At the beginning of the chapter, we mentioned that approaches to ethics that focus on duties or consequences are act based ethics. They focus on what you should do or not do in a particular situation. We also mentioned that virtue based ethics was a different kind of approach to ethics, one that focused on who you are more than what you do. Virtue based ethics focus more on character and motives than on specific actions.
It is of course difficult, if not impossible, to separate character from action. We do find times and places where an act leads to punishment regardless of one's intent. In some military contexts, individuals have been court marshalled in the past for things they caused by accident or mistake. Some cultures find it appropriate to take the life of someone who even accidentally caused the death of another. Indeed, the Old Testament set up cities of refuge where those who had inadvertantly caused the death of another could be safe (e.g., Numbers 35:6-28). [1] Elsewhere they were fair game.
Similarly, it seems nonsensical to say that a person has good character if their life does not reflect it. "By their fruit you will know them," Jesus says in Matthew 7:16. No major Christian stream of thought has ever maintained that your life as a believer will be as "sinful" after you embrace Christian faith as it was before. The notion that the New Testament accepts moral failure and wrongdoing as the norm finds no genuine basis in the biblical texts themselves, despite the frequency this idea appears in popular Christian literature and conversation. [2]
Perhaps the most fundamental difficulty we encounter when we speak of a "virtue based" approach to ethics is to define exactly what virtue is. Alastair MacIntyre, in a famous book, argues that Western culture has lost any significant point of reference with regard to what virtue even is. [3] We continue to use language of "goodness" and "evil," "virtue" and "vice," but we have long since lost any real sense of what these things are.
[textbox: quote from After Virtue]
Whether MacIntyre is right or not, our modern and postmodern context has significantly called into question any universal notion of justice or virtue. Earlier in the chapter we gave a small glimpse of the extent to which various cultures differ in exactly what they think good behavior actually is. Christians are, at least at first glance, in a more certain position. We claim to have a certain revealed sense of goodness and virtue from our collection of sacred texts (the Bible) and the long standing tradition of their interpretation (Christian tradition). Christianity historically has understood these definitions of virtue to be universally valid, even if some cultures might reject some of them.
MacIntyre himself looks to Aristotle (384-22BC) to regain a sense of what virtue is. Virtue and vice lists were a regular feature of moralists in the ancient world. Indeed, we find a number of them in the New Testament. [4] We mentioned earlier in the chapter that Plato was an absolutist, meaning that he believed that certain rights and wrongs were universal and exceptionless. But we would skew him to think of him as primarily interested in an absolutist, act based ethic like Immanuel Kant was. More than anything else, Plato and most ancient moralists were primarily interested in virtue and true happiness, "the good life."
[textbox: Galatians 5 fruit of the Spirit]
When Aristotle spoke of "happiness" or eudaimonia, he meant something quite different from what Jeremy Bentham spoke of a "greatest happiness principle." For Bentham, happiness was strictly a matter of pleasure, whether it be the pleasure you get from an ice cold beer or that from giving to a good cause. To be sure, pleasure is one thing that can contribute to happiness for Aristotle. But happiness is something more basic and lasting for him.
For Aristotle, pleasure is the third most significant form that happiness might take. But even more significant is the happiness one might get from acting as a free and responsible citizen of your state. [5] And the purest happiness for him would come from rational contemplation, thinking profound thoughts. Behind all other good things for Aristotle was this goal of eudaimonia. Everything that is good, he believed, ultimately was good because it led a person closer to eudaimonia.
[textbox: quote from Nicomachean Ethics]
Plato, just before Aristotle, processed virtue slightly differently. In general, the Greeks used to think of there being four cardinal virtues: 1) wisdom, 2) courage, 3) self-control, and 4) justice. Plato associated these with various parts of the body, dividing the body up into head, chest, and abdomen. The head he associated with the virtue of wisdom. In the state, it related to rulers whom he hoped would be philosopher kings. In his approach to governance, these kings would govern with wisdom and selflessness rather than out of greed or ambition. [6]
[textbox: quote from the Republic]
Plato then associated the virtue of courage with the chest, where the human spirit or breath resided. Biblical language of the heart, drawn from ancient views of a person, has impacted and remains deeply embeded in English and many other languages. In his ideal state, this virtue would be represented by a class of soldiers who would defend the state.
He associated the virtue of self-control, which used to be called "temperance," with the abdomen, the guts. Most modern translations do not translate biblical passages with "bowels," although the apostle Paul uses the image several times. We find it in the old King James translation of Colossians 3:12, which instructs its audience to "Put on ... bowels of mercies." The TNIV here simply says, "clothe yourselves with compassion." Philemon is even more striking where Paul calls the slave Onesimus his "intestines," which the TNIV translates as "who is my very heart" (12).
