Love and Adultery and Ethical Scenarios

Eve had known about Adam's affairs for years now. He was an important man, and she perhaps should have known better than to expect fidelity. But when you are young, you are usually naive. Initially, she had confronted him, threatened to leave, etc. But eventually she just kind of accepted the fact. Her little boy, Paul, was the love of her life. He had such energy and passion for life; like his father, perhaps. So Eve stayed. Yes, she loved Adam; and she loved Paul. It was difficult, but all things considered, she counted herself lucky to experience the love of her son, and their bond was exceptionally strong and unusually intimate, even for a mother and son.

When Eve began her affair with Doctor Robert, she never questioned the ethics of the situation. Adam and Eve had an unspoken agreement.

Robert and Eve cared about each other. His affection was sincere, and he understood Eve's desire to hold together her family. It was painful for him, but he understood. Robert and Eve just got each other; it clicked. Eventually, though, the heavy feeling of watching Eve leave him became too much for Robert. He had to move on; he had too leave.

Contextualized and Relativized Ethics

Kierkegaard said, "Truth becomes untruth in this or that person's mouth." (I'll have to grab the citation information later.)

I like this move by Kierkegaard, even though it runs contrary to many conservative Christian thinkers. For me, however, the point of talking about the importance of relativity and contextualization in ethics is not to provide an opportunity to turn untruth into truth, but to open up the possibility that human beings often turn truth into untruth. In other words, relativizing "good/evil" and "truth/untruth" is about understanding how important context is to the discussion. Could it be that much of our inclination is toward self deception? That as human beings we find security in "truth," when such truth has merely been taken into a context where it can be used for "untruth"?

Ah, perhaps an interesting example from current events:

McClellan has some kind words for Bush, calling him "a man of personal charm, wit and enormous political skill." He writes that the president "did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency." [from Ex-press aide writes Bush misled U.S. on Iraq, citing Scott McClellan]

Me and Russell Talk Morality

I have been thinking through ethics a bit here and there and I thought I would use a few quotes from the famous 1948 BBC exchange/debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston to expand a bit on my current thinking on morality.

The following portion is from their discussion on morality.

R: You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness.

C: Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them?

R: I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different.

C: Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty?

R: By my feelings.

C: By your feelings. Well, that's what I was asking. You think that good and evil have reference simply to feeling?

At this point, I tend to agree more with Russell than with Copleston. I think that the moral sense is more fundamental to morality than is any so-called "moral law," if such a thing even exists.

The majority of Christian moral philosophy in the 20th century took its ques from the likes of C.S. Lewis. That is, they believed that morality was most fundamentally a moral law that somehow came from God. Our sense of morality, then, is merely our sense of the moral law, which exists timelessly, universally, and absolutely somewhere in some strange world of abstraction.

But what if morality is most fundamentally a sense that human beings have? In this case, then perhaps the various moral laws and moral judgments we make are merely our attempt to objectively define and culturally work out what we subjectively sense. It might be like an artist who attempts to produce on canvas the art that is within; or the poet who puts uses words to express the artistic impulses.

So, perhaps when Christians begin with "moral law" they are hurting their own cause and unwittingly weakening their own theological basis. For example, it seems quite obvious to me that if you remove morality from within and take it out to some abstract place called "Universal Moral Law," then you cheapen the sense in which morality is intimately connected with our inner workings. If I am correct in the general direction of my thinking on morality, then we need not be ashamed to look within for moral truth rather than trying to locate an abstract and supposedly universal moral law somewhere in the abstract world. (Can somebody please tell me where these universal moral laws are? I always picture them hanging like a picture or an article of clothing out somewhere deep in outer space!)

Of course, there will always be the dooms dayers who push the RELATIVISM PANIC BUTTON!. They begin to hyperventilate if they don't have their absolute moral laws ready at hand. Without the moral law, they say, all society and culture is on the brink of utter devastation: "A worldview that does not have an objective moral standard, one that has 'values' instead of 'laws,' seems doomed to destruction." [from The Moral Law]

Even at this point in my discussion, however, I must note that the traditional subjective/objective distinction will probably breakdown (as all good dichotomies do in philosophy!). After all, what we call "right" and what we call "wrong" is also conditioned very strongly (if not exclusively) by our society/culture and how we interact with it. Recent Christian orthodoxy feels uneasy with this kind of talk. Let's go back to the Copleston-Russell debate again:

C: Well, I brought in moral obligation because I think that one can approach the question of God's existence in that way. The vast majority of the human race will make, and always have made, some distinction between right and wrong. The vast majority I think has some consciousness of an obligation in the moral sphere. It's my opinion that the perception of values and the consciousness of moral law and obligation are best explained through the hypothesis of a transcendent ground of value and of an author of the moral law. I do mean by "author of the moral law" an arbitrary author of the moral law. I think, in fact, that those modern atheists who have argued in a converse way "there is no God; therefore, there are no absolute values and no absolute law," are quite logical.

R: I don't like the word "absolute." I don't think there is anything absolute whatever. The moral law, for example, is always changing. At one period in the development of the human race, almost everybody thought cannibalism was a duty.

