Rights and Wrongs
Jimmy Williams
During a recent meeting of college educators at Harvard University,
Cornell President Frank Rhodes rose to address the issue of
reforms, suggesting that it was time for universities to pay "real
and sustained attention to students' intellectual and moral well-being."
Immediately there were gasps, even catcalls. One indignant
student stood to demand of Rhodes, "Who is going to do the
instructing? Whose morality are we going to follow?" The audience
applauded thunderously, believing that the young man had settled
the issue by posing an unanswerable question. Rhodes sat down,
unable or unwilling to respond.{1}
This interchange between university president and college student
hits at the most basic question in formulating any and every system
of ethics, namely that of identifying the BASIS for determining the
standards we humans designate as "right" or "wrong."
What is ethics? Ethics comes from the Greek word
ethos, meaning, "what ought to be," or, "a place of refuge,"
such as a cave, solid and absolute. The dictionary defines ethics
as (1) the study of standards of conduct and moral judgment, or (2)
the system or code of morals of a particular philosopher, religion,
group, etc. Dr. Albert Schweitzer defined ethics as "the name we
give for our concern for good behavior."
Human Ethical Universality. No human lives without the
ethical dimension. Statements like, "That's not fair," or "You
promised," reveal the common ethical assumptions humans have come
to expect of one another. This is not to say that each human always
acts responsibly toward his fellows. In every culture we find
individuals who choose to ignore the commonly held standards; they
choose to rape, to steal, to kill. Breaking established standards
is therefore a relative issue; that is, some do, and some
don't. But an absolute is also involved: no one likes to be
raped, robbed, or murdered.
OPTIONS FOR VALUES
One can say that every ethical value involves some standard of
behavior, and every standard is defined in a prescriptive
manner. Ethical standards are expressed in terms of "ought" and
"should," or "ought not" and "should not." They transcend the
language of description, speaking not only of "what is," but
rather "what should be."
Where do we find such standards? What kinds of foundational
possibilities are available to us upon which to build an ethical
system? The options are as follows:
I. The Natural Ethic (Nature)
"All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction
which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not
understood;
All partial evil, universal good;
And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,
One truth is
clear, whatever is, is right. "
--Alexander Pope
- Definition: "Oughts" are derived from what "is."
- Mortimer Adler called this an attempt "to get conclusions in the
imperative mood from premises entirely in the indicative mood."
This view presupposes the origination of value is found in the
facts, the observation of nature.
- "What is ethically right is related in some way to what
is materially true." (G. G. Simpson).
Example: A man runs a red light. He cannot draw a conclusion of
whether or not to run the red light without having an earlier
presupposition or standard in place concerning that ethical choice:
"One shouldn't run red lights."
- Implications
- To have true moral values, people must get them from somewhere
other than the actual world of description.
- This view destroys the very concepts of good and evil, because
"what is" contains both. To speak of good and evil becomes
nonsensical. Charles Manson said, "If God is one, what is bad?"
Baudelaire lamented, "If God exists he is the Devil."
- This view does not answer the question of predatorial/survival
life in nature. All that we call "human" would be destroyed if
people practiced this natural ethic consistently and
universally.
- Not many hold this view seriously. T. H. Huxley admitted that
though evolution is "true," it leads to bad ethics. Even
evolutionists choose not to live in such a world. Instead, they
philosophically smuggle Christian ethics arbitrarily into their
system and hold it romantically upon their naturalistic
base.
- If we are to have ethics, we must find them outside the natural
realm.
II. The Consensus Ethic (Majority rule)
- Definition
Whatever a cultural group approves of is deemed right; whatever the
group disapproves of is wrong. In America, we find the most popular
expression of cultural relativism demonstrated in the opinion poll
(e.g., the Clinton Scandal).
- Implications
- The grand result of the Kinsey Report on American sexual ethics
in the 1950's was that people bought the idea that if a
majority of citizens accepted something as right or wrong,
it was.
- Cultural relativism claims to be based on a scientific view of
morals. Admittedly, statistical analysis of human behavior is the
true and proper task of sociologists. But within the discipline,
unfortunately, there is, by design, or by inference, a strong
tendency to make value judgments about the results of research.
Sociology exists only to tell us what people are
doing, not what they should be doing. True values must be
found somewhere else.
- Ethics by majority may actually have little to do with morality.
A society can become corrupt. In New Guinea, for example,
the tribe of Papuans have a 100 per cent majority in their view on
the virtue of cannibalism. Does their unanimous consent on this
issue make it moral? By such reasoning, if 51% of the German people
assented to the extermination of Jewry by Hitler and his henchmen,
then their actions were "right," and other cultures should have
withheld any criticism of German sovereignty in their own internal
affairs.
- Cultural relativism is really "status-quoism," providing no
strong motive for social change. It is also capricious over
time. For example, in 1859, slavery in the United States was
socially acceptable and abortion was illegal. Today, the reverse is
true.
