| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2007 06:18:54 PM |
| Object: |
Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Can a system of ethics be sustained apart from a belief in moral absolutes?
And, can a belief in moral absolutes be sustained apart from a biblical
world view? Norman L. Geisler provides compelling answers to these questions
in this highly readable survey of basic issues and options in Christian
ethics.
Once while in Australia for a speaking engagement, I was engaged in dinner
conversation with a medical student. "What is the subject of your lecture
series?" he asked. "Ethics," I replied. "What is that?" he inquired.
I took a moment to recover from my shock. Here was a bright young man about
to enter a profession involving some of the major ethical decisions of our
time who did not even know what ethics was!
I said softly and gently, so as not to offend him for his Ignorance, "Ethics
deals with what is right and what is wrong." I confess I felt a bit like the
famed football coach Vince Lombardi, who once, after his Green Bay Packers
played a particular]y inept game, allegedly told the battered team, "This is
a football!" Perhaps we cannot get too basic. In view of this, I will begin
with some basic definitions.
DEFINING WHAT IS "RIGHT"
Many non-Christian thinkers have offered definitions of moral "right" and
"wrong." All fall short of an adequate basis for making ethical decisions.
But each offers the occasion for insight into the true nature of ethics.1
Might Is Right
Thrasymachus, the ancient Greek philosopher, believed that right is found in
might. According to this position, "justice is the interest of the stronger
party." What is morally right is defined in terms of who has the power. This
is often understood as political power, such as Machiavelli believed.
However, it could mean physical, psychological, or other kinds of power.
The might-is-right theory contains several fatal flaws, but the most fatal
is this: it fails to recognize the difference between power and goodness. It
is possible to be powerful without being good, and it is possible to be good
without being powerful. Evil tyrants from Nero to Stalin are sufficient
evidence to refute the belief that might makes right. History provides ample
testimony that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Morals Are Mores
Another ethical theory suggests that what is morally right is determined by
the culture to which one belongs. Ethics is defined in terms of what is
ethnically acceptable. What the community says constitutes what is morally
right for its members. Cultural practices are ethical commands. Whatever
similarity may exist between moral codes in different social groups is
simply due to common needs and aspirations, not to any universal moral
prescriptions.
The first difficulty with this position is what is called the "is-ought"
fallacy. Simply because someone is doing some-thing does not mean one ought
to do so. Otherwise, racism, rape, cruelty, and murder would automatically
be morally right. Further, if each individual community's mores are right,
then there is no way to adjudicate conflicts between different communities.
For unless there are moral principles above all communities, there is no
moral way to solve conflicts between them. Finally, if morals are relative
to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed
as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything
cannot be right, certainly not opposites.
Man is the Measure
The ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras claimed "man is the measure of all
things." Understood in the individual sense, this means each person is the
standard for right and wrong. The morally right thing to do is what is
morally right for me. And what is right for me may be wrong for another and
vice versa.
This theory is morally unacceptable because it implies that an act can be
right for someone even if it is cruel, hateful, or tyrannical. Further, if
this theory were put in practice, society would be rendered inoperative.
There can be no true community where there is no common core of basic
values. If everyone literally "did his own thing," chaos would result.
Finally, this theory does not tell us which aspect of human nature should be
taken as the measure of all things. One cannot simply beg the question by
taking only the "good aspects." For that implies some standard of good
beyond individuals or the race by which one can tell what is good and what
is evil in human nature or activity.
The Human Race is the Basis of Right
In an attempt to avoid the radical individualism and ethical solipsism of
the previous position, some posit that the human race as a whole is the
standard for good. According to this theory, the part does not determine
what is right for the whole, but the whole determines what is right for the
part. In brief, humankind is the measure of all things.
It should be noted, however, that even the whole race could be wrong. Whole
communities, like Jonestown, have committed mass suicide. What if the
majority of the human race decided that suicide was the best "solution" to
the world's problems? Should dissenters be forced to conform? Further, the
human race is changing, as are its ethical practices. Child sacrifice was
once commonly approved, as was slavery. Today we like to think the race has
a better moral standard. But better implies a best or an objective standard
outside the race by which the progress can be measured. The fact is, we
cannot gauge the moral level of the human race unless there is a perfect
standard outside it by which it can be measured.
Right is Moderation
The famous Greek philosopher Aristotle believed morality is found in
moderation. The right course of action is the "golden mean" or moderate
course of action between two extremes. Temperance, for example, is the mean
between indulgence and insensibility. Pride is the moderate course between
vanity and humility. Courage is the ideal between fear and aggression.2
Certainly moderation is often the wisest course. Even the Bible says, "Let
your moderation be known to all men" (Phil. 4:5). The question is not
whether moderation is often the proper expression of morality but whether it
is the proper definition (or essence) of morality.
