social policies according to intent rather than consequences. This has perhaps been the leading epidemic of the Left. They are not called "bleeding-heart liberals" for nothing. They allow "compassion" and other subjective factors, rather than demonstrable consequences, to shape social policies. A good example is welfare for the poor and jobless. Many liberals simply see this difficult human condition as a justification to expand state powers. Others are genuinely compassionate. The problem is that compassion is not a sufficient justification for social policy. State welfare addles the economy and dehumanizes the recipients. The consequences of liberal intentions injure the very people they are calculated to help. On the other hand, while the impetus behind a free market economy may not be provision for the poor and jobless, the free market does an overwhelmingly better job at supplying for these unfortunate individuals than state welfare does. In other words, the consequences of the free market are much preferable to the intentions of statist socialism.

Gun Control

The same is true of gun control. Many liberals are simply hungry for raw state power and see in this issue a means to grab more control for the state elite. The objective of other liberals is much more altruistic; they genuinely believe that gun control legislation will cut down on violent crime. There is no solid evidence of this, though there is solid evidence that an armed citizenry deters violent crime. The fact that most people who buy guns do not intend for the wider society to benefit in the form of less frequent violent crime is immaterial. Good consequences trump good intentions every time.

"Protectionism"

The "intentional fallacy" is not limited to the Left. On the Right, it is seen in such policies as economic "protectionism." Aside from the notable fact that this policy violates the Eighth Commandment, it is harmful--and eventually disastrous--to a nation's economy. Conservative protectionists mean well when they introduce policies designed to guarantee the jobs of specific industries. It is the consequences of those policies, not the intentions of their advocates, which are flawed. Protectionism hurts people at home by raiding the wallets of the vast majority of consumers in "protecting" the jobs of the vast minority of employees. It harms overseas workers by banishing them to mere subsistence living that can be remedied by jobs that produce exports for the consumers of wealthier nations. In the debate between free traders and protectionists, good intentions are not enough.

The Lust for Good Intentions

In today's sentimental climate, the liberals usually win the battle for public opinion. Good intentions are considered more virtuous than good consequences. Liberals appeal to compassion, while conservatives appeal to consequences. In an age drenched in romanticism, compassion wins almost every time. In his The Roots of Romanticism, Isaiah Berlin has observed that the preeminent characteristic which nineteenth-century romantics bequeathed to the modern world is the priority of passionate belief. Actions themselves are much less important than the fervor of belief that sets them into motion. In an age of relativism, this problem is especially acute. After all, if nothing is right or wrong, the only thing left to commend is passionate belief.

Years ago my father told me a story about a young child hit by an automobile as he crossed the road in front of his house. Several neighbors quickly rushed to the boy and noticed that he was alive and breathing, but unconscious. One of the neighbors had some medical knowledge and cautioned those around not to touch the child until trained medical personnel arrived. It was possible, he said, that most of the boy's skeletal system was intact; but if he were moved, some of his nerves or his spinal cord could be irreparably damaged.

From the boy's house came his mother passionately sobbing and screaming, "My son, my son!" Before the neighbors had a chance to intervene, she grabbed the boy and clutched him tightly to her bosom. When the EMTs arrived, they discovered that the boy was paralyzed. On further investigation they discovered it was the mother's embrace--and not the automobile's impact--that had severed the spinal cord.

The lesson? "Son, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Andrew Sandlin is the executive director of Chalcedon and the editor of the Chalcedon Report. He is a member of the National Reform Association board of directors and the former president of the organization.

back to top