Is Consequentialism Compatible with Torah Thought?

In the realm of ethical thinking, consequentialism serves as a guiding principle that evaluates actions based on their outcomes, focusing on the fruits of actions rather than their inherent nature or motivations. On the other hand, Torah thought, deeply rooted in Divine commandments and Rabbinic exegesis, provides a framework for ethical living anchored in the will of Hashem. 

In this article, we will seek to address whether the emphasis on outcomes in consequentialism can harmoniously coexist with the commandment-driven approach of Torah. Is it possible to reconcile the divine mandates of the Torah with an ethical theory that assesses right and wrong primarily by their consequences? We will delve into the heart of these questions, seeking to understand the nuances and potential intersections between consequentialism and Torah thought.

What Is Consequentialism?

Consequentialism, as we mentioned, is an ethical theory that judges the morality of an action based on the outcomes or results it produces. The primary concern in consequentialist thinking is the end result of an action. If the consequences lead to favorable outcomes or maximize some value (like happiness, pleasure, or well-being), then the action is considered morally right. Conversely, if the consequences are unfavorable or lead to negative outcomes, the action is deemed morally wrong.

Before eating from the tree, humanity was in a pristine spiritual state with no yetzer hara – evil inclination. Adam’s nature was fundamentally attuned to doing the will of Hashem. The question thus arises: how did Adam come to sin? What led him to make the wrong choice?

The roots of consequentialist thinking can be found in ancient philosophical traditions, including the works of Greek philosophers such as Epicurus, who emphasized the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain as guiding principles for ethical conduct.

One of the most influential forms of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which originated in the 18th and 19th centuries with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism posits that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes suffering or pain for the greatest number of people. 

Is Consequentialism Compatible with Torah Thought?

In seeking to understand whether consequentialist philosophy is compatible with Torah thought, we’re going to look at a specific episode from the Torah where such a thought process was employed and examine the problem that arose from it. The episode we’re going to look at goes all the way back to humanity’s very first sin itself – the sin of Adam eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad in the Garden of Eden.

Before eating from the tree, humanity was in a pristine spiritual state with no yetzer hara – evil inclination. Adam’s nature was fundamentally attuned to doing the will of Hashem. The question thus arises: how did Adam come to sin? What led him to make the wrong choice?

The Arizal explains the way in which the snake was able to tempt man to sin was to persuade him to eat from the tree for the purpose of better serving his Creator! In other words, the snake presented the original sin to Adam under the guise of a mitzvah. Adam understood that after eating the fruit, he would lose his closeness to Hashem and be at a greater distance from Him, but as Rabbi Immanuel Bernstein, in his book Dimensions in Chumash (p.13), explains, “the very fact that making the right choices would become harder once Adam ate from the tree was presented as the reason for him to do so. If he ate from the tree and, nonetheless, succeeded in choosing good over evil, the glory to God would be immeasurably greater than it would be in his current state.” 

Rabbi Bernstein further explains (ibid.), “This brings us to a paradox: Adam violated Hashem’s command in order to further the fulfillment of His will! This was how eating from the Eitz Hadaas was rationalized – the ends (future high-level mitzvot) would justify the means (a present sin).”

Tying this back in with the subject of consequentialism, what does Adam’s sin tell us about the validity of this philosophy?

One aspect of the sin was Adam believing that he knew better than Hashem about how to achieve success in life and fulfill Hashem’s will. Herein lies the major disadvantage of this line of reasoning. Albeit that there is a spirit of the law to every law, the letter of the law may not be overlooked. This means that we cannot bypass or override a commandment based on personal beliefs about achieving a similar or better result. Hashem wants us to fulfill his commandments not because of their perceived benefits but because He commanded them, and that is what our intention must be when performing them. According to the consequentialist approach, if we thought that a certain action prohibited by halacha would nonetheless bring about a positive consequence, then it would become permitted in our eyes.

Rav Chaim Volozhiner¹ explains that if the rightness or wrongness of actions simply depended upon their intention, then a person would have an open license to commit an aveira if one has a good intention in mind. It follows that if this were the case, then there would be no need for the 613 Mitzvot since all one would need is good intentions. 

Sheker l’toelet

Ah, I hear you ask. Aren’t there exceptions to the rule? Aren’t there some cases in Jewish thought where we are permitted to do something bad in order to achieve a good outcome? Isn’t sheker l’toelet (lying for a beneficial cause) one example of this? Sheker l’toelet opens up the question as to whether lying is justified or permissible in certain circumstances for a greater good or higher purpose.

There are circumstances in halacha where two principles find themselves in conflict, one principle will push the other one aside. An example of this is pikua’h nefech doheh Shabbat–[rescuing a] life in danger takes precedence over Shabbat. Other examples are the fact that killing innocent civilians to kill terrorists is allowed or aborting a baby to save the mother’s life.

Halachic authorities engage in a complex process of legal interpretation, weighing various factors and considerations to determine the appropriate course of action. In some cases, one principle may override another based on specific halachic criteria, such as the severity of the potential harm, the importance of the conflicting commandments, or other relevant factors within the halachic framework. If the decision does not need to be made on the spot, it’s necessary that we consult with halachic authorities who have expertise in this area and can give us a psak (halachic ruling). If we do have to make an urgent decision, we must weigh various considerations and decide what the correct mode of action ought to be. Situations such as these highlight the importance of studying halacha to ensure we know how to make informed decisions in various situations when we need to.

Ultimately, while the goal of the mitzvot is to bring about positive outcomes such as justice and peace, one of the fundamental tenets of Judaism is living a life in service to Hashem. As Rav Hirsch explains in Horeb: “Even… if every Divine precept were a riddle to us and presented us with a thousand unsolved and insoluble problems, the obligatory character of the commandments would not in the slightest degree be impaired by this.” 

Consequentialism has as its starting point deciding what ethical behavior is, Torah, by contrast, has Divine Command as its starting point where the focus is on living in accordance with the ethical dictates that Hashem has commanded of us. What this means is that the primary ethical obligation is to live in accordance with God’s commandments, irrespective of the potential consequences. As we learn from the sin of Adam HaRishon, it is not up to us to think that we know better than Hashem regarding the right outcomes – we have seen just how flawed this reasoning can be. Sometimes we are in situations where we do have to break a law to achieve a certain outcome, but we must approach these situations carefully and with due care.

1. Keter Rosh, Siman 132 ↩︎