Several reasons suggest strongly that moderation is not the essence of 4 is
good. First, many times the right thing is the extreme thing to do.
Emergencies, actions taken in self-defense, and wars against aggression are
cases in point. In these situations moderate actions are not always the best
ones. As well, some virtues obviously should not be expressed in moderate
amounts. One should not love only moderately. Neither should one be
moderately grateful, truthful, or generous. Further, there is no universal
agreement on what is moderate. Aristotle, for example, considered humility a
vice (an extreme); Christians believe it is a virtue. Moderation is at best
only a general guide for action, not a universal ethical rule.
Right is What Brings Pleasure
Although Epicurus himself was more moderate, some Epicureans (4th century
B.C. and following) were hedonists who claimed that what brings pleasure is
morally right, and what brings pain is morally wrong. Since few things are
all pleasure or all pain, however, the formula for determining what is good
is more complicated. The good, they claim, is what brings the most pleasure
and least pain to the greatest number of people.
Among the difficulties with this theory is that not all pleasures are good
(e.g., sadism), and not all pain is bad (e.g., warning pains). Then, too,
this theory does not specify what kind of pleasure should be used as the
basis of the test. (There are physical, psychological, spiritual, and other
kinds of pleasure.) Further, are we to use immediate plea-sure (in this
life) or ultimate pleasure (in the next life) as the test? Finally, should
our gauge be pleasure for the individual, the group, or the race? In short,
this theory raises more questions than it answers.
Right is the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number
In view of the problems Just mentioned, utilitarians define moral rightness
in terms of what brings the greatest good in the long run. Some have
understood the meaning of good quantitatively-that is, the greatest amount
of pleasure. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) fits into this category.3 Others,
such as John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), viewed it qualitatively-that is, the
greatest kind of pleasure for the greatest number.4
One problem with the utilitarian view relates to deciding how "good" should
be understood (e.g., quantitatively or qualitatively). Moreover, it begs the
question to say that moral right is what brings the greatest good. For then
we must ask what is "good"? Either right and good are defined in terms of
each other, which is circular reasoning, or they must be defined according
to some standard beyond the utilitarian process. Further, no one can
accurately predict what will happen in the long run. Hence, for all
practical purposes, a utilitarian definition of good is useless. We must
still fall back on something else to determine what is good now. in the
short run
Right is What is Desirable for its Own Sake
Some ethicists have defined good as that which is desirable for its own
sake, in and of itself.5 Moral value is viewed as an end, not a means. It is
never to be desired for the sake of anything else. For example, no one
should desire virtue as a means of getting something else (such as riches or
honor). Virtue should be desired for its own sake.
This view has obvious merit, but it raises several questions. First, it does
not really define the content of a morally good act but simply designates
the direction one finds good (namely, in ends). Moreover, it is easy to
confuse what is desired and what is desirable (i.e., what ought to be
desired). This leads to another criticism. Good cannot simply be that which
is desired (as opposed to what is really desirable), since we often desire
what is evil. Finally, what appears to be good in itself is not always
really good. Suicide seems to be good to someone in distress but really is
not good. It does not solve any problem; it is the final cop-out from
solving the problem.
Right is Indefinable
Despairing of any hope of specifying what is morally right, some thinkers
simply insist that good is indefinable. G. E. Moore (1873- 1958), for
instance, argued that every attempt to define good commits the "naturalistic
fallacy." This fallacy results from assuming that because pleasure can be
attributed to good they are identical. Moore contended that all we can say
is that "good is good" and nothing more.6 Attempting to define good in terms
of something else makes that something the intrinsic good.
There is some merit in this view. There can be only one ultimate good, and
everything else must be subordinated to it. However, the view as such is
inadequate. First, it provides no content for what good means. But if there
is no content to what is right or wrong, then there is no way to distinguish
a good act from an evil one. Further, just because the good cannot be
defined in terms of something more ultimate does not mean it cannot , be
defined at all. For example, a morally good God could create morally good
creatures like Himself. In such a case, even though God is the ultimate
moral good, nonetheless, His goodness could be understood from the moral
creatures He has willed to be like Himself.
Good is What God Wills
One final alternative is to define good in terms of what God wills. This
view is sometimes called the divine command theory of ethics. Whatever
action God specifies as a good action is a good action. Conversely, if God
specifies an action to be evil, then it is evil. Thus, moral good is both
ultimate and specifiable. It is ultimate because it comes from God. It is
specifiable since it can be found in His revelation to humankind.
