I'm taking an ethics course this semester, and I wanted to share what I've gotten from the class so far, as I think this is absolutely GREAT stuff. Then, you expert theologians out there can tell me how right, or more likely, how incredibly wrong I am.
What is "Right"? That's a question that we all have to answer before we can decide if any action is "right" or "wrong," be it abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, etc. But I want to point out that the very question is somewhat misleading. It's easy to try to answer that question by appealing to tests for "rightness." For example, we may say, "To follow God is right!" and then start trying to go right to Scripture to solve moral dilemmas. And then we get into the question of whether or not we have the "right" to push our morality, and we all know where that argument goes: nowhere.
Let me suggest that we need to revise our overall picture (at least, I had to revise my overall picture!
). These debates go on, not because we define "Right" differently, but because we have different reasoning about what makes something right in the first place. There are several schools of thought, I've found. For instance, is murder wrong because the action, in and of itself, is inherently wrong? If so, what would that mean that "wrong" is? Perhaps murder is wrong because because it violates another person's liberties, and thus causes harm to other people. In this case, "wrong" is defined as that which causes harm. But why is that principle, and not some other, overarching? Or maybe murder is only wrong because that local society has an implicit contract in which that particular behavior is rejected.What this points out is whether or not actions are "right" or "wrong" because they are:
a) inherently right or wrong,
b) right or wrong because of the consequences they produce,
c) right or wrong based only on culture values--thus, there is no standard of "right" or "wrong."
So what makes something right? If one person thinks something is right because it just is, and other thinks something is right because of the consequences it produces, and another thinks that something is right because the culture approves of it, then there will never be a solution to ANY debate, because they methods of reasoning are totally different, regardless of what your definition of "Right" is in the first place.
I'd like to submit that none of these are the right way to define "right" or "wrong." Actions are not inherently right or wrong (hear me out here!). For example, we might say that giving to the poor is "right," but what if someone does so only by force? Is that "right"? Something seems hollow about that. And we might say that lying is inherently "wrong," but what if someone breaks into my house with the intention of murdering my wife and asks me where she is? Is it "wrong" to lie then?
Second, actions are not right or wrong only based on the consequences they produce, although those consequences should be considered. For example, if Hitler had been aborted as a child, some six million Jews and countless others would have been saved. But would that justify his abortion? Likewise, the crucifixion of Jesus was the greatest good mankind ever experienced, but did that make what the Jews and Romans did a good thing? Of course not!
The third choice is obviously wrong. There are some universal morals, whether we want to admit it or not. Again, Hitler proves the case. As a culture, the Nazi's embraced the murder of Jews. If morals are relative to culture, we have no basis on which to say he was "wrong."
So what is the Christian to do?
I would suggest that we recognize the obvious fact that there are moral absolutes. This, then, necessitates the belief in a moral God. We then define Good as that which is consistent with that God's nature. "Good" or "Right" are defined, ontologically, as that which is in accordance with the nature of God. "Good" or "right" are known epistemologically, though, as that which is desired for its own sake. "Wrong" is likewise known as that which is desired out of perversion of a good.
We are then presented with an entirely different approach to the whole question. Rather than focusing only on the act (is this act right or wrong?), we are focusing on the ACTOR. If Good comes from God's nature, then God's nature can be known through these universal moral absolutes. We simply must list these absolutes, and we can call them "virtues." So we see that patience, kindness, gentleness, courage, generosity, chastity, fairness, and so many more such ideas are virtues. Murder, then, is not wrong because it is wrong in and of itself, but it is wrong because it is clearly unfair and unkind! This approach of virtue ethics also solves another problem, which is how a "right action" can still be wrong, because it puts proper emphasis on motive. If I am forced to give, then I am NOT being charitable, which would clearly be a virtue.
Now, with this in mind, we can move to the issue of broader ethics and legislation. Without appealing to the Bible, we can look at virtues and legislate morality based on those. This is what Thomas Aquinas was getting at with his idea of Natural Law, an idea every apologist makes use of when he argues for the existence of God from morality. We don't have to legislate the Ten Commandments. But we can legislate based on the virtues, which are common to ALL people. If Christians are under further moral commands which come directly from Scripture, such as not to worship other gods, then we can leave them out of the legislation, because they are derived from special revelation, rather than from the general revelation of the universal virtues.
This is a bit longer than I wanted to go, and it may not be as clear as it is in my head, and it is obviously pretty general, but I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter.