Again, I tend to agree more with Russell. I don't like the word "absolute" when referring to morality. I don't necessarily deny moral absolutes, but they seem a bit pointless. As I said, morality is most fundamentally a subjective sense. As such, the point of the moral life is to not to run around in circles trying to philosophize as to what and where moral absolutes are. Instead, the moral life should focus its energy on cultivating the moral sense. (Where I disagree with Russell, of course, is that I believe that God is an active agent in this process of cultivation.)

So, if the point of morality is to to cultivate the subjective sense, then where does this happen??? Well, in interacting with others. So, we don't waste our time trying to establish absolute moral laws; rather, we engage one another and use the moral standards of our culture to begin the process of doing good. So, what is "good" is something that is not merely a subjective sense but the actions and attitudes I have as I relate and engage other moral beings like myself. To me, this kind of common sense approach aligns more with the street level ethics in the Bible, particularly I am thinking about the book of James:

26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James chapter 1)

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James chapter 2)

Morality is not just a subjective sense, but a subjective sense that is dependent on living in relationship with others. There is a complex relationship at work here that we cannot entirely explain, but that is the point: the life of the good is a devoted life process of cultivating their moral sense in relation to those around them. Perhaps if our Protestant Fathers had worried more about this and worried less about idolizing their doctrine, then maybe they would not have murdered so many of their own brothers and sisters in the faith.

My view of ethics does not just stop at a "that feels good to me" level. Quite the contrary. We should engage in moral debate (and rigorously!); but we engage each other not to get at the moral absolutes but to discern what is good for the here and now as we relate with each other and with God. We must objectify our morality and take moral stands on issues, e.g., "the hijackers who flew their plans into the two towers in NYC did an evil thing," "the invasion of Iraq was not morally justified," "all cases of abortion are categorically unjustified killing," or "a same sex relationship is an appropriate marital relationship and should not be banned or discouraged."

There are many specific issues that require moral judgment, what some might call practical ethics. Debating these issues helps sharpen our moral sense. But, of course, beyond these political issues are also issues of our own actions and the motivations that drive them. These are the Moment-of-Truth-type questions; these are cleaning-the-mirror-type questions. For the cultivation of "truth in the inner parts" and purity of heart, we need others to peer within and examine our lives with discernment, maturity, and love.....and, I agree with Paul: we don't need Law, we need the power of the Spirit. (Galatians 5)

The Strange Case for Polygamy

Bigamy is having one spouse too many. Monogamy is the same.

Time magazine has a section where they list ironic quotes along with the context of the quotation. The point is usually to make the person look like a fool for what they said. Typically that person is a politician, so it can be quite entertaining.

Recently, they featured a Mitt Romney quote:
"I must admit I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."
This is the notation listed below the quote:
"Mitt Romney, the Mormon seeking the Republican presidential nomination, whose great-grandfather was a polygamist."

Funny.

And yet from a theological perspective, Romney's dilemma is the Christian dilemma. Most on the Christian right are adamantly against polygamy. Many regard Mormons as a cult and use the Mormon position on polygamy as a basis for mocking their religion. Here's the big problem: The greatest heroes of the biblical faith were polygamists. This creates a moral quandary. Either our heroes were sinners and were morally wrong to practice polygamy or else it was ok back then even though it's not ok today.

But this latter suggestion smacks of relativism, doesn't it? How can a Christian in this day and age who is fighting the good fight for moral absolutes--how can such a Christian say that the morality of polygamy shifted from one age to the next? Hhhhmmm...it's a toughie, no doubt! Did God say, "Okay, polygamy was not morally wrong back then, but these days it is a monstrous atrocity"? Seems a bit odd to me.

Perhaps I might raise the question, What is wrong with polygamy? I know, I know. Your sense of decency is offended. You are morally outraged that I would even ask the question. But let's look at this rationally, shall we? (Or, of course, you are free to just leave my blog and go somewhere else!) Consider a few objections:

1) The Bible condemns polygamy. Actually it does not; nor does it establish any moral absolute in regard to monogamy. Paul recommends that an elder be the husband of one wife, but Paul also recommends that women be silent in church and that Christians should probably opt for singleness. In other words, Paul's suggestion on monogamy seems to be more in line with a recommendation rather than a moral absolute that applies to all people in all eras.

Furthermore, one must deal honestly with the lives of true saints in the Old Testament who practiced polygamy. David was a man after God's own heart, and how many women did he have coming in and out of his chambers? The Patriarchs had multiple wives. And in the midst of this there is no condemnation of the practice. Why? Could it be that there was nothing morally wrong with it? This is a question worth considering.

All things considered, I would suggest that the Bible is more in favor of polygamy than against it. Even Martin Luther, as I understand, did not consider polygamy unbiblical, although he highly discouraged the practice and did not consider it normative. (Compare the interesting case of Philip of Hesse.) Perhaps also of interest is biblicalpolygamy.com.

2) Polygamy is weird. I consider the weirdness factor to be a legitimate objection. Unlike some, I do believe that subjective feelings and intuitions are an important (and even integral) of determining how we should act and what we should believe. However, the fact that a certain practice is weird does not in and of itself disqualify the practice. We can experience a weirdness factor as a result of how we are conditioned by our society.