There are two objections often raised against this view. First, it is
alleged that it is a form of authoritarianism. This objection, however, is
valid only if the authority is less than ultimate. That is, if any finite
creature professed to have this ultimate authority, then we could rightly
cry "authoritarianism." However, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging
that the Ultimate Authority has ultimate authority. If an absolutely perfect
God exists, then by His very nature He is the ultimate standard for what is
good and what is not.
The second objection argues that defining good in terms of God's will is
arbitrary. This objection applies, however, only to a voluntaristic view of
good, not to an essentialistic view. A voluntarist believes that something
is good simply because God wills it. An essentialist, on the other hand,
holds that God wills something because it is good in accordance with His own
nature. This form of the divine command view of ethics escapes these
criticisms and forms the basis for a Christian ethic.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
The Christian view of right and wrong is neither arbitrary nor groundless.
It is not arbitrary because what God wills is in accord with His nature as
absolute good. It is not groundless because it is rooted in what never
changes, namely, God's immutable essence: "I the Lord change not" (Mal.
3:6); "There is no shadow of change" with God (James 1:17). Even though the
universe will change, "You [God] are the same," declared the psalmist (Ps.
102:27). Although God is free to act according to the dictates of His own
essential goodness, He is not "free" to act contrary to it. Likewise, His
commands will always be rooted in His immutable nature as the ultimate Good.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS EXPRESSED BY GOD'S WILL
As just noted, all ethical imperatives given by God are in accord I with His
unchangeable moral character. That is, God wills what is right in accordance
with His own moral attributes. "Be holy because I am holy," the Lord
commanded Israel (Lev. 11 :45). "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly
Father is perfect," Jesus said to His disciples (Mat 5:46). 'It is
impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6: 18), so we should not lie either (Col.
3:9). "God is love" (I John 4:16), and so Jesus said, 'Love your neighbor as
yourself ' (Matt. 22:39). In brief Christian ethics is rooted in God's
immutable nature, but it is expressed by God' s will.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ABSOLUTE
Since God' s moral character does not change, it follows that moral
obligations flowing from His nature are absolute. That is, they are always
binding everywhere on every-one. Of course, not everything God wills flows
necessarily from His unchanging nature. Some things are merely in accord
with His nature but flow freely from His will.
For example, God chose to test Adam and Eve' s moral obedience by forbidding
them to eat a specific fruit on a tree (Gen. 2:16-17). Although it was
morally wrong for Adam and Eve to disobey that command (Rom. 5:12), we are
no longer bound by it today. That command was in accord with God's nature,
but it did not flow necessarily from it.
On the other hand, God' s command not to murder applied before the Law was
given to Moses (Gen. 9:6), under the Law of Moses (Exod. 20:13), and also
since the time of Moses (Rom. 13:9). Murder, then, is wrong at all times and
all places and for all people. This is true because humans are created in
the "image and likeness of God" (Gen. 1:27; 9:6). This includes a moral
likeness to God (Col. 3:10; James 3:9). And whatever is traceable to God's
unchanging moral character is a moral absolute. This includes moral
obligations such as holiness, justice, love, truthfulness, and mercy.
Other commands flowing from God's will, but not necessarily from His nature,
are equally binding, but they are not absolute. That is, they must be obeyed
because God prescribed them, but He did not prescribe them for all people,
times, and places.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS BASED ON GOD'S REVELATION
Ethical obligations for the Christian are an expression of God's moral
nature. God has not limited moral expressions of Himself to His revelation
in Scripture. God has given general revelation in nature (Ps. 19:1-6; Rom.
1:19-20), as well as special revelation in Scripture (Rom. 2:18; 3:2; 2 Tim.
3:16-17). Since God's moral character does not change, it should be expected
that there will be similarities and over-laps between God's natural and
supernatural revelations. General revelation contains God's commands for all
people. Special revelation declares His will for believers. But in either
case, the basis of human ethical responsibility is divine revelation. Our
focus here, however, is not God's natural law for all people, but His divine
law for believers.
Failure to recognize God as the source of moral duty does not exonerate
anyone from his or her moral duty, even an atheist. For "when Gentiles, who
do not have the law [of Moses], do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since
they show the requirements of the law written in their hearts..." (Rom.
2:14-15). That is, even if unbelievers do not have the moral law on their
minds, they still have it written on their hearts. Even if they do not know
it by way of cognition, they show it by way of inclination. Paul declared
that even sodomites manifest that their actions are "contrary to nature"
(Rom. 1:26 KJV).