[textbox: the four cardinal virtues]
In the city-state, Plato associated this part of the body and this virtue with the bulk of people, the workers of the state. When all these parts of either the individual person or the state were functioning properly, Plato considered this virtue of the whole to be the virtue of justice. An individual or state was thus just if its head/leaders ruled with selfless wisdom, its chest/soldiers showed courage in submission to the head/leaders, and the desires of its abdomen/workers were in submission to the wisdom of its head/leaders.
Aristotle had some further thoughts on movement toward happiness and virtue. One of the best known is his dictum, "Moderation in all things," also known as the Golden Mean. Obviously this rule does not apply to everything. We would not want a serial killer to practice moderation but complete abstinence! Nevertheless, the idea of living a disciplined life in which one does not eat too little or too much, where one does not have too many or too few possessions, makes a good deal of sense.
[textbox: Golden Mean, and two quotes]
Another tidbit of wisdom that Aristotle set forth is the idea that virtue can become a habit. A student once put it this way, "Motion brings emotion." We learn from psychology that patterns of behavior actually become physical structures in our brains, like a path that develops in a field because numerous people cross the field there. So Aristotle anticipated thousands of years ago that doing the right thing can lead us to want to do the right thing. In at least one sense, doing leads to being. [7]
[textbox: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step."]
Can a person be truly happy regardless of their circumstances? This question is another key issue raised in the historic debate over goodness and happiness. As you might expect, philosophers here divide into two different camps. On the one side are those, like Plato and Aristotle, who did not believe you could be truly happy unless you lived in the right set of circumstances, like a just state. Karl Marx, the founder of communism, similarly believed that no one would ever be as happy as they could be until society did away with all property and everyone held all possessions in common.
The other stream of thought, of which Christianity has generally been a part, holds that a person can be truly happy no matter what their circumstances. Victor Frankl, who survived a concentration camp during the Holocaust of World War II, is famously known for saying that "A person can live with any 'how' if they have a 'why.'" [8] In the ancient world, the Stoics advocated "love of fate" (amor fati) because it was useless to fight the destiny intended for you. They argued for apatheia, which was not apathy in the way we use the word, but a genuine acceptance of whatever happens to you. Paul expresses a very Stoic attitude in Philippians 4:12 when he says, "I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want."
[textbox: quote from Marcus Aurelius, mens sana in corpore sano also]
Of course it would be difficult to identify one Christian approach to virtue, because different Christian traditions emphasize different elements of the equation. The Calvinist tradition, for example, has tended to emphasize an absolute form of justice, sometimes known as penal substitution. Because God is just, someone had to take the penalty for sins committed. Other traditions such as those in which this book stands have more emphasized God's love and mercy as central to His character, with a corresponding emphasis on human love and forgiveness over human justice.
Regardless of what we might conclude is the most fundamental virtue of God, we have good reason to think of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 as a fine expression of the virtues at which Christians should aim. Indeed, Paul argues that these virtues should be a natural by-product of God's Spirit being inside us. Love, joy, and peace should thus typify a Christian believer, as such patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. The Beatitudes of Matthew 5:3-10 suggest further Christian virtues, like humility, a thirst for righteousness, mercy, purity of intention, peacemaking, and a willingness to suffer for good.
Although certain types of action are clearly important for Christianity and the Bible, the New Testament focus is on the heart more than on behavior. Presumably, if the heart is right, then the behavior will follow suit. In Mark 7:20, Jesus says that it is what comes out of the heart that makes a person unclean, not what they touch or eat on the outside. Paul similarly says that sin is "everything that does not come from faith" (Rom. 14:23). He was not trying to give an absolute definition of sin here, but it is a fair approximation. Everything a Christian does should be done "for the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31) and "in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him" (Col. 3:17).
Augustine put it another way, "Love God and do what you want." The idea is that if a person truly loves God, they will seek and want to do what pleases God. So a person who wants to murder or have an affair on their spouse does not love God in a way that would allow them to fulfill these desires.
This approach to behavior seems much more fundamentally Christian than the approach that so often seems to pervade Christian circles, where groups feel compelled to set down more and more specific sets of rules for how to live. It is not that we cannot identify fundamentally Christian patterns of behavior. It is only ironic that much of the New Testament rhetoric argues that God will "put my laws in their hearts" (Heb. 10:16). No doubt to a large extend for sociological reasons, Christian groups have often been more interested in putting them on paper.
[1] The cities of refuge did not provide any protection for those who intentionally murdered someone else.
[2] E.g., Num. 15:30-31; Ps. 1; Ecc. 12:13-14; Isa. 1:11-20; Micah 6:8; Matt. 25:31-46; Rom. 2:5-10; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Cor. 5:10; Heb. 10:26; 1 John 3:9. As the majority of scholars now accept, Romans 7 is not a statement of Paul's current experience as a believer.
