The Gospels tell us that Jesus was asked which commandment was greatest (Matthew 26:36-40). For him to give an answer implies there is a hierarchy of commands (and he DID answer the question). Just as not all commandments are on equal footing, not all sin should be treated as equal.* A hierarchy of commands implies a hierarchy of sin.
Slapping you is wrong but killing you is worse and deserves more condemnation. Thus, hitting falls below murder on our list of “top sins”. We recognize this in our legal system by giving harsher sentences to some murders (planned) over others (spontaneous and unplanned).
This comes into play when absolutes conflict. What do we do our options are either, for instance, lying or murder? Some people will tell you to choice the “lesser of two evils”. But is choosing evil ever acceptable? Are there situations where we have no choice but to sin?
Let’s put it in more concrete terms.
Perhaps you’ve been presented this dilemma. Let’s say you are sitting in the library, minding your own business, reading a book. Suddenly, a panting, red-faced young man runs past you. He hides behind a bookcase. Before you have time to take in the scene, another man comes charging inside the library. He looks like he’s been running as well. This second man holds a knife in his hand. You recognized his face. He’s an escaped killer who’s apparently ready to take another life. He looks you in the eye and says, “Where is he? Where is John?”
What do you say?
You should always tell the truth, right? But if you do and point out the victim’s hiding place, you would be guilty of helping the lunatic commit murder.
Would you say, “I don’t know” or “He’s not here”? Either statement is a lie. How would you justify it?
If you say nothing, wouldn’t you be guilty of withholding the truth? Wouldn’t that be wrong as well? Your silence may convey to the madman that John was indeed close and he may start looking for his victim. Wouldn’t that make you accountable as well?
The question really is, when there are moral dilemmas, that is, two absolutes that conflict (in this case, the charge not to lie comes against the charge to not murder), are these dilemmas real? And if so, what is the proper action?
If we accept there are “graded absolutes” then the choice is not the “lesser evil” but the “greater good”.
When a small child hands us a crude crayon drawing, we are not obligated in the name of truth to call it “a poor excuse for art”. There are greater “rules” that apply here. Just like when your wife asks if she looks overweight in a new dress. The brute facts may say one thing but the love in your heart will speak a “greater truth” into the situation.
(*this is not to say that all sin is equal in its consequences for any evil will separate us from our creator).
Stephen Goforth
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Cultural Relativism
Recognizing the importance of our social environment in generating customs and beliefs, many people suppose that ethical relativism is the correct metaethical theory. Furthermore, they are drawn to it for its liberal philosophical stance. It seems to be an enlightened response to the sin of ethnocentricity, and it seems to entail or strongly imply an attitude of tolerance toward other cultures.
Tolerance is certainly a virtue, but is this a good argument for it? I think not. If morality is relative to each culture, then if the culture in question does not have a principle of tolerance, its members have no obligation to be tolerant.
Not only do relativists fail to offer a basis for criticizing those who are intolerant, they cannot rationally criticize anyone who espouses what they might regard as a heinous principle. Relativists cannot morally criticize anyone outside their own culture. Adolf Hitler’s genocidal actions, as long as they are culturally accepted, are as morally legitimate as Mother Teresa’s work of mercy.
There are other disturbing consequences of ethical relativism. It seems to entail that reformers are always (morally) wrong since they go against the tide of cultural standards. William Wilberforce was wrong in the eighteenth Century to oppose slavery, the British were immoral in opposing the burning of widows in India.
There is an even more basic problem with the notion that morality is dependent on cultural acceptance for its validity. The problem is that of culture or society is notoriously difficult to define. This is especially true in a pluralistic society like our own where the notion seems to be vague with unclear boundaries.
One person may belong to several societies (subcultures).. if Mary is a US citizen and a member of the Roman Catholic church, she is wrong if she chooses to have an abortion and not-wrong if she acts against the teaching of the church on abortion.