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS PRESCRIPTIVE
Since moral rightness is prescribed by a moral God, it is prescriptive. For
there is no moral law without a Moral Lawgiver; there is no moral
legislation without a Moral Legislator. So, Christian ethics is, by its very
nature, prescriptive, not descriptive. That is to say, ethics deals with
what ought to be, not with what is. Christians do not find their ethical
duties in the standard of Christians but in the standard for Christians (the
Bible).
From a Christian point of view, a purely descriptive ethic is no ethic at
all. Describing human behavior is sociology; prescribing human behavior is
the province of morality. The attempt to derive morals from mores is, as we
have already noted, the "is-ought" fallacy. What people actually do is not
the basis for what they morally ought to do. If it were, then people ought
to lie, cheat, steal, and murder, since these things are done all the time.
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS DUTY-CENTERED
Ethical systems can be broadly placed into two categories: deontological
(duty-centered)7 and teleological (end-centered). Christian ethics is
deontological. Utilitarianism is an example of a teleological ethic. The
nature of a deontological ethic can be seen more clearly by contrast with a
teleological view. The following chart summarizes these differences.
Deontological Ethic
The rule determines the results.
The rule is the basis of the act.
The rule is good regardless of results.
Results are always calculated within rules.
Teleological Ethic
Results determine the rules.
Results are the basis of acts.
The rule is good because of results.
Results are sometimes used to break rules.
The differences can be illustrated as follows: If one attempts to rescue a
drowning person but fails, according to one form of teleological ethic, this
was not a good act because it did not have good results. Since the results
deter-mine the goodness of the act, and the results were not good, then it
follows that the attempted rescue was not a good act. A more sophisticated
form of the teleological (utilitarian) ethic might argue that the attempt
was good, even though it failed, because it had a good effect on society.
People heard about it and were encouraged to help rescue others in the
future. But even here the attempted act of rescue that failed was not good
in itself. Rather, it is good if and only if it brings some good results,
either for the drowning person or someone else.
By contrast, the Christian ethic is deontological. It insists that even some
acts that fail are good. It believes, for example, that it is better to have
loved and lost than not to have loved at all. Christians believe that the
Cross was not a failure simply because only some will be saved. It was
sufficient for all, even if it is only efficient for those who believe. The
Christian ethic insists that it is good to work against bigotry and racism,
even if one fails. This is so because moral actions that reflect God' s
nature are good in themselves whether they are successful or not.
The Christian ethic does not neglect results. Although results do not
deter-mine what is right, they may influence one's ethical decisions. For
example, a Christian should calculate which direction a gun is pointing
before pulling the trigger. Drivers need to estimate the possible
consequence of their speed in relation to other objects. Speakers are
responsible to calculate the possible effects of their words on others. (As
the U.S. Supreme Court correctly observed, even the freedom of speech does
not give one the right to enter a crowded building and cry "Fire!" when
there is none.) Christians have a duty to anticipate the results of not
being immunized to serious disease, and so on.
There is, however, an important difference between the deontological use of
results and a teleological use of them. In Christian ethics these results
are all calculated within rules or norms. That is, no anticipated result as
such can be used as a justification for breaking any God-given moral law.
Utilitarians, on the other hand, use anticipated results to break moral
rules. In fact, they use results to make the rules. And existing rules can
be broken if the expected results call for it. For example, while Christian
ethics allows for inoculation for disease, it does not allow for infanticide
to purify the genetic stock of the human race. It does not permit the end
(i.e., the result) to determine or justify the use of an evil means (killing
an innocent child). In briefs the end may justify the use of good means, but
it does not justify the use of any means, certainly not evil ones.
CONFLICT SITUATIONS
Unfortunately, maintaining moral absolutes involves problems. One problem
has to do with what course of action to take when two or more moral
principles come into conflict. There are six major ethical systems, each
designated by its answer to the question, "Are there any objective moral
laws?" That is, are there any moral laws that are not purely subjective but
are binding on all humans at all times? (l) Antinomianism says there are no
moral laws, absolute or not. (2) Situationism affirms there is one absolute
law (love). (3) Generalism claims there are some general laws but no
absolute ones. (4) Unqualified absolutism assumes there are many absolute
laws that never conflict. (5) Conflicting absolutism contends there are many
absolute norms that sometimes conflict, and we are obligated to do the
lesser evil. (6) Graded absolutism holds to many absolute laws that
sometimes conflict, and we are responsible for obeying the higher law.8 Of
the six basic ethical views, two deny all objective absolute moral laws. Of
them, antinomianism denies all universal and general moral laws. Generalism,
on the other hand, denies only universal moral laws but holds to general
ones. That is, there are some objective moral laws that are binding most of
the time but not necessarily all the time.
