 |
"Worldview training for all the World" ........ Psalm 50:12 Premier Worldview® Center 800-948-3101 |
|
|
| |
"Worldview training for all the World" ........ Psalm 50:12 Premier Worldview® Center 800-948-3101 |
|
|
Position Paper- PEERS Q25By: Dr. Marc Clausen 05/18/2002 Position Paper- PEERS Q25 By: Dr. Marc Clausen 05/18/2002 "Individuals should be allowed to conduct life as they choose as long as it does not interfere with the lives of others." 1. Analysis of the Question 1.1 This question concerns ethics, the study and practice of right and wrong behavior and motivations. The question essentially asserts that individuals should be allowed by civil law or by convention (even if civil law disallows) to do and say what they wish without sanction or disapproval. The one condition here is that individuals' actions or words not have "unintended consequences" for others who are not consenting parties to the action or words. 1.2 When the question refers to "conduct," it means both actions and words, since words are treated as equivalent to actions in law in certain instances. Nevertheless, most readers would likely take the question to refer primarily to actions. 1.3 The question advocates in the form of an assertion, the ethical positions of both hedonism (or Naturalism) and relativism. Hedonism (technically egoistic hedonism) is defined as the seeking of pleasure for the benefit of the seeking individual alone. Sometimes it is also called Utilitarianism, but this is only a modern label for a similar idea (Utilitarians do go beyond individual ethics). Relativism takes several forms. Sometimes it means that what is "good" or "bad" for one is not for another. It is also a denial that there is some objective standard of ethics. Thus, one is free to choose whatever makes him or her "feel" more pleasure or less pain, apart from others' perceived well-being. In short, the individual seeks pleasure as his or her highest goal (or less pain) and does so without belief in transcendent ethical norm. The question asserts that both the former and the latter are good. 1.4 But the question does not posit an unlimited hedonism. It stops short by adding a qualification that this hedonism and relativism are good to the point at which pain (cost in economic terms) will be inflicted on someone else or other people. This represents a modified form of hedonism, which has been a topic for discussion for ethics since hedonism was first written about in ancient times (to note, hedonism is a distinctively Greek ethical idea in its origin; it has no basis in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament literature). 1.5 This assertion is also sometimes made by those on the "conservative" side of the spectrum. Those who call themselves "libertarians" and are consistent, advocate an essentially hedonistic position with respect to ethics, though not completely relativistic. Libertarians are in general "economic conservatives" and "social liberals." That is, they favor very little or no government intervention in any area of life, even the moral or ethical realm, so long as there are no negative external effects. Thus the question here may also apply to that specific movement's system of thought, even though at first glance it might seem to apply only to those we would label as "liberals." 1.6 We should note that this question reflects a common popular conception among many people that what they do "privately" will in fact have no effect on others who are not directly involved in the action. In fact, many speak of purely private activities in which no other person is involved except the hedonist. Private actions are commonly believed to have no "external" effects to speak of. Whether this conception has a basis in reality remains to be seen below. Even so, we must still consider that, if God exists and if He is the God of the Christian Bible, is it still possible to say that "no one" is in any way "affected" by a hedonist act? It will be possible at least to speak of a God who has established a standard of law, the violation of which would offend against that law regardless of whether any human person was affected. In other words, will an external, objective standard negate hedonism/utilitarianism? 1.7 Finally, the problem of "subjective guilt" must be raised here, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the question. Implied by the question is that a supposedly private act can and even ought to be done without fear of guilt as a result (so the egoistic hedonist would say). Evidence however suggests that guilt very often follows even the most private actions. We will address this issue in greater detail below. 2. Supporting Scripture Passages 2.1 The best cluster of passages dealing with this issue is that dealing with David's sins related in the Old Testament (2 Samuel 11, Psalm 51). 2.2 David and his sins (2 Samuel 11, Psalm 51) 2.2.1 2 Samuel 11: See full passage in Scriptures Comment: Here is related the full report of David the King of Israel's multiple actions in connection with his "affair' with Bathsheba. David's act of adultery (defined as sexual relations with another person by one who is already married; the fine distinction between this act and "fornication" is that neither the fornicator nor the other person are married) was certainly (apparently) consensual and in private, that is, only between the two consenting adults. Yet, curiously, the ramifications of this single act went far beyond the act itself. First, it led David to engage in further sin: murder, lying. Second, it "offended against God"s holy Law," a fact overlooked by many hedonists who deny or ignore an objective external standard of ethics or morals. David himself admitted this in Psalm 51 (see below). Third, the series of sins, beginning with the "private" act led to the eventual downfall of the Kingdom of Israel as well as much internal strife and even the death of David's son. Clearly, we see in this example that one's supposedly morally neutral act was not in fact neutral at all. At two levels, a significant problem arose: (1) the effects of the act on others (e. g. the murder of Uriah) and (2) the fact of objective sin against a Holy God, also leading to serious consequences. Psalm 51: 3-4 (but also the entire Psalm): "For I know my transgression, and my sin is ever before me, against You, You only, I have sinned, and done what is evil in Your sight, so that You are justified when you speak [=judge], and blameless when You judge." Comment: The context of this passage is David's sins mentioned above. Even though he initially perpetrated an essentially private act, which had no social consequences, David felt or sensed guilt. Now the guilt in this part of the Psalm must be distinguished from "legal guilt" which we will address below. Here we are dealing with David's subjective sense that he had sinned against God, as distinguished from the actual question of whether he had in fact sinned (which, according to Scripture, he had). The actual fact of sin had led to the actual sense of guilt. The fact of sin plays a crucial role here, since the hedonist sees a much smaller sphere for sin, restricting it to acts with external consequences. Scripture however defines sin according to the standard of itself. At any rate, David here feels subjective guilt and this itself is also a consequence of actions supposedly private. Moreover, David also recognizes the objective dimension of his act as sin, when he states, "against You, You only, I have sinned." By God's standard, David had also sinned against others, even when he believed that the act of adultery was private, but he recognizes that he has primarily and ultimately violated God's standard for moral action. Clearly, according to Scripture one may not conduct their lives as they choose, not only because there are always consequences for others (as well as the actor) but also because every act of sin violates the absolute standard of God's Law, established for the good of men and flowing from God's absolute perfection. 