This moral Babel.. has lost its action-guiding function.
Louis Pojman
Ethical Theory
Tolerance is certainly a virtue, but is this a good argument for it? I think not. If morality is relative to each culture, then if the culture in question does not have a principle of tolerance, its members have no obligation to be tolerant.
Not only do relativists fail to offer a basis for criticizing those who are intolerant, they cannot rationally criticize anyone who espouses what they might regard as a heinous principle. Relativists cannot morally criticize anyone outside their own culture. Adolf Hitler’s genocidal actions, as long as they are culturally accepted, are as morally legitimate as Mother Teresa’s work of mercy.
There are other disturbing consequences of ethical relativism. It seems to entail that reformers are always (morally) wrong since they go against the tide of cultural standards. William Wilberforce was wrong in the eighteenth Century to oppose slavery, the British were immoral in opposing the burning of widows in India.
There is an even more basic problem with the notion that morality is dependent on cultural acceptance for its validity. The problem is that of culture or society is notoriously difficult to define. This is especially true in a pluralistic society like our own where the notion seems to be vague with unclear boundaries.
One person may belong to several societies (subcultures).. if Mary is a US citizen and a member of the Roman Catholic church, she is wrong if she chooses to have an abortion and not-wrong if she acts against the teaching of the church on abortion.
This moral Babel.. has lost its action-guiding function.
Louis Pojman
Ethical Theory
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
You Have Your Truth, I have Mine
Some people.. maintain that morality is not dependent on the society but rather the individual. “Morality is in the eye of the beholder.” They treat morality like taste or aesthetic judgments, person relative.
On the basis of (moral) subjectivism Adolf Hitler and serial murderer Ted Bundy could be considered as a moral as Gandhi, as long as each lived by his own standards, whatever those might be.
Although many students say they espouse subjectivism, there is evidence that it conflicts with other of their moral views. They typically condemn Hitler as an evil man for his genocidal policies. A contradiction seems to exist between subjectivism and the very concept of morality.
Louis Pojman
Ethical Theory
On the basis of (moral) subjectivism Adolf Hitler and serial murderer Ted Bundy could be considered as a moral as Gandhi, as long as each lived by his own standards, whatever those might be.
Although many students say they espouse subjectivism, there is evidence that it conflicts with other of their moral views. They typically condemn Hitler as an evil man for his genocidal policies. A contradiction seems to exist between subjectivism and the very concept of morality.
Louis Pojman
Ethical Theory
Friday, March 6, 2009
Do We Need God if we make Claims of Morality?
“I think good people are good people, with or without a ‘God’ to pin it on.”A friend wrote that statement to me. Is she right? Is God really a necessary underpinning for our beliefs, if we want to call something good or bad?
People who chose to behave morally without acknowledging God are still behaving in a praiseworthy manner. But their actions lack an underlying justification. One day, their effects will evaporate into the cold cosmos. So what’s the purpose? If we are “all there is” then there’s no compelling reason to behave "morally" ..other than out of self-interest.. so we might enjoy the warm fuzzy feelings it produces or avoid society’s punishment.
If you want to be able to point to the child abuser and say, “This is wrong!” and not just lobby for others to accept your own preferences, then you need to hang your hat on something (or someone) bigger than any single person or culture.
Stephen Goforth
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Does a Killer Deserve the Truth?
The Gospels tell us that Jesus was asked which commandment was greatest (Matthew 26:36-40). For him to give an answer implies there is a hierarchy of commands (and he did answer the question).
Just as not all commandments are on equal footing, not all sin should be treated as equal.* A hierarchy of commands implies a hierarchy of sin.
Slapping you is wrong but killing you is worse and deserves more condemnation. Thus, hitting falls below murder on our list of “top sins”. We recognize this in our legal system by giving harsher sentences to some murders (planned) over others (spontaneous and unplanned).