VARIOUS VIEWS ON ETHICAL CONFLICTS
Four of the above ethical systems claim to be some form of absolutism. Of
these, situationism accepts only one absolute (love), while the others posit
many (two or more) absolutes. The alleged absolute of situationism,
how-ever, turns out to be vacuous, having no specifiable content that
enables one to know in advance of the situation just what one's obligation
is. Unqualified absolutism contends that these absolute moral principles
never conflict, while the other two assert they sometimes do conflict. Of
the two that claim moral principles sometimes conflict, conflicting
absolutism contends that we are responsible to do the lesser evil but are
guilty for whichever commandment we break. On the other hand, graded
absolutism holds that our responsibility is to obey the greater commandment,
and we are not guilty for not following the lesser conflicting commandment.
A TEST CASE: SHOULD WE LIE TO SAVE A LIFE?
Corrie Ten Boom tells how she lied to save Jews from the Nazi death camps.
More recently (1987), during U.S. Senate hearings on the Iran-Contra issue,
Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver North asserted that in the process of performing
his duties he had lied to save innocent lives. North said, "I had to weigh
lying and lives." Certainly there are a number of biblical stories in which
people lied to save lives. The Hebrew midwives lied to save the baby boys
Pharaoh had commanded them to kill (Exod. 1:19). Rahab lied to save the
lives of the Jewish spies in Jericho (Josh. 2).
Is it ever right to lie to save a life? This issue will serve to focus the
differences between the six basic ethical systems.
(1) Lying is neither right nor wrong: There are no laws. Antinomianism9
claims that lying to save lives is neither right nor wrong. It insists that
there are no objective moral principles by which the issue can be judged
right or wrong. The issue must be decided on subjective, personal, or
pragmatic grounds, but not on any objective moral grounds. We are without
any moral laws whatsoever to guide us in our decision on this or any other
moral issue.
(2) Lying is generally wrong: There are no universal laws. Generalisml10
claims that lying is generally wrong. In specific cases, however, this
general rule can be broken. Since there are no universal moral laws, whether
a given lie is right will depend on the results. If the results are good,
then the lie is right. Most generalists believe that lying to save a life is
right because in this case the end justifies the means.
(3) Lying is sometimes right: There is only one universal law.
Situationism,11 such as that held by Joseph Fletcher, claims there is only
one absolute moral law-and it is not truth-telling.12 Love is the only
absolute, and lying may be the loving thing to do. In fact, lying to save a
life is the loving thing to do. Hence, lying is sometimes right. Any moral
rule except love can and at times should be broken for love's sake.
Everything else is relative.
(4) Lying is always wrong: There are many nonconflicting laws. Unqualified
absolutism,13 such as was taught by St. Augustine, claims there are many
absolute moral laws, and none of them should ever be broken.14 Truth is such
a law. Therefore, one must always tell the truth, even if someone dies as a
result of it. Truth is absolute, and absolutes cannot be broken. Therefore,
there are no exceptions to telling the truth. Results are never used to
break rules, even if the results are very desirable.
(5) Lying is forgivable: There are many conflicting laws. Conflicting
absolutism15 recognizes that we live in an evil world where absolute moral
laws sometimes run into inevitable conflict. The German theologian Helmut
Thielicke espoused this view.16 The conflicting absolutist insists that in
unavoidable conflicts it is our moral duty to do the lesser evil. That is,
we must break the lesser law and plead mercy. For instance, we should lie to
save a life and then ask for forgiveness for breaking God's absolute moral
law. Our moral dilemmas are sometimes unavoidable, but we are culpable
anyway. God cannot change His absolute moral prescriptions because of our
moral predicaments.
(6) Lying is sometimes right: There are higher laws. Graded absolutism,17
such as this author holds, insists there are many moral absolutes and they
sometimes conflict. However, some laws are higher than others, so when there
is an unavoidable conflict it is our duty to follow the higher moral law.
God does not blame us for what we could not avoid. Thus He exempts us from
responsibility to follow the lower law in view of the overriding obligation
to obey the higher law.
Many graded absolutists believe that mercy to the innocent is a greater
moral duty than telling truth to the guilty. Hence, they are convinced it is
right to lie in order to save a life. However, even those who believe truth
takes precedence over showing mercy are still graded absolutists. They
simply have a different hierarchy of values. Most Christians agree, however,
to a basic gradation of values which places God over other persons and per-
sons over things. According to this hierarchy, whenever there is a conflict
between two of these, the higher takes precedence over the lower. Hence, we
should love God more than humans And we should love people over things, not
the reverse.