A few hundred years ago in this country, it would have seemed "weird" and perhaps even "unnatural" to see an intelligent black man teaching white students. This may have seemed weird and unnerving, but that does make it wrong or immoral. In a similar way, I would suggest that our society (and particularly conservative circles) is predisposed to feel very very uncomfortable with polygamy. However, it has not always been this way. Different societies have viewed this practice in different ways. For an interesting perspective on this, see the Polygamy Worldwide section of the wikipedia article on Polygamy.

3) Polygamy is oppressive to women. This is a fair objection, because polygamy has been the context for suppressing women and abusing both women and children. Polygamy has been a vehicle for male domination and female subjugation.

Still, to be fair, abuse happens within the context of a monogamous marriage. All abuses and misuses that I can think of that occur within polygamy are also true of monogamy. So, I think we must recognize that it is not the contest, per se, that is the problem. Abuse is evil, but evil deeds come from evil people, not necessarily from a particular type of relationship.

A woman might respond that it's not fair that two women would have to share one man. Fine, then don't be in a polygamous relationship. But if there are two women who desire to be in a polygamous relationship with a man, then how can I argue against that? If that is a relationship they wish to embark on, then I don't see anything that is necessarily immoral about it. It may seem weird to someone else, but that's not necessarily a question of morality. Also, what if the reverse were true? What if two men married one woman. In principle, this approach isn't necessarily immoral, it is just something that makes us uncomfortable.

Perhaps the question has to do with whether the context is a loving and caring context, rather than if the context is immoral.

If polygamy is used in a context to abuse women and children then it is wrong and evil. But the moral outrage against polygamy in our society and culture may be a bit overdone; frankly, much of the conservative indignation toward polygamy strikes me as a bit self-righteous and narrow minded.

Hhhhhmmmmm.....have I just made a strange case for polygamy??? I thought I had sworn off marriage, but perhaps I should reconsider a polygamous relationship. That might be interesting.



Of related interest:
HBO Big Love clips (This is quite the interesting show, by the way.)
Christian Polygamy Info
Yahoo Christian Polygamy Group
Polygamypage.info

Shoot me

A few years back, Dr. Dave Plaster, a professor of mine, relayed a story to our class of a time when he was at Dallas Seminary working on his Ph.D. several years back. Dr. Plaster is a Grace Brethren and a pacifist. That was a bit of a problem because he was in a classroom full of non-pacifists and his wily Professor who was a bit antagonistic toward pacifists. The Professor assigned topics for a research assignment that included defending one's thesis in the classroom. Naturally, the wily Professor assigned Dr. Plaster the topic of pacifism. When it was Dr. Plaster's turn to defend, he presented his case for pacifism and then the floor was open for fellow students to open fire, if you will, on his case against war. The Professor was first to interject and embarked upon a lengthy polemic against the points presented, expounding every jot and tittle whereby Dr. Plaster (and other pacifists) were so clearly mistaken.

Dr. Plaster absorbed the barrage and responded with a scenario and a question: Let's say that my country is at war, and that I am a soldier. Let us further suppose that I have the enemy in my sites, and that all I must do is pull the trigger and effectively eliminate the enemy's life. This, of course, is my job as a soldier and my duty to my country. But now let's suppose that the enemy is a fellow brother in Christ. Are you telling me that I am obligated to pull the trigger and kill my fellow brother in Christ?????

The Professor gathered together his few things, rose from his seat, and exited the classroom.

Meaning, Desire and Light

In our recent discussion on Cyber Sex I referenced Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) saying that on my reading one of the major points of Qohelet is that there is no absolute connection between fulfilling one's desires and living a meaningful life. That if we pursue our desires we may or may not grasp them, and if we do satisfy desires that this may or may not result in a feeling of fulfillment or the sense of having lived a meaningful life.

This prompted a comment by Ktismatics:

If there's no discernible connection between desire and meaning, then why not accept that disconnect? Eat, drink and be merry if you feel like it; it doesn't have anything to do with meaning anyhow. You could make a case that Judeo-Christian sexual morality attempts to impose meaning where it doesn't belong, that it makes to big a thing about it. After all, there's no law against chasing the wind, and it can be kind of fun and relaxing to do so, even if it doesn't really mean anything.

Paul says he wouldn't have known sin except through the Law, that he wouldn't have known about coveting if the Law hadn't said "Thou shalt not covet." The sinful passions were aroused by the law, the commandment not to covet created the desire to covet. Doesn't this suggest that prohibition creates corrupt desires? That if the prohibitions were eliminated the desires would find their own way without being forced into the darkness of bad conscience? Die to the Law, live unto God, who regenerates the desires without reference to prohibition and self-discipline?

This brought to my mind the movie Leaving Las Vegas:
An avowed alcoholic, Ben drank away his family, friends and, finally, his job. With deliberate resolve, he burns the remnants of his life and heads for Las Vegas to end it all in one final binge. On the strip, Ben picks up a street-smart hooker named Sera in what might have been another excess in his self-destructive jag. Instead their chance meeting becomes a respite on the road to oblivion as something connects between these two disenfranchised souls. (Yahoo plot summary)

Here is a scene from Leaving Las Vegas where Ben (Nicolas Cage) completely breaks down in a Las Vegas casino. At this point Sera (Elisabeth Shue) and Ben are together and out for a night of fun.


