We started ethics today in philosophy. Here are some of the distinctions I presented to give greater precision to the way we talk about these things.
1. Act based ethics is only one approach to ethics, namely, the one that focuses most on what we do, do's and don'ts. The other main approach is virtue based ethics, which of course involves actions but focuses more on character and being, what we are. I didn't mention it today, but of course the ancient Mediterranean world, as the New Testament, formulated ethics more in terms of a virtue based than an act based ethic.
2. We made the important distinction between absolutism in ethics and absolutism in epistemology. These are related, but often blurred together. An absolute truth is a truth that is always true everywhere under all circumstances. An absolute moral requirement, on the other hand, is something that is always right or always wrong everywhere under all circumstances, no exceptions.
I suggested that among others, there were two foundational moral absolutes laid down by Christ: love God and love neighbor. There is no exceptional circumstance where it would be appropriate not to love God or not to love one's neighbor.
3. To make a distinction that is often lost, we discussed the fact that a person who believed abortion was wrong unless the life of the mother is in danger is not an absolutist on the issue of abortion. Similarly, if someone believed it was wrong to lie except, say, if a Nazi at your door is asking if you are hiding Jews upstairs (and you are), then this person is not an absolutist on this issue.
I labeled this position "universal rights and wrongs" (but with exceptions). I pointed out at least one area where this was the appropriate scope for a Christian ethic, namely, obeying those in authority over you. The right thing to do in all places is to obey those in authority over you except when it conflicts with your obedience to God. So Peter and John disobey the Sanhedrin's command not to preach in the name of Jesus. They made an exception to the rule.
4. We didn't get to the next position on my overhead, relativism, but we did mention it. We mentioned head coverings and possibly drinking alcohol as matters of Christian conviction. We then pointed out that convictions are, by definition, points of relativism that are appropriate to Christian life. God might require me not to drink, while God having no such requirement of a Christian in Australia.
This led to a challenge. We cannot dismiss various ethical positions simply by labeling them as "not absolute" or "relativist." There are issues where God's position is apparently not absolute or even relativist. So when a person might say, "Well, abortion is wrong for me, but I can't say it would be wrong for someone else," we have to show that it is wrong to be relativist on this issue. But we can't dismiss the comment because it is relativist. We have to argue that this is not an issue on which God is relativist.
But God is a relativist on some issues, according to the Bible. So Paul: "I am convinced that no food is unclean of itself, but if someone thinks it is unclean, then it is unclean"--Rom. 14:14.
A snippet from philosophy class on Wednesday, March 21, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think that you made very important ethical distinctions between absolutism, relativism and convictions. The lines get blurred so easily between the 3 distinctions, frankly to the point of raising conflicts where they shouldn't be. Short of being an undergrad again, I wish I had been in your class today!
Submission to authority must be in accordance with higer universal principles, which are decided in prioritizing the values held in each man's conscience.
Ever since the Enlightenment and the founding of our country, where we understood that all men are created equal, our government has been a representative repulblic, where each "voice" could be heard in numerous venues. Laws have protected the "rights" of all and it is leadership that is held accountable by the people. Even in ancient times, the Scriptures attest to the "outcome" of leadership.
Thank you for your distinctions, but didn'ts you leave out value-based and utilitarian ethics?...the common cause and the "common good". Leadership, it seems, no longer bases its decisions on priciples of conscience toward self and others, but what is to be the most productive for the "cause". The problem lies in agreement on the "cause" and the means in carrying the "cause" out.
Back in the 1990's, when the Clitons held power in the White House, Hillary proceeded to revamp healthcare for the "common good", but she did so in secret, without public discourse, which broke the Sunshine Law. Public monies should be spent with acountability to those who have "given" (i.e.taxes). We, the people, of the United States believe that taxation without representation is unethical, irregardless of the "cause". That was one of the reasons that led to our "Revolution".
Our country's values of freedom, which is underlined by the Bill of Rights, is one of the greatest documents of history for it gives individuals and groups ways of addressing abuses of power and balances power with another "voice".
You also point out that there is a distinction between moral requirement and "truth" (epistomology). I disagree and maybe it is because I have limited knowledge in this area, if so, I am most willing to stand corrected. But, it seems that what we "know", which are the values we hold dearest, and the moral models who represent those values, are reflective of how we behave. Any moral model, those who have become historical "legends", for good of evil, are those woh held to certain values and convictions to be held by all. Justice IS ethics. And love is justice exemplified.
In conclusion, it seems that the values one holds are the "duty" one exemplifies and is the virtue one pursues.
Angie, certainly there are truths about ethics. But there are also truths about epistemology, logic, psychology, etc... When I say it is absolutely true that 2+2=4 when these symbols are taken in their normal sense, I am not making an ethical statement. I am making an epistemic statement, thus the distinction.
OAW, for example, alludes to the age old "come back" to someone who says "There is no such thing as absolute truth." The person seems to be making an absolute truth claim in the process of denying absolute truth.
However, I have had people try to transfer this argument to moral absolutes. Although I believe in moral absolutes, it does not seem incoherent to me to claim that there are none in the same way it seems incoherent to deny any absolute truth.
OAW: In terms of what Matthew, Jesus, Paul, or James meant, their original meanings for love will certainly be a subset of the way agapao and phileo are used in the first century Webster's Greek dictionary. The NT repeatedly gives us pictures of this (1 Cor. 13; Romans 5:8; John 3:16; 1 John; Luke 10; ...).
The general sense we get in relation to other humans is of actions that benefit the object of love in some way. In the case of God, the "benefit" is more understood in terms of obedience and honor. Certainly love can be "tough," where a greater benefit involves allowance of pain.
Justice is not unloving, since it is fairness. But love tends toward mercy beyond justice. To say God is love is thus to say that He gives unmerited benefits to the objects of His love.
We are just starting ethics in philosophy class. We will cover deontological and teleological ethics over the next week (although I don't use these labels).
If we take the Bible at its word, God approves of relativist ethics on certain issues, as Romans 14:14 indicates above. A relativistic position by any other name is still a relativistic position.
I think most Wesleyans would now accept that Jesus drank fermented wine and that complete abstinence is a matter of conviction. It is, however, still a commitment of North American Wesleyans not to drink, largely as a matter of positive witness.
Certainly Christ's action on the cross is the best place to start in understanding what true love might be.
Only on matters of absolute morality is there no situational component. On most ethical issues, however, there is a situational component. Certainly for Jesus and Paul, most ethical issues involved a situational component. I hazard the suggestion that you owe more to Kant than you may realize in this area.
I just finished reading the I Corinthian blog from yesterday. I wish I had read it before posting today. Obviously, my blog represents a "progressive approach" in interpretation. My dilemma is by what authority one judges and what authority is one to submit to....one's own conscience via developed within context of family, church, society...but then, that is affirming "traditon" as being the interpretive authority....but isn't tradition itself(Church "fathers") filled with differences of opinion about certain "convictions"? Even the Protestant belief in "sola Scriptura" is itself a "tradition"! These differences obviously point to the fact that there is no consensus in interpretive traditon(s)...If we leave it to "each man's conscience" then we have the problem of libertarian extremes....
By the way OAW, you use Scripture to defend Scripture, all the while you said you don't like inductive methods....it seems that the only way to reason about our faith is not with Scripture, but philosophy...And then the philosophy must "match" the context in which it is given...such was the re-interpretation of Paul with Judiasm....Converting from our tradition, whether it be toward a fuller understanding or away from the tradition one was raised in, is fine...for it is only in owning one's faith that one realizes what one is "committed to" and that is relative....
Post a Comment