2.3 New Testament passages 2.3.1 General Note: Nowhere in the New Testament (or the Old Testament) do we find a statement to the effect that ethics or morals are relative. To be sure, all ethical or moral commands must be applied to a specific situation in time, but this is not the same thing as relativism, which would assert that the command itself (not just its meaning or application) is optional and subjective (that is, specific only to the person and not universally binding). But we must add that the application of Biblical ethics and morals is to be considered in relation both to non-believers and to believers. Certainly, Biblical ethics with respect to actions ought to apply equally to non-Christians, but such ethical commands cannot do more than restrain outward behavior. On the other hand, for the believer, Biblical ethics ought to flow out of one's new relation of justification to God . 2.3.2 The New Testament basis of personal ethics comes primarily from the following passages: a. 1 Corinthians 9: 21, referring to believers, "...not being without the Law of God but under the Law of Christ...." Comment: The OT Law is not abolished, but is 'established' by Jesus Christ and explained perfectly by him (see also Romans 3: 31) "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.") b. Matthew 22: 34-40: The two "Great Commandments": (1) love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and (2) love your neighbor as yourself (see also Mark 12: 30f, John 13: 34). Comment: These two commands become the formal basis of New Testament ethics, but they do not replace or supersede the OT Law. Rather, as the passage states, they "sum up" that Law (v. 40: "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."). In other words they are a summary of the Law. c. Romans 13: 8-10, particularly v. 10: "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." Comment: Here again, we can see that the love command, with reference to loving one's neighbor, is a summary of the OT Law. d. Matthew 5: 21-48: Read. Comment: In this passage, we can see that Jesus "deepened" and fully explained the true meaning of the Law of the Old Testament with respect to interpersonal relations. One sees that, as with the Old Testament, there is no relativism, but a set of objective and absolute standards, which are then to be applied by disciples of Jesus Christ properly. The main point in using this and the other passages is that both OT and NT use absolute standards for ethical behavior. It may appear that once application is made, they become somewhat relative, but one must not confuse application of an absolute (by proper deduction) with various alternative and conflicting standards relating to the same ethical or moral issue. e. 2 John 6: "this is love, that we follow his commandments." Comment: This verse defines most clearly what it means to love one's neighbor (and God Himself). Love is not an amorphous and relative standard, but has an objective foundation in the Law of the Old Testament. Thus, it is not possible legitimately to interpret ethics or morality in terms of one's own subjective ideas. 3. Conclusions 3.1 To posit a relative ethical or moral standard is self-refuting, for to make such an absolute statement is to adopt an absolute as an ethical standard. 3.2 It is not true that ethical and moral standards are in any way relative if one adopts Scripture as his or her source of ethics and morality. It should be added that every person does have a moral and ethical standard at any rate, and in many instances individuals will extend their own standard to others, even while professing to be relativistic in approach. 3.3 The ultimate source of ethics and morality, the standard which is external to the individual, is objective, and is absolute, is the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, properly interpreted (objectively) and properly applied to individual cases. 3.4 As one writer has put it, "It is not possible to separate off any 'private' or 'personal' aspect of an individual's life which does not involve relationships with other people and hence falls outside the basic principles" of Biblical ethics (Marshall, "Personal Ethics" in Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics, p. 505). The point is that one's actions will inevitably affect others and so there can, in reality, be no situation where ethical decisions of a single individual could be ignored as irrelevant (and thus relative). 3.5 Moreover, even if, theoretically, an individual's acts affected no one else-if they were so private that no other person was involved, even indirectly-they are still "open to God" and represent a violation of God's absolute standards (see Marshall, Ibid.). 3.6 In summary then, it is not legitimate as a Christian, to speak of relative ethics, for the several reasons elaborated above. Nevertheless, some may object in any event, asserting that they simply cannot agree to such a supposedly rigid system of ethics and morality. But such an objection cannot be made on logical grounds unless one rejects outright the veracity of the Scriptures (a position a Christian could not take even if he or she questioned some aspects of the Bible). Otherwise, the objection would be on irrational grounds, the objector wishing to excuse or justify his behavior and to be freed from external constraints to pursue his or her perceived summum bonum. 4. Bibliography (not exhaustive, but suggestive) Carl F. H. Henry, editor, Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Baker, 1973. John Macquarrie, editor, Dictionary of Christian Ethics. Westminster, 1967 William S. Sahakian, Ethics: An Introduction to Theories and Problems, 1967 William S. Sahakian, Systems of Ethics and Value Theory. Littlefield, Adams, 1964. Vernon J. Bourke, History of Ethics, 2 vols. Image, 1970 Carl F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics. Eerdmans, 1957 Patrick Fairbairn, The Revelation of Law in Scripture. T. & T. Clark, 1869 Gregory Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 1977
|