Christian ethics are not respect-for-persons ethics (henceforth called RFPE.) Christians live with greater responsibilities than respecting people. That sounds horrible, but it's true. My highest reponsibility to others is to love them, not respect them. Because of this, I care more about someone's spiritual well-being than their physical needs. Once those are ok, I'll focus on the physical, but those have to be secondary. RFP will not hurt someone. Christian ethics will for the purpose of bringing them closer to God. I believe the kingdom ethic supercedes all other beliefs in Christian decision-making. If what I do doesn't bring this person closer to God, while also bringing me closer (which is another really important part of the equation,) I shouldn't do it. I really think I could write for days on this topic, but I won't. Maybe this summer I'll revisit.
I think any methodology to harmonize the different ethical systems in decision-making must recognize that some systems are more adhered to that others. We weighted systems based on their application rather than the number of applicants. While many people will jump around from system to system, most will also adhere to a certain system per issue. I think the application of egoism to the capital punishment issue is less important than the number of people who apply egoism to the issue. Consider if our legislators made decisions according to the application of egoism if our entire country consisted of utilitarianists. (Probably both are egoists, but anyway...) We wouldn't be happy with Congress and they wouldn't be representing the desires of the people well.
Now, we first have to figure out our ethical system. Before we say, "I'm a Christian, that's my ethical system," we really need to figure out what that means and if we're willing to live consistently in it. It's not as simple as WWJD. It's Am-I-willing-to-do-what-Jesus-would-do. AIWTDWJWD. We'd need bigger bracelets.
As for being ethical, it should be very important, and even moreso to Christians. Ethical people see us being unethical and it's not a good reflection of Christ. Again, back to the kingdom ethic. If our decisions do not bring us and others closer to God, something is amiss. I don't see how we can be successful if we are unethical. Said another way, I think Jesus would be ethical. And I should be willing to do what Jesus would do. I'd wear a bracelet to remind myself.
On to science and ethics. Briefly, they are perhaps more related now than ever. With the new knowledge we have that allows us to do things we never though possible, we have to be ethical. I love the section in Angels and Demons by Dan Brown where the chamberlain talks about the church's position on science and ethics. You should read it. I don't now believe science was as bad as he made it sound. I think the church has been guilty too. But I also think it's important for Christians to consider how they fit in a world of science and ethics, and how their relationship with God effects their relationship with this world.
And I think I just figured out why I took this class.
Thanks everyone. I'll be back.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Ethics and Morals (pt. 1)
There is undoubtedly a connection between morals and ethics, although I've never really been sure of what that is, maybe because they are hard terms to define. Moral people tend to be ethical, but ethical people are not always moral, so morality must be the bigger set. I'll try these:
Morality: The beliefs(?) that define what is right and wrong.
Ethics: The beliefs(?) that define what is good and bad.
Now to explain. It seems to me that morality is the more black and white of the two. Sometimes decisions we have to make are morally neutral, but there is usually universal agreement, at least within the moral system, or rightness or wrongness.
Ethics is different. Two people can make the same decision and see it different ways, one good and the other bad. They may be operating in different ethical systems in order to do so, but I'm not sure they have to be. This creates the major difference between ethics and morals.
Good may be the most useless word in the English language. In the context of ethics, it's still pretty useless, but since I have to define it, let's try this: benefitting the intended objects of an action or decision. In this sense, something is good if it makes someone else better, without making more "someone elses" (I know.) worse. Every action has positive and negative consequences. Good actions increase the former and lessen the latter.
Ethical systems have many characteristics that define them, but the joining ones that make them all ethical systems are the moral standards and principles. I'm fascinated by moral standards because they explain in one (or very few) statements the major reasons for doing what we do. To think we are that simple is humbling. Moral behaviors are interesting too, to realize that from those very few statements, we can in turn determine almost all of our behaviors. Again, humbling.
The major difference between normative ethics and ethical relativism is the belief that the ethical system is good for all. I'm afraid that we have connected the too so closely that many Christians are becoming moral relativists. If what we believe is right, then it is right for us, then it is right for everyone. That's the nature of our beliefs. In other words, if the Christian ethic isn't best for the people of Nigeria, or the people of Italy, then it's not best for us. Instead, it's a really bad ethic. In a way, we should all be egocentrists, with regard to our ethical systems, we just need to make sure our ethical systems are those of Christ.
Egoism:
Standard - I am the most important person to me.