The movie is brilliant in its raw and authentic look at human nature and our potential for self-destruction. Two souls find each other, Ben and Sera. Separately they were destructing and destroyed. Having intersected into each other's world we now sense that a meaningful relationship is possible. No, more than that - that a meaningful life is possible. We are filled with a sense of potentiality. Something meaningful is within their grasp.

But the relationship is twisted and perverse. Sera is a prostitute and Ben is a dying alcoholic. Sera keeps working the streets and Ben's binging is killing him. Their lives destroy them and warp them such that they get close to love, close to a meaningful sexual encounter, but they never quite get there. The ending is authentic: Meaning is lost.

My response to Ktismatics and to Ben/Sera is the imago dei, the image of God. That humanity searches for meaning because it is in our nature as a reflection of our Creator. Fundamentally we are needy beings. Our needs drive us to something more meaningful. Our needs for relationships, for example, can provide meaning and deep fulfillment. But our needs can also lead us into cycles of self-destruction, like Ben. Need and desires can easily become frustrated, repressed and chaotic.

Ktismatics says, That if the prohibitions were eliminated the desires would find their own way without being forced into the darkness of bad conscience?

Our desires are pure but our desires are also dark and evil. And for most of us there is a jumbling of them all together such that one cannot discern what motivates them and what desires are pulling us along at any given moment. Ultimately, I think that Ktismatics is on to something. We were created for light, to be exposed.

We were created for light and authenticity. To live the genuine life:
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. (I John 1)

As such the Psalmist pleads in Psalm 139 for God to search and expose. That the Creator and Knower would reveal the depths of the soul - to somehow bring light to darkness:

Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

Cyber sex

The above video graphically illustrates contemporary internet porn statistics. I don't know for sure how accurate they are, neither do I know how one would measure these things without allowing for a generous margin for error. However, from surfing around it appears as though these stats are fairly consistent with other statistics.

I highlight the following:
12% of all internet websites are porn
25% of all searches are pornographic
Every second 28,258 are viewing porn
2.84 billion U.S. revenue from internet porn
89% of porn is produced by the U.S.

Also interesting is a discussion on the countries that ban porn. These are countries that commentators sometimes call "backward," "medieval," or "barbaric." Ironically enough, their ethical standards are significantly higher than more "civilized" countries.

To answer the first, most pressing question: Why would I post such an obscene video on a God-blog? Why promote porn and/or subject viewers to such a provocative show of skin?

This is the point: This kind of a video is no longer provocative or even obscene. This is tame, and commonplace. The above stats back it up. Porn is mainstream. Admittedly, if I knew that my parents monitored my blog on a regular basis I would probably not have posted the video. They raised me in a very conservative and isolated Christian environment.

Here are two statlines from familysafemedia.com:
53% of Promise Keeper men viewed pornography in last week
47% of Christians said pornography is a major problem in the home

Porn is the norm. It may be little talked about in many Christian circles, and as a result it is one of those things that I would argue most Christian men struggle with in secret. Ashamed of what happens in the dark.

Interestingly enough, this post comes on the heels of Jerry Falwell's death. Falwell represents the effort to win the culture back for righteousness. But this is a new and weird world. What other culture in the whole of human history has had such widespread access to pornography? All social groups, from the least to the greatest, have instant access to instant gratification. Anything you want, at your fingertips.

We have no template for this. There is no handbook.

I recently asked my high school small group what is wrong with cyber sex? After all, I argued in the form of the devil's advocate, one can experience sex these days with a cartoon image or anime video. So, what "wrong" has been committed? This is an ethical question. This is a moral question. What is the harm with virtual sexuality? Is it addiction? If so, then what if the "addictive line" is never crossed? Clearly the majority of men are into internet porn, and our society seems to be getting along allright. Or are we on the road to Sodom and Gomorrah?

From an ethical and moral perspective I think cyber porn necessitates a Christian exploring the effects of porn on the human being and upon the soul. This is a deep existential and spiritual questioning. The Law and the Prophets do not address virtual sins, but they must be discussed by the 21st century women and men of faith or it will continue to be a taboo issue that is part of a life of secret shame for the majority of church goers.

And what about the non-believing culture? Here the issue isn't even one of shame. It is simply common place. We tell "the world" that cyber sex is wrong. Why? On what basis? Nobody is getting hurt, right? And we can't find any Bible verses.

It is a new and weird world. I would argue that we now make the majority of our most important ethical and moral decisions in the virtual world and in a fantasy land. But, then again, maybe that's the way it has always been, and only now do we have the technological capabilities to truly bring it into realization. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has been replaced by a screen and by so many cascading images and sounds.

The Tears of the Oppressed

I was rather impressed with the perspective of Reade W. Seligmann, one of the Duke Lacrosse players who was cleared of recent charges:

At an emotional news conference of their own on Wednesday, the three former teammates, flanked by defense lawyers and families, spoke of relief and vindication, but also of their lingering anger toward Mr. Nifong and many in the news media for what they described as a rush to believe the worst about them.

“This entire experience has opened my eyes up to a tragic world of injustice I never knew existed,” Mr. Seligmann said. “If police officers and a district attorney can systematically railroad us with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I can’t imagine what they’d do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves. So rather than relying on disparaging stereotypes and creating political and racial conflicts, all of us need to take a step back from this case and learn from it.

