Choices Chapter Five: Consider the Consequences, Part 2 

Posted by Melissa Davis 

This is a continuation of last week's post on Choices, Chapter Five. 

Who gets the good consequences?

If our aim is to add goodness to peoples’ lives, who specifically are those people? Some might argue that we should have a “me first” mentality because, they say, this is human nature and seeking ones own good will lead to good for others as well (85). If you’d prefer a less me-centric ethic, you can seek to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This sounds great, except “a large amount of good done for a large number of people is not a sure sign that we are doing the right thing” (86). Is it the good these people need? Is there a more focused group that is more desperately in need? Smedes leaves us wondering as he turns to the final question of the chapter.

When should people get good results—now or later?

Proponents of delayed gratification urge us to forsake short-term results for greater long-term ones—marshmallow test, anyone? We don’t chop down the tree in our backyard on a Friday night because we think a bonfire sounds fantastic. We “reject instant benefits for the sake of avoiding long-term harm” (88), in this case, a desolate garden. However, sometimes the immediate need is pressing: if you’re lost in the woods in the dead of winter, having thankfully brought your hatchet with you, you will in fact chop down the tree in front of you to start a fire. Another potential difficulty: we can’t always predict long-term results or control their outcomes. The life-saving technology I develop today might be used by a tyrant for the destruction of human life twenty years in the future. Again, Smedes leaves us without clear-cut answers.

After exploring all of the above, Smedes says that when considering the consequences, what we really need are standards which can help us evaluate whether the results are good, which are better, who should receive these goods, and whether we should seek immediate or delayed positive results (89). Where do these standards come from? While some are led by intuition or personal moral codes, Smedes’ faith is the lens through which he considers the consequences. 

These are my thoughts and questions after reading this chapter:

--If what is "morally right" is to add to the goodness of people's lives, I think we need to ask: What does it mean to be human? And what is ultimately good for humans? As Christians, we believe that God determines what is good, not what feels good or what society says is good. So what does God say is good for us?

--Is there a group whose good we should prioritize? Perhaps we should seek first the good of our family or close friends. Does goodness radiate out, like ripples in a pond? Or should we prioritize the most vulnerable, the poorest of the poor? The Bible seems to prioritize orphans and widows--should we also?

--We don't know how the future will play out and what long-term consequences will actually be, but God does. What role does prayer play in considering the consequences?