These six views may be summarized in the following way. Antinomianism sets
forth its view to the exclusion of all objective moral laws. Generalism
claims there are exceptions to moral laws. Situationism holds one moral
absolute (love) to the exclusion of all others. Unqualified absolutism
insists there is always an escape from the apparent conflict in absolute
moral laws. Conflicting absolutism contends that when moral laws conflict,
doing the lesser evil is excusable. Graded absolutism holds that when moral
laws conflict, God grants an exemption to the lower in view of our duty to
obey the higher.
All this raises the crucial question as to how an ethical system can be
considered a form of absolutism when it admits there are sometimes
exemptions for a universal duty. Graded absolutists point to three senses in
which it is still legitimate to call such a view absolute. First, the moral
laws are absolute as to their source (God). Second, each moral law is
absolute in its sphere. For example, lying is always wrong as such. When it
conflicts with life-saving, however, one is exempt from truth-telling, even
though the duty remains in force. Just as a magnet overpowers the pull of
gravity without gravity ceasing its pull, even so the duty to love God
overpowers the duty to love human beings. Third, each moral law is absolute
in its hierarchy. That is to say, for a Christian the hierarchy of values is
set up by God in accordance with His nature and is therefore absolute. God
has established that He is first, persons are next, and things are last.
Likewise, the same God who instructs us to obey our parents also tells us
not to worship idols. Hence, if a parent should command his or her child to
worship an idol, the child's higher moral obligation is not to do so.
SUMMING UP
The Judeo-Christian concept of right and wrong, unlike non-Christian
alternatives, is the only adequate basis for moral action. The reasons for
this are many. First, while other ethical views can postulate good moral
principles, only a Judeo-Christian view can justify them. This is true for
two reasons: (I) Unless ethics is rooted in the unchangeable nature of a
morally perfect being (God), there is no basis for believing in moral
absolutes. Only an absolute Moral Law-Giver is a sufficient ground for
absolute moral laws. (2) If everything is relative, then there is no good
reason why anyone ought to refrain from doing anything he or she wants to
do, including rape, murder, and genocide. Of course, humanists and others
who deny moral absolutes can believe in general moral principles, many of
which are noble.18 What they cannot do is justify this belief, since
according to their system, there is no real ground for such a belief.
Furthermore, only an ethic rooted in a Moral Law-Giver can be truly
prescriptive in any objective sense of the word. As noted earlier, a
descriptive ethic is no ethic at all. It merely tells us what people are
doing, not what they ought to do. And people are doing all kinds of evil of
which even relativists do not approve. All that is required to demonstrate
this is to try insulting, raping, or killing a relativist. His or her
reaction will betray his or her true belief that these acts are wrong. This
leads to the observation that we cannot always tell what someone really
believes to be right by their actions (since we all fail our own ideals).
Reactions to being impinged upon are a far more accurate gauge of what one
believes to be right.
Also, only a Judeo-Christian ethic19 is universal. That is, it is not only
expressed in a particular religious book (the Bible), but it is written on
the hearts of all human beings. Hence, no one can rightfully claim the
Judeo-Christian concept of ethics is uniquely religious. True, it is held by
religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, but the ethic itself is not
limited to those religions. It is universally available to all by way of
God's general revelation to humankind.
Of course, there are unique elements of a Christian ethic that distinguish
it from other, lesser theistic ethics. First, Christians insist that it has
been perfectly lived by one person who is the perfect example for us to
follow, Jesus Christ. For the very God who demanded perfection became a man
and lived perfectly in Jesus Christ (John 1:1, 14; Heb. 4:15). In Christ,
principles of goodness that seemed abstract became concrete and personal.
What may have seemed like ethical obligations imposed upon us by a remote
God, unfamiliar with our particularly human situation, has in Christ become
a personal reality for us. In Him, the absolute becomes relevant.
Furthermore, the Christian ethic is not only unique in its example but in
its spiritual empowerment. For God has not only given us a real human
example by which to live but a divine ability to do it. As St. Paul said,
"What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh." This He did "that the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom.
8:24).
SUMMARY
Though non-Christians have offered various relativistic definitions of moral
"right," all fall short of an adequate basis for making ethical decisions.
Christians define "right" in terms of what God wills. What God wills is
rooted in His moral nature. And since His moral nature does not change, it
follows that moral obligations flowing from His nature are absolute (they
are binding everywhere on everyone). When two or more absolutes come into
conflict, the Christian is responsible for obeying the greater commandment.