“The Duke lacrosse case has shown that our society has lost sight of the most fundamental principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence.”

[taken from nytimes.com]

Why was I impressed with Mr. Seligmann? Instead of simply whining about how he had got a raw deal, something, no doubt that I would have done quite a bit of if I had been in his position, he spoke from the heart and spoke to the gross injustice that occurs in our world everyday. Mr. Seligmann is practicing what we have been discussing recently on this blog: Listening to the voices of those who will never be heard.

Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed — and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors — and they have no comforter. Ecclesiastes 4

Of course, we don't have time for justice. We don't have time to contemplate the ramifications of injustice or this case or the tears of the oppressed.....we are already moving on to the next news story or the next celebrity screw up or the next big game or the next tv show or the next installment of Ocean's Eleven or the next hurdle in my life or the next big headline.......

Welcome to hyper-culture, baby. There's no time for the tears of the oppressed.

Good for goodness sake???

John left this comment over at the post on Ethical Egotism:

The non-Christians are self-centered, as are many of the self-proclaimed Christians. So does the circle of the elect gets smaller? Alternatively, if the non-Christian follows a Christian ethic without expecting to receive any of the promised benefits (eternal life being the big one, no doubt about it), then is this non-Christian less self-centered than the Christian? I know, I know, it's pride and the desire to achieve righteousness on your own. So say this non-Christian isn't even laying any claims to righteousness -- just doing the right thing because it's right.

Here's my response. I'm making it a new post because we are entering the territory where theology and sanctification intersect:

Interestingly enough, John, I think we are now entering Derridean territory. Specifically, I'm thinking of his philosophy of the Gift and Forgiveness (something we recently blogged on a bit here.)

Derrida claims the impossibility of purely giving a gift or of pure forgiveness. Pure forgiveness would only be possible for something that is truly unforgivable. With the Gift (and correct me if you see things otherwise) you always have some kind of economy of exchange at work whereby you always receive something in return in some way.

If we apply this to the Good do we have a similar philosophy?

Like you I initially think it is possible for someone to do a good thing simply for the sake of doing good. But is there something like an economy of goodness at work? Is doing a good thing similar to giving a gift? Often the two are synonymous, particularly when the good thing we are doing is an act of goodness for someone else.

Is there a "pure good work" that can be done? Is there something good we can do without engaging in some sort of economy of goodness? Can I really give money to someone or care for the poor/sick or selflessly do a good thing? This seems to me to be very closely related to the gift because "doing good" is so often a giving of ourselves in some way. In fact, can we conceive of good deeds that do not involve some sort of giving of.

Now, if we are going this direction it completely blows open Christian theology. Because on this construction the believer would probably be even more susceptible to being involved in an economy of goodness than would be the non-believer. Why? Because for the believer there is a much higher expectation of goodness. We build many sanctification theologies around the theory that as believers we should be better than we were before. But what if life doesn’t pan out that way? In Christian communities (particularly conservatives – believe me I know these kinds of circles like the back of my hand) there are also areas of sin and temptation that are unspeakable. In other words, there are “sins” and then there are “really bad sins.” No one may actually use this terminology, but it is present in the culture of the church.

Moreland on Ethical Egotism

A brief blog by J.P. Moreland on ethical egotism. (Click on the picture of the people in hell to get to it.) JP starts out as follows:

As a matter of commonsense, must people recognize that if one does his/her moral dusty solely because of self-interest, then one has not really done one’s duty.

Fair enough.

To count as my moral duty, I must do an act at least in part because it is the right thing to do.

Yep. That's what we usually think. But what does that have to do with the Bible? Oh, ok here it is:

Some claim that the Bible, with its emphasis on avoiding hell and going to heaven and on securing eternal rewards for life on earth, implicitly affirms egotism as an appropriate moral standard for action. This is supposed to count as an argument against Christianity since, granting the inadequacy of ethical egotism, Christianity implies an incorrect moral theory. What should we make of this claim? It is clear that legitimate self-interest is part of Biblical teaching. But does this mean that Scripture implies egotism as a moral theory?

Moreland is a Christian philosopher and apologist. That's his thing. So, that's what his concern will be in regard to ethical egotism. As such, he seeks to defend Scripture against accusations of egotism.

Towards an answer to this charge, we need to distinguish between achieving what is in my self- interest as a by-product of an act vs. self-interest as the sole intent of an act....This observation relates to a second distinction between a motive and a reason.

Ah, a distinction! We have "motives" and "reasons". How does this work? J.P. cites Exodus 20:12

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.”

In other words, the "long life in the land" promise is not the sole intent for honoring your father and your mother. Rather, it is the by-product of honoring. Live-long-and-prosper (I pause to raise my hand and divide my fingers in tribute to Mr. Spock) is not the motive for honoring. No. It is merely the reason for honoring. See the distinction?

