Saturday, February 11, 2006

God's Moral Law and Absolutism: Introduction

What do you do when it seems you have to choose between two sins? For instance the midwives in the old testament, do they lie and say the that Jewish women have their babies to quickly to kill them, or do they tell them the truth and put both themselves and the babies in danger (see Exodus chapter 1)? In this case they lied and God commends them for it. With my next few posts I hope to do my best to discuss some ethical theory surrounding God's moral law and absolutism. The book covers you will see in these posts are books I've read that have helped me come to the limited understanding that I have of this topic.

When studying ethics we encounter many different theories. Such as utilitarian ethics, virtue based ethics, and deontological ethics. Utilitarian ethics bases its ethical system on some non-moral outcome such as happiness or pleasure. For instance, the way we decide on what is right and wrong could be based on what will produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. A couple of the proponents of this view would be David Hume and John Stuart Mill. This is the view that seems to be the most popular in today’s secular society. Virtue based ethics looks to character to decide what is right and wrong. In other words we do not look to follow rules blindly, but we look to virtues that we wish to cultivate such as courage, prudence and temperance then we look to how we should live out our lives. As Leslie Stephens says, “The moral law…Has to be expressed in the form “be this” not in the form “do this.” Proponents of this view have been Alasdair MacIntyre, Stanley Hauerwas, and of course Aristotle (though it is debated whether his teaching was as extreme as modern day virtue ethicists). This view has gained momentum in today’s church, and has also gained acceptance by many in the Emergent Church. It is also held by many in the catholic church.

Both views have their flaws, for instance utilitarian ethics would have to say that committing adultery is a good thing to do if it will lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. As we know this is contrary to scripture. Virtue based ethics has serious trouble in explaining how good character leads to doing the right thing. For example, if courage is a virtue we are trying to cultivate, how do we apply this to doing the right thing? A woman who abstains from an abortion could be said to be courageous, but so could the woman who was brave enough to have one. Which one is right? I realize if you hold to one of these view these simple arguments will not convince you but my point here is not to refute these system, but to look at absolutism.

The first two views we looked at say that there is no intrinsic value in any action. The value is in either in the outcome of the action (utilitarian) or in the character of the person doing the act (Virtue). Deontological ethics on the other hand is a duty or obligation driven system. Deontological ethics says there is some intrinsic value in certain actions, such as not killing, or truth telling, that requires us to do them. The prima fascia understanding of scripture and I believe the correct understanding seems to show this view as the most correct. There are certain actions that we are to do in order to be ethical. This flows from God’s moral law which is summarized in the Ten Commandments and further summarized when Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love God and love our neighbor. The Christian understanding of this view does not neglect the character of the person doing the act. For an act to truly be Godly it must stem from the right attitude or character. But there is value in certain acts and not only in the heart.

A person who holds this view is usually known as a Moral Absolutist. This means that the moral laws are absolute in that they are binding on all men, at all times and in all situations. Which most Christians hold to regarding the Ten Commandments and other moral principles found in scripture. But in this view there are what we call moral dilemmas. To use the old cliché, what do you do when the Nazi’s are at you door looking for Jews which you are hiding. You are under two different principles which seem to be in conflict. First, you are morally obligated not to lie, and second you are morally obligated to love your neighbor and protect them. Looking at this dilemma, there are three different categories of moral absolutists. There is the non-conflicting absolutist, the conflicting absolutist, and the graded or hierarchical absolutist. In three future posts I will be looking at each one of these to see how they answer the question. Due to time, I cannot promise that they will be my next three posts but I will do my best.

God Bless,

Doug

Labels: ,

7 Comments:

At Saturday, February 11, 2006 9:06:00 PM, Blogger mxu said...

Hey, that's really cool. I'm currently taking a class on an introduction to moral philosophy and I'm excited to see what you have to say. Blessings!

 
At Sunday, February 12, 2006 12:08:00 PM, Blogger T A Blankenship said...

Doug,
You put a lot of thought into those words. Ethics and morality can cause many questions, especially concerning lying. The midwives lying to Pharoah, Ruth lying to the soldiers protecting the two spies from Israel, and the lies the Ten Boom family and others told to protect the Jews during the holocaust.
I do think however that God rewards the faith of those, and not the lying. These were all showing faith in God's grace and His faithfulness to protect them.

 
At Sunday, February 12, 2006 1:51:00 PM, Blogger Doug E. said...

T A Blankenship,

Regarding God commending their faith and not their lying, two of the positions I will be describing will make that same argument but for slightly different reasons. Hopefully as I address these views it will open up some dialog regarding your point which is a great one.

Doug

 
At Sunday, February 12, 2006 5:20:00 PM, Blogger Gordon Cloud said...

Doug, this is a fascinating post. I really look forward to your subsequent posts on this.

 
At Monday, February 13, 2006 8:44:00 AM, Blogger Daniel said...

This subject has always been hard for me to understand so I'm glad you're addressing it.

My Intro to Philosophy class was with this atheist prof who often ask me this question. One thing that I notice was that the very tension between two morals reveals to us something. He would often present a test case where you had to decide between the death of two people or five people. But that sort of situation just shows us that either way we looked at it human life is sacred.

I'm curious to watch your future posts.

 
At Tuesday, February 14, 2006 7:50:00 AM, Blogger Jada's Gigi said...

Interesting reading. I have my own thoughts on this which involve a whole lot of grace..:) but I'll be reading..

 
At Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:26:00 PM, Blogger missmellifluous said...

This is GOLD, Doug! Thankyou for thinking things through and expressing them so clearly. I have only just had time to read this post and will now move on to the others. This session I will be studying a class on professional ethics so I will be referring to your post in the future and perhaps picking up some books. Thankyou.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home