The Christian is not held guilty for not following the lesser of two
NOTES
1 See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1989), chapters 1-4.
2 See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books II-V, in The Basic Works of
Aristotle, trans. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941), 952-1022.
3 See Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and
Legislation (New York: Hafner, 1965 reprint).
4 See John Stuart Mill, "Utilitarianism," in The Utilitarians (Garden City,
NY: Dolphin Books, Doubleday, 1961).
5 Aristotle.
6 See G. E. Moore, Principia Ethica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1962).
7 A classic representative of a deontological ethic is Immanuel Kant, "On
the Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives," in The Critique of
Practical Reason, 6th ed., trans. Thomas Kinsmill Abbot (London: Longmans
Green, 1963).
8 Each of these views is elaborated in Geisler, chapters 2-7.
9 Ibid., chapter 3
10 Ibid.. chapter 4.
11 lbid., chapter 3.
12 See Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics: The New Morality (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1974).
13 See Geisler, chapter 5.
14 See St. Augustine, On Lying, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1956).
15 See Geisler, chapter 6.
16 See Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics, vol.1, ed. William H. Lazareth
(Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1966).
17 See Geisler, chapter 7.
18 See my critique of the ethics of humanist Paul Kurtz in "Forbidden Fruit:
The Ethics of Humanism," Christian Research Journal (Fall 1988), 27-29.
19 Some might wonder why "Judeo-Christian" is not broadened to "Abrahamic,"
thus including Islam, the third theistic ethic. One reason for the
reluctance is that, while it is a "divine-command ethic," nonetheless it is
very voluntaristic. Allah sometimes commands what is evil. See Norman L.
Geisler and Abdul Saleeb, Answering Islam (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1993).
Copyright Information for This Article
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of the Christian Research Institute. It
may not be altered or edited in any way. It may be reproduced only in its
entirety for circulation as "freeware," without charge. All reproductions of
this data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1995 by
the Christian Research Institute"). This data file may not be used without
the permission of the Christian Research Institute for resale or the
enhancement of any other product sold. This includes all of its content with
the exception of a few brief quotations not to exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data file for resale
or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give the
following source credit: Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute,
P.O. Box 500, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693.
.
|
|
| User: "SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
10 Jun 2007 08:10:45 AM |
|
|
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:f3vi8v$3vt$1@news.utelfla.com...
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
of course, the christian god is ABSOLUTELY A MASS-MURDERING, CHILD-KILLING
COLD-HEARETD *****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
04 Jun 2007 01:15:26 AM |
|
|
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Or you admit the bible is false because it speaks of a god who gets angry,
repents and changes it's mind about what is right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
04 Jun 2007 02:49:35 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Or you admit the bible is false
no.
because it speaks of a god who gets angry,
repents and changes it's mind about what is right.
no.
You are unfortunately one of the unwashed,unlearned who claim you
"get" God when-- in fact-- you do not.
john w
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
04 Jun 2007 04:26:32 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is endless.
And John supports it.
Or you admit the bible is false
no.
because it speaks of a god who gets angry,
repents and changes it's mind about what is right.
no.
It absolutley does.
You are unfortunately one of the unwashed,unlearned who claim you
"get" God when-- in fact-- you do not.
I don't "get" your god or any other god any more than I "get" the Easter
Bunny.
The Easter bunny does not kill children for making fun of somebody.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
05 Jun 2007 10:46:14 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:26:32 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is endless.
And John supports it.
Liar-short-bus johnnie support ANYTHING unbiblical, it seems. yet the
freak continues to falsely claim he's 'an ordained Pastor'.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
04 Jun 2007 06:29:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:26:32 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is endless.
And John supports it.
Written to Israel, not church of God.
Or you admit the bible is false
no.
because it speaks of a god who gets angry,
repents and changes it's mind about what is right.
The figure Anthropopatheia every time when human body parts, emotions,
or behavior is applied to God.
no.
It absolutley does.
You are unfortunately one of the unwashed,unlearned who claim you
"get" God when-- in fact-- you do not.
I don't "get" your god or any other god any more than I "get" the Easter
Bunny.
The Easter bunny does not kill children for making fun of somebody.
Nor does God. People do it in His name.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
07 Jun 2007 12:21:15 AM |
|
|
Bible Bob wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:26:32 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is
endless. And John supports it.
Written to Israel, not church of God.
Mathew says christ went into the land of the gentiles and that people from
there followed him. He preached to them.
Where does it say he specifically excluded them from the law when he said it
would not pass?
Nor does God. People do it in His name.