Moreland sums it up:
Moreover, even if Scripture is teaching that self-interest is a reason for doing some duty, it may be offering self-interest as a prudential and not a moral reason for doing the duty. In other words, the Bible may be saying that it is wise, reasonable, and a matter of good judgment to avoid hell and seek rewards without claiming that these considerations are moral reasons for acting according to self-interest. In sum, it could be argued that Scripture can be understood as advocating self-interest as a by-product and not an intent for action, as a motive and not a reason, or as a prudential and not a moral reason. If this is so, then these Scriptural ideas do not entail ethical egoism.

A good argument.

I see at least two problems:

First problem: Is this even being true to the language and intention of the text? In normal conversation if someone says to me, "Give to the poor that you might feel good about yourself" there is a conditional statement being made: Do one thing so that another thing will follow. There is an implicit motive that will determine the action. I just wonder about whether JP's suggestion fits normal language use.

Second problem: Are not motives and results intertwined? Are we not motivated by the reasons that we do things? Are not our "interests" specifically directed at the "by-product"? In other words, these neat dichotomies break down in real life. As we live life we do not normally think to ourselves, "I am going to do this action for a specific reason....but I will not be motivated by that reason." Is it even desirable to fragment ourselves in this way? Which leads to my third problem (a bonus problem)...

Third problem: Is it realistic to suggest that egotism is such a bad thing? And what is so bad about mixed motives? Isn't it a fact of life? A part of the world?

This is not a world of pure motivations and anyone who would say otherwise is probably a bit confused. Egoism, I would argue, is a necessary-evil in moral theory. At times we are self-interested, and rightly so - and yet we must often fight egoism at every turn. But how this all pans out is contextual. What is an appropriate response is context driven. For example, why do people become Christians? I would argue that in the majority of situations we can locate egotism at work: We want to be forgiven our sins, to experience the peace of God, to be rational/reasonable, to escape judgment of hell, to be morally right with God, etc. Any one of these might be good reasons as well as simultaneously being slightly tainted motivations. I would suggest that it is over the passage of time (again, contextual) that the true believer maintains and grows in faith, and learns to personally understand when egotism should be acted on or when it is an evil self-infatuation.

In short, I think Moreland's distinction is helpful, but I would argue that in real life we must live with an understanding that the dichotomy breaks down quite regularly and "motivations" blend together with "reasons" and vica-versa.

Did God plan evil?

What did God do sans time?

Why do we say "sans" time? Because to say "before" time implies that there was time before time. So, we say "sans" time to try to be a bit more accurate, although it is difficult for our minds not to think in terms of a linear time frame.

What did God sit around thinking about? What went through his mind? What was God kicking around in his thoughts? Did things actually "go through" God's mind? Probably not, since when we think we think one thought after the other after the other after the other, etc. So, we think in time and through time. We require moments to build arguments. But, of course, if God is existing "sans" time, then he wasn't really "kicking" anything around....But we'll go with it just for sake of an interesting discussion...

We know that God was planning what he was going to do with all of creation. He was getting ready to create something. According to Scripture the plan of salvation was a part of this creation. Of course, this gets sticky because if God is planning to save then he must have also planned for a failure from which to save us from. We know from a few thousand or so years of history that this failure has to do with the moral condition: Evil exists in the world. So, the reasonable conclusion is that God was planning evil sans time.

Did God have to plan evil? Or is evil a necessary aspect of a finite creation?

One solution to this is to say that God didn't "create" evil, rather he granted human kind free will. Humanity used their free will for evil and consequently we've got bad things to deal with.

Fair enough. I respect that position, but I don't agree with it. I'll spare you the reasons.

Let's take another route to answering our question. What if good and evil are not really two separate entities? For some us this might sound absurd at first thought. In western philosophy and thinking we draw sharp dichotomies and make distinctions. Good is the opposite of evil. Evil is the opposite of good. Something is either good or it is evil. It cannot be both. Classical western logic systems usually have some basic and fundamental laws: the Law of Non-Contradiction, Law of the Excluded Middle, etc. Something cannot be both A and non-A. We generally apply the same reasoning rule of thumb to morality: Either good or evil.

What if there is a closer connection between the two? That good cannot exist without evil or that evil cannot exist without good. That they are co-dependent in some sense.

How does good take on meaning without evil? And how does evil take on meaning without good. They feed off of each other. Those who feel most strongly about fighting evil are usually those who feel most strongly about the good. If you experience evil in a profound way you will typically have a more profound appreciation for the good. In this sense they certainly compliment each other, while simultaneously oppossing each other.

So, if God is to plan good he also simultaneously plans evil. To instantiate a world with morality necessitates the potential for both good and evil as it will occur in space-time.

This is not really an apologetic....well, maybe it is to some extent...but primarily I am interested in exploring the nature of good and evil and whether there is a closer connection than previously thought.

Shopping for answers

I worked at a CPA firm a few years back as a lowly staff accountant. Another lowly staff accountant got himself in trouble once. He had talked to a partner regarding a particularly unclear and vague accounting issue, and he really didn't like the answer he received. So, what did he do? Well, he went and found himself another partner. Eventually his little scheme was discovered by all and he was the brunt of not a few jokes.

Kids. The case study of kids is that if one parent tells them "NO" they go to the other parent and plead their case. Usually they have learned a thing or two from the first go-round and so the little rug rats do a much better sell job when they talk to the next parent.

