Here is another hypothetical class on ethics which I did as a Philosophy assignment
Christian Ethics in Today’s World
Dr. Norman Geisler defines ethics as, “the study of what is right and what is wrong”[1] . Essentially, in ethics we are attempting to determine what is good. This becomes critical in our day and age, as our pluralistic society has many varying opinions on abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and assisted suicide. Most often people take varying positions on these topics based upon varying underlying presuppositions. Very rarely are these presuppositions discussed in the open and opposing parties end up going head on creating more heat than light. First we must examine the definition of good.
Language in our culture is becoming increasingly meaningless as we discard the notion that words ought to represent specific abstract principles or concepts. Therefore, initially it may seem as if we are splitting hairs by defining what good is, but ultimately we will conclude that the Christian concept of good is the one that accounts for the motioning within our souls toward righteousness and justice. The Greek philosopher Thrasymachus held to the concept that “justice is the interest of the stronger party”[2]. In other words, might makes right. Those who hold to a naturalistic worldview may throw up their hands at this point and exclaim, “the winning party decides how things are to be and that’s all there is to morality!” If we briefly observe history we notice the winners do not make the rules. However, ethics deal with the issue of how things ought to be not how they are.
Adolf Hitler imposed his form of morality upon the European nations he conquered, but the allies fought against him and won upon the conviction that the way he ran the show is not how things ought to be. Hitler had to justify his position on morality to his population through manipulative propaganda because even those under him needed a reason why things ought to be that way. By observing this we see that the human sense of ethics goes deeper than the picture often presented of various cultures as mere biological and environmental stimuli resulting in a world that is simply dominated by the winner. Our striving for “the good” is an internal striving for something morally objective, just as science is an expression of our want of objective knowledge. The fact that we may never attain perfection or all agree on such topics does not prove that these attempts are futile; we must find the basis of such unavoidable concepts in our minds. From a practical standpoint on the attempts of ethics to find the objective good we will consider an armed attack. Imagine you are held at gunpoint by a crazed mad-man. What would you say to him? Most of us would reason with him as to what would be a good decision (not pulling the trigger) in hopes that his conscience would stop him. In fact, hostage negotiators make their livings off appealing to the human conscience.
Along with the discounted view that human might makes right we can also ignore ethical views which place societies, personal pleasures, or humanity as a whole as the source of ethics. Such views would render it impossible to judge how an individual, society, or humanity ought to act. Therefore, if we truly look at our motioning towards good we must find a transcendent source. This topic can be investigated more in-depth, which goes beyond the scope of this discussion. To summarize that thought: the only source that can justify our concept of “good” or “ought” is the God of the Bible. Because the concept of good comes from a spiritual source, as God is Spirit[3] (Jn 4:24) good cannot be defined in terms of its occasional effects such as feelings, pleasure, or communal code. Rather it is good in and of itself and is known intuitively through the conscience. However, since we are fallen and alienated from God (the source of good) we need assistance in clarifying this idea in our heads which have a darkened reasoning (Rom 1:21). Therefore, God has given us written commandments expressed as the Law throughout the Old and New Testaments. Here we find the reason why the good seems so elusive to man in all his strivings throughout history, because he already failed at the “ought” in the Garden of Eden (Gen 3). The Bible is the story of fallen man’s moral failings and the redemption that is given through Jesus Christ because of those failings. Far from abolishing God’s Law, Jesus came to fulfill it (Mt 5:17). How then do we build an ethical system off such a worldview in contrast to what other worldviews say?
Most ethical systems today operate off some form of utilitarianism. In other words, what is good is what works. Again though, we run into the example of Nazi Germany as it was a society that “worked”, but that is considered evil. With this in mind utility seems to be separate from what is good. As Christians we recognize that the two great commandments which sum up the 10 Commandments are to love God with everything in us and to love our neighbors as ourselves. What this means in its entirety is a whole other class, but roughly it means we love the source of good which causes us to be good relationally. It is upon this foundation that those who are redeemed and can therefore love God can move forward with ethical decisions knowing that they will never achieve perfection in this life yet. It is from the Bible that we truly understand how these commandments specifically break down and must be our guide as we apply Christian ethics into our context today.