I suggest you read about what god did to people in the time of Noah or what
he did to Sodom and Gomorrah or to the kids that made fun of the old man.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
04 Jun 2007 04:34:18 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:26:32 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is endless.
And John supports it.
??
You do have a knack for misstatements!
I said that was the law of the Old Testament for the Jews!
I didn't deny that !
That was for a time, and for a people.
Surely you could find something MODERN to complain about!
Do you really have to go back 3,000 years to find fault with God?
??
Or you admit the bible is false
no.
because it speaks of a god who gets angry,
repents and changes it's mind about what is right.
no.
It absolutley does.
You are unfortunately one of the unwashed,unlearned who claim you
"get" God when-- in fact-- you do not.
I don't "get" your god or any other god any more than I "get" the Easter
Bunny.
The Easter bunny does not kill children for making fun of somebody.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
07 Jun 2007 12:17:53 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:26:32 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is
endless. And John supports it.
??
You do have a knack for misstatements!
I said that was the law of the Old Testament for the Jews!
There is no place where this is said specifically and it would seem that if
christ preached this to gentiles as claimed in Matthew it would seem he
meant what he said.
I didn't deny that !
That was for a time, and for a people.
Surely you could find something MODERN to complain about!
Do you really have to go back 3,000 years to find fault with God?
Why would this unchanging god give one set of blood thirsty rules to one
small group and tell everybody else in the world another set applies?
Why would this new set apply if one of this small group changd his or her
mind.
Over and above that is the fact that the OT talks of a god getting angry and
changing it's mind.
Change is not unchange.
I suggest you stop responding to me.
I will use and or reproduce all or part of this alleged article as I see fit
and without requesting permission from John Weatherly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apobetics" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
04 Jun 2007 06:11:40 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 2:34 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:26:32 -0700, "Mike Painter"<mddotpain...@sbcglobal.=
net> wrote:
=A9 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
=A9 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is endl=
ess.
And John supports it.
??
You do have a knack for misstatements!
I said that was the law of the Old Testament for the Jews!
I didn't deny that !
That was for a time, and for a people.
Surely you could find something MODERN to complain about!
Do you really have to go back 3,000 years to find fault with God?
??
Or you admit the bible is false
no.
because it speaks of a god who gets angry,
repents and changes it's mind about what is right.
no.
It absolutley does.
You are unfortunately one of the unwashed,unlearned who claim you
"get" God when-- in fact-- you do not.
I don't "get" your god or any other god any more than I "get" the Easter
Bunny.
The Easter bunny does not kill children for making fun of somebody.
___________________________________________________________________________=
_____________
This poor lost soul doesn't know up from down let alone right from
wrong, John.
His kind have no standard except their own bellies....
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
04 Jun 2007 09:33:05 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:11:40 -0700, Apobetics <apobetic@hotmail.com>
wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
On Jun 4, 2:34 pm, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 14:26:32 -0700, "Mike Painter"<mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 06:15:26 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
Carl wrote:
ANY ABSOLUTES? ABSOLUTELY!
by Norman L. Geisler
Copyright 1995 by the Christian Research Institute
Good is What God Wills
CHRISTIAN ETHICS IS ROOTED IN GOD'S UNCHANGING NATURE
Then the laws of the old testament are still valid
very true.
and god dictates death
for any number of things.
Very true!
Work on the sabbath, being raped, cursing your parents, the list is endless.
And John supports it.
??
You do have a knack for misstatements!
I said that was the law of the Old Testament for the Jews!
I didn't deny that !
That was for a time, and for a people.
Surely you could find something MODERN to complain about!
Do you really have to go back 3,000 years to find fault with God?
??
Or you admit the bible is false
no.
because it speaks of a god who gets angry,
repents and changes it's mind about what is right.
no.
It absolutley does.
You are unfortunately one of the unwashed,unlearned who claim you
"get" God when-- in fact-- you do not.
I don't "get" your god or any other god any more than I "get" the Easter
Bunny.
The Easter bunny does not kill children for making fun of somebody.
________________________________________________________________________________________
This poor lost soul doesn't know up from down let alone right from
wrong, John.
His kind have no standard except their own bellies....
The sad part is he thinks he's "breaking new ground". I had this stuff
in high school. 10th 'Grade "philosophy". I had the teacher's head
spinning.
Even in the 60s, they were trying to tell us there was no God, even
in school!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Any Absolutes? Absolutely! |
05 Jun 2007 10:47:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 19:33:05 -0700, john w <johnw<no>@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I had the teacher's head spinning.
More useless lies and bragging.... I suppose next you'll claim 'you
corrected him or her numerous times too, right, liar-johnnie?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