[3] After Virtue, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University, 2007 [1981]).
[4] Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 6; James; etc...**
[5] Which in Aristotle's day was the city-state, a state like the city of Athens that also held significant control over its region. Indeed, in the 400's, Athens led a "league" of around 150 city-states called the Delian League.
[6] Some biblical scholars argue that New Testament language of headship is primarily about nourishing, "feeding" the body rather than governance, a meaning that finds significant support in Ephesians 4:15-16. However, the argument is sometimes made with a claim that the ancients did not know the functioning of the brain and thus that headship for them did not imply intelligence or direction.
On the one hand, we would affirm the goal of this line of thinking, which is to affirm a full place for women in the thinking and governance of the home and church. We affirm this position as the most appropriate Christian one. At the same time, Plato and Aristotle did understand the head to be the part of the body they connected with wisdom and rulership. Although we believe that the husband headship passages of the New Testament relate to ancient culture rather than some timeless form, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that selected New Testament writings did in fact associate husband headship with the governance of the first century home.
[7] Here is an important lesson for someone struggling with faith. Go to church. Read your Bible. Pray daily and regularly. Speak to others about spiritual things. John Wesley adviced a person seeking God to immerse themselves in the "means of grace," channels like those we have just mentioned that seem to be special places, "sacraments," that God has chosen in the past to meet people.
[8] Man's Search for Meaning **
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Behavior that is "good" is defined by some standard. In our Western understanding, good behavior is usually looked for in practical situations by those who decide the policy or plan that they want to implement. This is what government is about. Behavior of those who are under them are "destined" accordingly. This is where our political system plays itself out with people being informed about the policy or plan fully (or as fully as one wants to be) and then, "votes" to be a part of the "plan or policy" that will be implemented, at least in theory. Although our country is "led" by a president, he does not legislate, as Congress must "vote and agree" to the policies that are proposed. Therefore, again, the people, (individuals) are a part of voting in or out of office those who will rule over them.
In Scripture, kings ruled, even though God said that he wanted to rule over them directly. This was an ancient understanding of "fate's control" over nations, kingdoms, and their futures. But, just as you suggest, things have changed concerning women's role today, our undersanding of "god" and his rule has also changed and many are trying to address this.
One can only believe by faith the things that cannot be proven, and when experience does not colude with our understanding of God and his "goodness", we are at a quandary to "make sense out of things". Faith is a searching for a reason, as it is not certain of God and about destinations, etc.as the Scripture's undestanding of eternal life, eschatology, ecclesiology, and all other theological terms are only placed upon Scripture by the Church Fathers, in seeking to address faith seeking understanding or a reason for the hope. Ancient texts have an ancient worldview, which is not what our worldview is today.
The Jews understood ethics as doing what was right, which was based upon their "laws". As you say, there was a place of refuge for those who murdered without evil intent. But, theit sense of justice was also an ancient understanding as to its understanding of extenuating circumstances, as it was understood to limit vengence. Their's was an "eye for an eye", which was a limitation to "blood-letting", as usually vengence is not an equal consequence for the "evil done".
So, our system of "justice" is understood as:
1.)full disclosure of policy (Freedom of Information Act)
2.)social contract meaning mutuality and equality in hierarchal structures.
As to virtue, virtue grows best in environments that are democratic/representative as ours is, because then all feel a part and accepted equally, as this was what Paul taught about each member having proper concern for even the lesser part. Otherwise, there is a tendency for leaders to take advantage of a situation, which is why "unions" were formed to protect the "worker's rights".
Social organizations are to be protected by laws that uphold a balance of power, and a social contract understanding of hierarchal structuring. This was Kant's view on "duty" and the categorical imperative, where you act as if you would want it to be universal law. No one wishes to be uninformed of plans or policy, and then be dismissed or judged as to not co-operating with a plan or policy. The Golden Rule demands equality, no matter one's position or power.
The Scriptures view things in a less mature "moral model", as it uses tradition as the conditioning "value", where people are trained into the "tradition". While there is nothing wrong with tradition, it is a teaching tool to develop maturity, where one comes to understand themselves and their own values. Of course, again, the Scriptures were written within a certain cultural paradigm, which is not easily applied in today's climate. Tradition was to breed a culture of nuturance for the development of children, but was not the epitome of development for the individual.
In Scripture's terms, the "son" is under the law and tutors as long as he remains a child, but is no longer under those when he becomes of age. One cannot love without being just in all their ways, and this is a required virtue in leadership. While justice demands equality and mutuality in our "terms", mercy is just as important in understanding limitations in making judgments.
Post a Comment