This comes into play when absolutes conflict. What do we do our options are either, for instance, lying or murder? Some people will tell you to choice the “lesser of two evils”. But is choosing evil ever acceptable? Are there situations where we have no choice but to sin?
Let’s put it in more concrete terms.
Perhaps you’ve been presented this dilemma. Let’s say you are sitting in the library, minding your own business, reading a book. Suddenly, a panting, red-faced young man runs past you. He hides behind a bookcase. Before you have time to take in the scene, another man comes charging inside the library. He looks like he’s been running as well. This second man holds a knife in his hand. You recognized his face. He’s an escaped killer who’s apparently ready to take another life. He looks you in the eye and says, “Where is he? Where is John?”
What do you say?
You should always tell the truth, right? But if you do and point out the victim’s hiding place, you would be guilty of helping the lunatic commit murder.
Would you say, “I don’t know” or “He’s not here”? Either statement is a lie. How would you justify it?
If you say nothing, wouldn’t you be guilty of withholding the truth? Wouldn’t that be wrong as well? Your silence may convey to the madman that John was indeed close and he may start looking for his victim. Wouldn’t that make you accountable as well?
The question really is, when there are moral dilemmas, that is, two absolutes that conflict (in this case, the charge not to lie comes against the charge to not murder), are these dilemmas real? And if so, what is the proper action?
If we accept there are “graded absolutes” then the choice is not the “lesser evil” but the “greater good”.
When a small child hands us a crude crayon drawing, we are not obligated in the name of truth to call it “a poor excuse for art”. There are greater “rules” that apply here. Just like when your wife asks if she looks overweight in a new dress. The brute facts may say one thing but the love in your heart will speak a “greater truth” into the situation.
(*this is not to say that all sin is equal in its consequences for any evil will separate us from our creator).
Stephen Goforth
Just as not all commandments are on equal footing, not all sin should be treated as equal.* A hierarchy of commands implies a hierarchy of sin.
Slapping you is wrong but killing you is worse and deserves more condemnation. Thus, hitting falls below murder on our list of “top sins”. We recognize this in our legal system by giving harsher sentences to some murders (planned) over others (spontaneous and unplanned).
This comes into play when absolutes conflict. What do we do our options are either, for instance, lying or murder? Some people will tell you to choice the “lesser of two evils”. But is choosing evil ever acceptable? Are there situations where we have no choice but to sin?
Let’s put it in more concrete terms.
Perhaps you’ve been presented this dilemma. Let’s say you are sitting in the library, minding your own business, reading a book. Suddenly, a panting, red-faced young man runs past you. He hides behind a bookcase. Before you have time to take in the scene, another man comes charging inside the library. He looks like he’s been running as well. This second man holds a knife in his hand. You recognized his face. He’s an escaped killer who’s apparently ready to take another life. He looks you in the eye and says, “Where is he? Where is John?”
What do you say?
You should always tell the truth, right? But if you do and point out the victim’s hiding place, you would be guilty of helping the lunatic commit murder.
Would you say, “I don’t know” or “He’s not here”? Either statement is a lie. How would you justify it?
If you say nothing, wouldn’t you be guilty of withholding the truth? Wouldn’t that be wrong as well? Your silence may convey to the madman that John was indeed close and he may start looking for his victim. Wouldn’t that make you accountable as well?
The question really is, when there are moral dilemmas, that is, two absolutes that conflict (in this case, the charge not to lie comes against the charge to not murder), are these dilemmas real? And if so, what is the proper action?
If we accept there are “graded absolutes” then the choice is not the “lesser evil” but the “greater good”.
When a small child hands us a crude crayon drawing, we are not obligated in the name of truth to call it “a poor excuse for art”. There are greater “rules” that apply here. Just like when your wife asks if she looks overweight in a new dress. The brute facts may say one thing but the love in your heart will speak a “greater truth” into the situation.
(*this is not to say that all sin is equal in its consequences for any evil will separate us from our creator).
Stephen Goforth
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)