One example we can see today is the debate over abortion. Very rarely will you find those of the pro-choice persuasion publicly claim that abortion should happen whenever a woman wants. Most pro-choice activists will point towards extreme situations such as rape, and the potential death of the mother, as cases which call for the legal option of abortion. It is interesting to note that even here we have a case where the pro-choice advocates are trying to make a reasoned case to the conscience to persuade those of undecided or opposing viewpoints. This is further evidence for the objective reality of right in wrong within the human mind. However, due to our darkened, self-absorbed minds we are easily deceived by false argumentation[4] especially those which encourage our sin. It must be shown then that the pro-choice advocate’s appeal to the conscience is faulty in its underlying presuppositions and is not a moral argument, but a utilitarian one.
As I stated at the opening of this class, what we have in our society today is a culture war where people butt heads over issues such as abortion without bringing to the table their underlying presuppositions and opening them up to examination. This is normally to the Christian or the conservative’s disadvantage because as they agree that there is a neutral meeting ground between them and the secularist or liberal, they are actually conceding to and giving ground to their biased presuppositions which are definitely there. This normally leads to the demise of the Christian or conservative’s case in most peoples eyes today as they have been indoctrinated by the media and education system to simply accept the secular humanist worldview that is propagated through them. So with an issue such as abortion we need to recognize they are appealing to the conscience through an “ethical” argument, and confront them there. How do we know what is right and what is wrong? Just as I have demonstrated briefly in this essay, absolute moral truth can only have its basis in a transcendent reality which should cause us to appeal to that, not to our feelings, economic situation, or whatever will work out best for us. However, your pro-choice friend that you are debating may immediately protest that appeals to the Bible are to take a religiously biased stance, one which is unacceptable in our “secular” society. It must be shown that even secularism is a religious stance, because it claims that either there is no God to listen to in the affairs of our society, or that what He says is irrelevant to how we live our lives. We are not concerned with what appears to be fair, but what is right and true.
However, we can even demonstrate through general revelation without appealing to the Bible that abortion immoral. First of all, who is to say that a human embryo is not a human? How many organs must you have, what state of consciousness must you be in, IQ points must you score, or your age be in order to be considered human? Shall those responsible for the disabled, maimed, retarded, mentally ill, or elderly have the authority to kill them? Are these people not humans and worthy of dignity? The question of what makes a human, a human, was asked by philosophers for centuries. This is because of the fact that we all have the concept of an ideal human who is in tact and fully functional, yet we still consider an amputee to be human. Aristotle would logically infer that a human embryo has the potential to be a human like me and you, and therefore it is a human. The only thing that separates it from you and me is time and the right conditions. Therefore, it can be argued that we should give it time and those conditions lest we be guilty of murder. Once we change our focus as a society from how things ought to be to what we prefer or think would be best for us, we open up a Pandora’s box of possible unethical behaviors that can be accepted on the basis that they help us to self-actualize our personal ambitions and desires. Therefore in instances of rape, the same principle that say the rapist ought not to have raped the woman, also says that the woman ought not to kill the life growing within her. However, we must also strive to fulfill the law of love when dealing with such situations and as a society put our efforts into caring for, supporting, and being compassionate and understanding to such women. In instances of a dangerous pregnancy our stance should be that the doctor should do all that he can to save both lives, but if the child dies in the process then we weep over it.
There is much more we can say on this topic, and I encourage you to study and understand such debates from a Christian worldview so that you can better understand your position when dealing with your non-Christian friends. You also want to understand the worldview your opponents are coming from so that you can better point out their underlying assumptions to them (in love of course), and more effectively communicate and dialogue with them.