Principles - What is best for me is best for everyone else. (I love that Adam Smith used this, and it is the basis for the rational decision-maker theory.) The morality of decisions is directly related to the effect its consequences have on me. I must improve my standing to a certain level, or maximize it.
Judgments - I can speed because I'm late. I can steal because I'm poor. I can lie because I need to. I can cheat because I'd enjoy it, or because I need a good grade (depending on your definition of cheat.) I know these don't hold up to the universality principle, but I'm still not convinced that the egoist believes in it. Plus, its non-application works best for me, and I don't like it, so it's gone. You now know an egoist...me.
If legalism corresponds to consistency, I wish it were a bigger part of ethical decision making. However, I think you can be consistent without playing by the book all the time. Any good ethical system must have loopholes and exceptions for the times they are needed. Unfortunately, we often abuse those loopholes and lose all credibilty from our lack of consistency. For an example of this, see Christian colleges located in Searcy, Arkansas.
Ok, that may have been wrong. Sorry.
As for grace in ethics, I still think you have to be consistent. I'm not sure how well we could do with both. I'm glad God can be consistent and graceful.
Ethics is more about rationality than truth(?) I don't think true and good are the same thing. Truth is more morality, right and wrong, Good and evil. Ethics is more rationality, good and bad, beneficial and costly in economic terms. Maybe that's why the two, ethics and morals, are so closely tied together.
Morality: The beliefs(?) that define what is right and wrong.
Ethics: The beliefs(?) that define what is good and bad.
Now to explain. It seems to me that morality is the more black and white of the two. Sometimes decisions we have to make are morally neutral, but there is usually universal agreement, at least within the moral system, or rightness or wrongness.
Ethics is different. Two people can make the same decision and see it different ways, one good and the other bad. They may be operating in different ethical systems in order to do so, but I'm not sure they have to be. This creates the major difference between ethics and morals.
Good may be the most useless word in the English language. In the context of ethics, it's still pretty useless, but since I have to define it, let's try this: benefitting the intended objects of an action or decision. In this sense, something is good if it makes someone else better, without making more "someone elses" (I know.) worse. Every action has positive and negative consequences. Good actions increase the former and lessen the latter.
Ethical systems have many characteristics that define them, but the joining ones that make them all ethical systems are the moral standards and principles. I'm fascinated by moral standards because they explain in one (or very few) statements the major reasons for doing what we do. To think we are that simple is humbling. Moral behaviors are interesting too, to realize that from those very few statements, we can in turn determine almost all of our behaviors. Again, humbling.
The major difference between normative ethics and ethical relativism is the belief that the ethical system is good for all. I'm afraid that we have connected the too so closely that many Christians are becoming moral relativists. If what we believe is right, then it is right for us, then it is right for everyone. That's the nature of our beliefs. In other words, if the Christian ethic isn't best for the people of Nigeria, or the people of Italy, then it's not best for us. Instead, it's a really bad ethic. In a way, we should all be egocentrists, with regard to our ethical systems, we just need to make sure our ethical systems are those of Christ.
Egoism:
Standard - I am the most important person to me.
Principles - What is best for me is best for everyone else. (I love that Adam Smith used this, and it is the basis for the rational decision-maker theory.) The morality of decisions is directly related to the effect its consequences have on me. I must improve my standing to a certain level, or maximize it.
Judgments - I can speed because I'm late. I can steal because I'm poor. I can lie because I need to. I can cheat because I'd enjoy it, or because I need a good grade (depending on your definition of cheat.) I know these don't hold up to the universality principle, but I'm still not convinced that the egoist believes in it. Plus, its non-application works best for me, and I don't like it, so it's gone. You now know an egoist...me.
If legalism corresponds to consistency, I wish it were a bigger part of ethical decision making. However, I think you can be consistent without playing by the book all the time. Any good ethical system must have loopholes and exceptions for the times they are needed. Unfortunately, we often abuse those loopholes and lose all credibilty from our lack of consistency. For an example of this, see Christian colleges located in Searcy, Arkansas.
Ok, that may have been wrong. Sorry.
As for grace in ethics, I still think you have to be consistent. I'm not sure how well we could do with both. I'm glad God can be consistent and graceful.
Ethics is more about rationality than truth(?) I don't think true and good are the same thing. Truth is more morality, right and wrong, Good and evil. Ethics is more rationality, good and bad, beneficial and costly in economic terms. Maybe that's why the two, ethics and morals, are so closely tied together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
