“In the theological debates of the last 50 yrs or so, this is the grounds for much of what has been termed the “new morality” or “Situation ethics” claiming that persons are more important than principles. That experiencing relationship is of greater value than God’s revealed commands. Of course this ignores the fact that the principles belong to a God who embodies concern for the person, but not at the expense of purity, holiness, justice and righteousness.
Ultimately the value attached to a truth claim is reduced to “does it work for me.” This has the advantage of seeming to settle all the uncertainties. Problem is, the uncertainties created by consequentialism itself cannot be overcome by consequentialism.
Consequentialism more or less takes the approach that a truth is true if it maximizes things of intrinsic value, and minimizes that which lacks intrinsic value. The problem is that is a circular argument. It assumes what is seeks to prove. A person must first have prior knowledge of what is of intrinsic value, in order to determine what does maximize intrinsic value.
…
The result is that if a truth does not result in the desired outcome, it is not true. But if we do not already know that the desired outcome represents truth, we cannot know if the outcome is really to be the most desired.
Consequentialism fails as a measure of the truth of an action or claim. The truth may indeed be expensive and painful and undesirable. The truth may create tension, difficulties, and apparent contradictions. But it remains truth. As Copan points out: Sometimes we must choose truth and accept the consequences no matter how difficult they are.” http://scotthere.preachersfiles.com/2010/03/16/truth-or-consequences/