There is an ethical point here. How do we as human beings decide that certain things are right and wrong? Are we predisposed to thinking that certain things are right or that certain things are wrong? And do we take our instincts and just build on them?

Perhaps we determine our moral standards in a similar way as lowly staff accountants or as kids: We shop for answers. Which religion agrees with me the most? Which god fits into my lifestyle? The world is getting smaller and smaller, and the more time that passes the more pluralistic our societies are becoming. This means there are more worldview choices out there to pick from. This make things all the more condusive to going out and choosing your beliefs from a myriad of good looking choices. In fact, I think things are moving more to the point where we don't sell our souls to a particular religion, but rather we pick and choose the better beliefs that belong to each system. We don't like to be sold out to a "system" - much better to be open minded and evaluate each belief on its own merit. Best to decide each issue on its own.

That brings us back around to shopping for answers. The "shopping for answers" approach to right and wrong fits well within a commercialized market economy. We are the consumer and if a religion wants our time, money and devotion, it oughta' make a good sell job. Hence, the focus of most religious sales pitches these days is not to sell a belief system, but to push the other goodies: community, connection, activities, social functions, programs, etc.

Are there any real "truth seekers" out there? Is there anyone with a pure love for what is morally right? Or do we all just pretty much walk in step with the groups that confirm our inclinations? Groups that make us comfortable with who we think we are and what we think is right and wrong?

War mongering

If you are interested on some of my current thoughts on the war in Iraq or if you want to join an interesting discussion between someone who supports the war (myself) and someone who, well, doesn't support it all that much here is a link:
http://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/the-combination-is-lethal/
(And, yes, we are all playing nice. It is a civil discussion....at least so far...)

War - What is it good for?

The war in Iraq.

The nation is polarized into two camps: Pro-war and Anti-war. Should we continue the war in Iraq and maintain a presence or should we pull out? If we continue should we escalate? If we pull out how soon should we leave? But the heart of the question just might go to the justness of the war: Is it a just war or is it an unjust war?

What is a "just war"? This is a moral statement. It is about right and wrong. In a given situation if a nation has the "right" reasons to go to war then the war is just. I guess a good example of this is if some bully nation decides to pick on you and wants to take your land, your women and all your stuff. You defend yourself and fight back. Bingo! You have all the right reasons. Hence you have a just war. We might even say that you have a righteous war.

But that's for a nation on the defensive. Are there just reasons to go on the offensive and take the initiative for war? In World War II the Japanese bombed the bageezees out of us at Pearl Harbor. So, we declare war and send some of our boys over to the French beaches. That seems like another rather simple scenario. The US was threatened by the Axis alliance so they threw their lot in with Brittain & Co. and kept Europe from becoming a German speaking continent. Simple, right. Well, it is only simple if the simple scenario holds. If things are really that clear cut then the moral choice is certainly easier. But the question always centers on whether or not things are as they seem because there are things that we are told and there are things that are actually happening.

Here's the difference: The government puts out their story on why they are going to war. 10 times out of 10 the story they put out is a pretty good one. It inspires us to a greater good. It moves us to action. We want to fight because we want to make the world a better place. Average Johnny American will go to war and support a war if it is for a higher calling. We can endure a great deal of suffering, pain, and sacrifice if we are doing it to protect our families or to set someone free or for the greater glory of God, etc. So, a nations leadership has a vested interest in inspiring its people for the greater good. That's what they are going to sell. The question is this: Are they selling the real deal?

The information we receive is filtered. I listen to Rush Limbaugh. He's funny and, by and large, we share the same point of view. I know my info. is going to be filtered, so why not get it filtered through someone I like and agree with? You like the New York Times - fine. You just choose a different filter. But we both probably try to get our news from a variety of sources just to try to get the whole picture. But that's the question: Can we ever really get the whole picture??? How do we ever know if our nation's motives in going to war are just? How do we know that our leadership is pure as the wind driven snow? Unspotted and untainted by evil? Isn't there always things going on behind the scenes? Aren't there always invisible hands moving and manipulating events? Do we ever know the full story? Do we ever see all the cards?

Here's the point: We can conceive of a just war. We can talk theoretically of the right reasons to fight. However, it seems to me that a realistic person will acknowledge that a just war is really only a theory. There may be some completely just wars throughout human history, and there may be some completely unjust wars. But most wars seem to be some sort of mixture of the two - some good motivations and some bad. Some just reasons and some unjust reasons. Most war seems to fall between the two extremes of "righteous" and "unrighteous."

So, what do we know about Iraq? Well, by this point you probably know most of what I know, and I know most of what you know. Is it just, unjust, or somewhere in between? Well, as you probably can imagine by now I think it is somewhere in the middle. Where it falls exactly is what we debate. How do we debate? Well, we take the facts. We do our homework. But where do we get our facts? We choose our filters wisely. Do we ever know the whole story? Probably not. But the Johnny and Janie Americans do the best we can with the information we have. And then we hash things out at the coffee shops, in the classrooms, and on the blogs.

War.

What is it good for?

Good question. Let's talk.

Can we make others be good without God?

Yesterday I asked "Do we need God to be good?" I and others seemed to form a general conclusion that, "yes" we can be good without God, and that we can even be good without reference to a universal moral law. For example, why do I need a universal moral law to tell me that I shouldn't take things that don't belong to me? Or that it is wrong to kill someone for no good reason? This discussion deals with motivation. And I don't know that I need God or a moral law to motivate me to do some of these basic good things and to avoid doing other basically bad things.

