Pontius Pilate: An Ethical Man?

I would just like to point out here that there is indeed an ethical perspective that would not degrade (read: would be more considerate) the action of Pontius Pilate.  It is called Utilitarian Ethics.

Utilitarianism was advocated by such intellectuals as Jeremy Bentham and John S. Mill.  While this philosophical system is encompassing, its branch that focuses on ethics holds the maxim: “Act to do only that which could effect the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.”  At the outset, let us indicate that this ethical perspective is an archrival of those perspectives that would capitalize on the motive of the moral agent — e.g., the Kantian ethics and the various theological ethics — in determining the morality of every human act.

As may be inferred from the maxim of the Utilitarian ethics, what is ethical is what is able to bring about happiness to many people.  What does it mean?  For one, from the perspective of the moral agent, it means one is duty bound to let go of one’s principles or desires should his is found to be in conflict with that of the many.  From this perspective, anyone who maintains a hardline stance in fighting for what he/she thinks is right or ethical is sheer hardheadedness.  Worse, it is akin to fundamentalism, and is never facilitative of dialogue.  It’s may even be considered as arrogance, especially if one forcefully asserts one’s perspective viz. the perspective of the many.  In contrast, a Utilitarian ethicist is humble, sensitive to the overriding sentiment, and would readily submit to what the majority judges as right or wrong.  A Utilitarianist is also not self-centered, and is manifesting enough maturity to hold firm of what he/she believes to be right while humbling bowing to the collective wisdom of the many.

Similarly, Utilitarian Ethics is highlighting the need to have an objective measure or reed by which to identify the morality of any action.  Simply put, it’s “never mind the intention, what’s the only significant is the consequence of the action.”  Intention is simply far from being objective; for, essentially, it is personal.  That means, unless a person confesses truthfully about his intention, we cannot know of his/her real intention.  In the case of Pontius Pilate (from the compendium we provided in the preceding), we can only be thankful to the hagiographer who vividly provided the details including the mental and moral anguish that the fellow must have gone through in weighing his options.  But, in real life situation, in assessing the morality of any action, what is objectively verifiable is only the consequence or the result of an act.  In dwelling on the intention, we may even find ourselves to commit a sin or two as we speculate on the real intent of or tend to reflect on the moral agent what is actually our motive or what we really have in mind.

Finally, in determining the morality of the action — and, eventually, the personhood — of Pontius Pilate, lest we fall into the temptation of simplistic and reductionist ethical evaluation, we need to point out the presence of various ethical theories.  Their variety points to the variety of evaluation results.  And, so, we raise the point: which shall be valid?  Neither of these ethical theories can be adequately valid.  For validity of ethical theories in this case is determined first and foremost by one’s “ideological” bias.  And subscribing to one’s “ideological” bias is dogmatism.