- Those who prefer this ethical foundation must face one very
dangerous fact: If there is no standard by which society can be
judged and held accountable, then society becomes the judge.
When that happens, no one is safe--minorities, the unborn, the
elderly, the handicapped, and perhaps even the blond headed or the
left handed!
III. The Arbitrary Ethic (Power)
A teenager complains to her mother, "Why can't I go out tonight?"
Mom replies, "Because I say so!" No reason is given, other than
that of the mother imposing her will on her daughter. This is the
arbitrary, de facto use of power: "Might makes right."
- Definition
An individual or elitist group sets itself up as arbiter of values
and uses the necessary force to maintain these values. Democratic
consensus rules from below; arbitrary absolutists rule from
above.
- Critique
- The arbiter can be a dictator, a parliament, a supreme court, a
political party, or any elite configuration which has the
wherewithal to impose its will upon the populace.
- What is enforced is based solely upon what the arbiter decides
will be enforced. Emperor worship of the Roman Caesars brought
persecution to Jews and Christians who refused to practice it.
Plato's Republic would be governed by its philosopher kings. The
Catholic Inquisitors summarily tortured and executed unrepentant
heretics. B. F. Skinner's Walden Two utopia would be
carefully managed by beneficent planners through total
environmental control and behavior modification. Soviet Russia was
ruthlessly governed by an all-powerful Central Committee and its
KGB enforcers.
- It is important to remember that such arbiters can make
something legal but not moral. The 1972 Roe v.
Wade decision legalizing abortion is the most pertinent
contemporary example. The judges, choosing to ignore medical,
legal, and religious precedents on the true humanity of the unborn,
made an arbitrary, pragmatic decision. This ruling was legal, but
not necessarily moral.
- The great flaw in this approach is that it presupposes great
trust in those who govern. History has not confirmed the wisdom of
placing such confidence in those who wield absolute power. The
balancing of power in the U.S. Constitution between the various
branches of government reflects the wariness of its Framers to give
undue authority to any sole federal entity.
- "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." It leads
to despotism, tyranny, and bondage.
IV. The True Absolute (Transcendence)
"There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is
when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else
collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or
bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual--when
the different parts of him (his different faculties and
desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one
another. You can get the idea . . . if you think of us as a fleet
of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only,
in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one
another's way; and secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her
engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either
of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having
collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other
hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be
able to avoid collisions.
"But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have
not asked where the fleet is trying to get to. . . . And however
well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were
meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.
"Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly,
with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what
might be called tidying up or harmonizing the thing inside each
individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a
whole: what man was made for? What course the whole fleet ought to
be on? . . ."
- Definition
C. S. Lewis has here identified the "three parts of morality," the
first two of which humans are well acquainted with: internal moral
deficiencies and conflict with others through ethical choices. It
is the third part for which all humans desperately need and
long, namely, some objective standard to which all humans
must adhere.
Such a standard necessarily transcends the world of
description. It presupposes that God exists and has spoken, or
revealed such standards. The true absolute contends that the
Creator of man AND nature has given such values that are
commensurate with the way He made us and appropriate to people's
problems and aspirations.
- Example
The Ten Commandments provide the boundaries for the definition of
humanness; any act contrary to this true absolute is a violation of
our humanity. Further, these standards are not merely
external principles, but rather the very essence of the
nature and character of God.
- Implications
- Some things are right; some are wrong, and
objectively so. This ethical system is based on normative
principles rather than subjective, utilitarian ones.
- It also provides a basis for conviction: what was right
yesterday will be right today. The individual is protected against
the whole of society--wicked king, pragmatic judges, corrupt
politicians, and decadent populace.
- There is also a true and legitimate motive for fighting evil, an
objective basis for social change.
ETHICAL SYSTEMS BUILT ON THE ABOVE
I. NATURAL ETHIC
- Behaviorism
All of our actions are the result of either our genetic make-up
(see outlines on Human nature and Sociobiology) or
our environment.
- Premises
- This system presupposes that nothing exists beyond the material
realm.
- What is called mind is reduced to physical and chemical
reactions.
- We cannot act upon the world; rather, the world acts upon
us.
- Critique
- There can be no human responsibility for actions.
- And yet, behaviorists themselves appeal to a standard of justice
when wronged.
- Contrary to the contention of the behaviorists, there are
both philosophical reasons and scientific evidence to support the
belief that we do possess an immaterial substance.
- Darwinism
- Marxism
II. HUMANISTIC SYSTEMS
- Cultural Relativism, consensus. (See above).
- Arbitrary Absolute. (See Above).
- Situation Ethics
This system seeks to use the rules whenever they are useful,
but it discards them if they happen to conflict with love.
Joseph Fletcher is the chief component.
- Premises
- The sole arbiter of morality in any situation is love; it is the
only absolute, according to Fletcher.