But the discussion of my personal motivation for "playing nice" with others quickly becomes a discussion of how we get others to play nice with us. Consider this paraphrase of Kant's famous Categorical Imperative: Only do those things that, at the same time, you would will to become a universal moral law. There are striking similarities here with the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

But what if someone rejects these very basic rules? What if someone decides that it is ok for them to kill someone for no good reason? Or what if they decide it really isn't wrong to take other people's stuff? There are those who reject the Golden Rule, and society must punish these reprobates. After all, to not address these people would risk complete societal collapse. How could someone open a fruit stand and sell produce if people were allowed to steal apples whenever they wanted with no consequences???

Ok, fine. So, we need to punish those who steal apples and kill for no good reason. That's clear enough, and it seems rather obvious and self-evident. But as soon as we start to impose a punishment on people who steal we are also, at the same time, imposing our idea of right and wrong. And if a society imposes their idea of right and wrong on someone else they are imposing a moral law that applies universally. In other words, if we punish the apple thief then the statement "Stealing apples is wrong" applies to more than just ourselves. We might not reference a universal moral law, but we are putting it into action, and it would be disingenuous to say that we don't believe in a universal, moral law if we are imposing our sense of morality on others.

The alternative to this, of course, is to simply say that "might makes right." In this case, we simply acknowledge that whoever has the power to enforce their moral standards is the one who is right. To return to our example of the apple thief we might say to him, "Sucks to be you", i.e. since we are in control of enforcing the rules we get to make them and it is too bad if you don't agree. But this opens the door for some rather difficult scenarios. For example, was Stalin right just because he had the muscle to enforce his ideas? Is it ok to send a particular race to the gas chambers just because we've got the power and we don't like them? These scenarios beg for a recourse for the minority. The excluded groups must have a higher moral standard to appeal to: A standard that transcends the ideas of the group in power. At some point we sympathize with an oppressed minority that cries out for justice. Ah, but what is justice??? Is it not some appeal to a higher standard?

Do we need God to be good???

There was an interesting discussion over at Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog that spilled over to Ktismatics. It was a discussion on God and being good. Here is the link:
http://ktismatics.wordpress.com/2006/12/23/ivan-are-you-okay/

From VanSkaamper the Theist:
My point, however, was that without that Creator as the locus of an objective morality, your sense of good is only your own…mine is mine, and Stalin’s is Stalin’s…and they’re all equally valid. If Stalin thinks it’s better for his group to kill your group, you really have no means to argue with him about it. Your sense of good, the value that you ascribe to “a positive outcome for the group at large” is subjective, not objective. Stalin’s value of himself and his power at the expense of you and your group is equally subjective, and equally valid. Bang, you’re dead, and there’s no objective right or wrong about it.

My point, Ivan, is that while I agree with and affirm your desire for world peace, global harmony, etc., atheism provides no means to objectively affirm and advocate such a morality. The reason why Neitzche is your prophet is that he saw this clearly, and the will to power (i.e., might makes right) is what will determine what’s valuable in a world without God, nothing else, no matter how we try to package or rationalize it.

From Ivan the Atheist:
Van, we have wars now about whose invisible friend is the biggest? The insanity of religion drives decent men to achieve great evil. History is replete with the murderous terrorism of the Inquisitions, The slaughter of the Mayans, The industrial slaughter of Jews. etc etc. All in the name of one God or another. I see that science has provided the world with a new enlightment a new quality a new hope that only comes from abundant food and energy. We argue on here because you have a protein full stomach, a warm room and a computer to type. All the benefits of living in a scientific age. I don’t want to go all star trekky on you, but eventually, if world religions were to be phased out, my suspicion is humanity may have a fighting chance of losing barbarism to its history. We might even live for the day, we might even smile more and live that little bit better knowing that the eternal rewards are right here not some enthral notion of afterlife. We just disagree.




Here is my quick thought:

If we want to be good, then we should be good for goodness sake. There is no pragmatic need to affirm God for sake of morality. If living a good life is the goal, then goodness should be lived for its own sake. If virtue and goodness is an end in and of itself then there is no need to posit "god" or "gods" in order to achieve it. Don't wait for a theoretical reason just live for the pursuit and establishment of goodness. To borrow the Nike phrase, "Just Do It"!

Not only do you not need a god to be good, but you don't even need a higher moral law - at least as far as I can see. Just live for goodness as it plays out in everyday life. When you have the opportunity to help an old lady across the street, don't wait for a higher moral law that tells you it is good - just do it! And do you really need to be told that it is wrong to kill someone for no good reason?? Do you really need to be told that it isn't right to take someone else's stuff if it doesn't belong to you?

But then we have a new question: There may not be any pragmatic ground for being good, but what are the best theoretical grounds for morality? A moral law and a moral law giver would be the best, as far as I can see. But talking about "best" or "better" grounds is really only a discussion of probability. And just because something is probable does not mean that it is true. In a similar way just because something is improbable does not necessitate that it is untrue.

This brings us full circle to the question: Do we need God to be good?