- Love should be defined in utilitarian terms. William James said,
"What works is right." Actions should be judged by whether or not
they contribute to the greatest good for the greatest number
(lifeboat ethics).
- The end justifies the means.
- Critique
- Everyone may have a different opinion of what is loving or
unloving in a given situation. If "love" is an absolute, humanity
has a very difficult time in applying it to real life. Thus,
morality is reduced to a matter of personal preference: "It all
depends upon your point of view."
- If morality is based on the consequences, we have to be able to
predict with accuracy these consequences if we want to know whether
or not we are acting morally. In short, one would have to BE God in
order to always do the loving thing ahead of
time.
- Emotive Ethics
In this view nothing is literally right or wrong; these terms are
simply expressions of personal emotion and as such are neither true
nor false.
- Premises
- When we speak of good or evil, these remain simply expressions
of our own subjective feelings about what we have encountered or
experienced.
- We can describe, but we cannot prescribe.
- Thus, all actions are morally neutral.
- Critique
- The most an emotivist can say is, "I don't like other
ethical theories. I like my own opinion on this issue."
- Emotivists cannot verify their assumption that the only
meaningful utterances are statements of factual or personal
observation and preference. Some other meaningful system for true
moral acts may exist beyond their experience and myopic world
view.
- Hedonism
Hedonists, like emotivists, are individually directed along the
lines of their personal choices and desires. The hedonist (or
Epicurean), however has a goal in mind: the pursuit of
pleasure.
Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) believed that there were two primary
choices in life--to experience either pain or pleasure. His
philosophy is based on avoiding the former at all costs and
relentlessly pursuing the latter with no consideration given to the
consequences upon others.
This, "If it feels good, do it," mentality fits well today in a
society which stresses that the individual (me) is most
important.
- Pantheism
The ethical system which flows out of pantheism and new age
thinking is similar to both emotivism and hedonism, and is really
more humanistic than theistic. While Christian theism
is God-centered, and naturalism is man-centered,
pantheism is world-centered. But the focus is still upon
man, and the world becomes god.
In pantheism, man and nature become one, and together become the
only "god" which exists. Man thus becomes his own god; he is
god, or at least a part of god.
Ethics becomes, then, those choices which keep one in harmony with
the "cosmic oneness," and salvation comes from looking
within to maintain that harmony.
This process, like all Eastern Mysticism, tends to blur reality and
the ethical distinctions of "right" and "wrong."
- Inadequate Absolutes: The Moral Dilemma
In summary, there are two reasons why man, acting autonomously,
cannot establish a valid and satisfying moral theory on either
naturalistic or humanistic moral theory.
- The scientific method is limited. Science can collect facts, but
these pieces of information cannot tell us what we ought to
do. It ignores the very real possibility that something real exists
beyond the natural world, and it is thus doomed to look
within its own self-defined "closed system" for an
adequate ethical base. Unfortunately, none honestly exists,
philosophically, except the natural law of nature, "red in tooth
and claw."
- Relativism is always self-contradictory.
- Although relativism disclaims the existence of absolutes, it
must assume the existence of an absolute by which other theories
can be judged.
The problem today is that society has abandoned belief in a
transcendent, absolute truth, a morally binding source of authority
that is above our rights as individuals. To modern man, then, there
is no absolute other than perhaps the belief that "there are no
absolutes," which is itself a contradiction.
- It assumes there are no intrinsic values, yet it must assume
that intrinsic values exist whenever it gives guidance in making
moral decisions.
- If ends and means are relative, regardless of the ethical system
preferred, one’s own point of reference must also be in flux.
FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN ETHICAL ABSOLUTES
- It is based on an authority higher than man (Creator God) and
revelation, rather than human experience, both individually
or collectively.
- The absolute standard for morality is God Himself, and every
moral action must be judged in the light of His nature.
- Man is not simply an animal, but a unique, moral being created
in the image of God.
- God's moral revelation has intrinsic value; it is
normative rather than utilitarian. If the above is
true, a homeless person possesses the same God-given worth as the
president of the United States.
- Scripture is accepted as morally authoritative, the Word of God,
being derived from God.
- In the Scriptures, law and love are harmonized, and obedience to
God's laws is not legalism.
- God's moral revelation was given for the benefit of
humankind.
- These moral principles are timeless, having historical
continuity, and humans--individually or
collectively--experience
the common grace of God whenever and wherever they are adhered
to.
- True Christian morality deals with intentions, as well as
actions, seeks the glory of God instead of pleasure and self-gratification,
and encourages service to others, rather than
serving self.
God alone knows all the goals, determines all morality, and
allows us to "play the game." But he does not allow us to make the
rules. Modern and postmodern man, seemingly loosed from such
transcendent restrictions, has chosen to make up his own. The folly
of such a reference point for life is everywhere apparent.
© 2000 Probe Ministries International