Essentials of Christian Ethics - Lesson 5

The following lecture is provided by biblical training. The speaker is Dr. Ronald Nash. More information is available at WW w dot Biblical training dot org. Well, what I want to do is close this summary tape by looking at some much more positive positions and ethics. We're not going to look at everything that we could look at. I'm going to begin with a very interesting distinction that was made, I think, in the 1920s by a British philosopher named Sir David Ross. I always enjoy sharing this with my students. I think his observations ought to be a part of any positive reflection the thinking people make about ethics. Sir David Ross made a distinction between right acts and morally good actions. Right acts and morally good actions. Let's pursue this analysis a little bit. By this distinction between right acts and morally good actions, Ross meant to draw attention to the fact that any moral behavior can be viewed from at least two perspectives. One. Is the moral behavior fitting? Is it the right thing to do in the case of right or wrong act? We are considering the outside of the act. The rightness of an act has nothing to do, Ros said. With the agent's reasons for performing it and acts, rightness is determined solely by whether it was or was not the correct, the fitting, the proper thing to do to help a little old lady across the street is the right thing to do. Providing she wishes to cross the street. But one can do all sorts of right acts for the wrong reasons. And so this led Ross to the second part of his distinction Morally good actions. An action is morally good if the agent's motives or intentions are good. Here we are considering the inside of the action.

Now, let me sort of summarize this. When you're talking about an act, you're focusing on what is done. The outside of the thing. Was that the appropriate thing to do? And if it was the appropriate thing to do, we say it's the right act. If it's the inappropriate thing to do, we say it's the wrong act. When you use the word action, you're investigating this behavior from the perspective of the inside. What was the motive? What was the purpose? And here we can distinguish between a good action and a bad action. So we have right act, wrong act. We have good actions where the motive is good and we have bad actions where the motive is bad. So that gives us then four possibilities. We can look, first of all, at a deed that is the right act and is also a morally good action. That means it was the appropriate thing to do and it was done for a good motive. Or you can look at a deed that is the right act. But it was a morally bad action. The person did the right thing, but he did it for a morally bad reason. His motive was bad. Thirdly, we can look at something that is the wrong act. We can wish that the person hadn't done it. It was the inappropriate thing to do. But nonetheless, his motive was good. It was a morally good action. And then when we come to the real stinkers in the world, we have a deed that is not only the wrong act, but it's a morally bad action. He did the wrong thing and he did it for a bad reason. To qualify as an example of one, a deed would have to be both the fitting thing to do and be done from a proper motive.

 An example might be a case where I prompted by a good motive give money to a worthy charity. To qualify as an example of to my deed would have to still be the right thing to do, but would be tainted by a bad motive. Suppose I'm walking along the beach and I hear that a person is caught in a riptide and is being dragged out to deep water where he might drown. Even though I'm a good swimmer and could easily rescue the person in danger. I decide to continue walking and enjoying the day. But then suppose I hear that the person in trouble is famous and wealthy, suddenly motivated by the possibility of financial gain. I jump into the water, grab the celebrity by the hair, and pull him to shore while I did the right thing. My bad motive contaminates my deed. Naturally, it is better to save a drowning person than not. But motives do count. To qualify as an example of three. My motives would have to be pure, even as I perform the wrong act. Suppose I sincerely intend to make a friend happy by bringing him and his wife gifts. However, I'm unaware of the fact that events in both cases and their past lives result in my friends misinterpreting the reason for my gifts, and both people end up with hurt feelings. Here, my motive is genuine and good, but I did the wrong thing. And finally, to qualify as an example of number four, my motives would have to be bad even as I perform the wrong act. Suppose I want to hurt someone and accomplish that objective by telling a lie. If I were to ask you to identify the most preferable kind of deed, I'm sure you would select type one.

But then suppose I ask you to select the next best kind of behavior. Which would you select and why? This could make for some interesting discussions in a college dormitory or in a church Sunday school class. Would it be better that we do the right act from bad motive, or would it be better that we do the wrong act but have a properly good motive? Well, I'll tell you what I might suggest. It would depend on the circumstances, wouldn't it? But of course, let us hope that we would all do our best to avoid doing something that is a wrong act and a morally bad action. Earlier, I made some comments about Thomas Aquinas important treatment of the law, especially about natural law. This would be a good time perhaps to review that material, that discussion in connection with what I'm going to do now. Natural Law provides general moral guidance, but needs to be supplemented by more specific content from special revelation. Many human experiences seem to point to the existence of moral laws or standards of behavior. Our failure to do something that we believe we ought to do may lead us to feel guilt. The failure of others to perform certain duties towards us may produce feelings of resentment or anger or sorrow whenever we dare to suggest to someone else that his conduct is wrong, we are doing more than appealing to our own moral standard. Moral criticism like this would make no sense unless we also believe that the other person knew about the same moral standard. It is interesting to note that the person whose moral conduct is being criticized seldom denies the existence of the moral standard that is such. People seldom try to argue that there is nothing wrong with cheating, stealing or lying.

Such people attempt, rather, to find some way of showing that what they did doesn't violate the principle of the law, or at least is a justifiable exception to the moral standard. Stephen Evans, a philosopher, points out that this standard, this law, if you will, is therefore not simply a description about how people behave. It is a prescription about how people should behave, the one they are constantly violating. So morality is not simply a law of nature like the law of gravity. It doesn't describe how things in nature go on, but how human behavior ought to go on. An important feature of this more law is what we take to be its objectivity. By comparison, the laws of mathematics are objective, not subjective, in the sense that their truth is independent of human feelings and desires. When we deal with objective truth, it does not matter whether we like it. It is true, and that's all there is to it. In a similar way, the moral law is independent of our feelings and desires. As C.S. Lewis explains, quote, There is nothing indulgent about the moral law. It is hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing, and it does not seem to care how painful or dangerous or difficult it is to do. The moral law doesn't care whether we like it, whether we want to obey it, or whether we're disposed to do it. The moral law simply says, This is your duty. Do it. I do not want to leave the impression that the case for the objectivity of moral laws rests solely on the weakness of arguments against objectivity. As one philosopher says, quote, If we did not believe that there is an objective and unchanging foundation of moral values and ideals, then we would never bother to make such judgments, at least not seriously.

On the contrary, that we continue to exercise moral judgment not only in reference to ourselves but also to others, is clear evidence that we do in fact take such judgments as counting for something and being ultimately and objectively significant. In this way, it may be argued, it is self-contradictory, practically speaking, to make judgments of moral value and to deny at the same time that there is any objective basis of morality. What can be more comical than someone who spends the day fanatically and passionately crusading for the eradication of certain evils? While in the evening he delivers cool lectures on the relativity of all ideals? The end of that quote. The belief in the existence of an objective and universal moral law qualifies as a rational belief. For anyone who recognizes this fact, the next natural step is to ask what is the source and ground of the moral law? British philosopher Hastings Rational summarized the answer to this question. Quote, We say that the moral law has a real existence. That there is such a thing as an absolute. That is objective morality, that there is something. Absolutely that is objectively true or false in ethical judgments, whether we or any number of human persons at any given time actually think so or not. We must therefore face the question where such an ideal exists and what manner of existence we are to attribute to it. Certainly it is to be found wholly and completely in no individual human consciousness. Only if we believe in the existence of a mind for which the true moral ideal is already in some sense real, a mind which is the source of whatever is true in our own moral judgments. Only then can we rationally think of the moral ideal as no less real than the world itself.

Only so can we believe in an absolute standard of right and wrong, which is as independent of this or that. Belief in God is the logical presupposition of an objective or absolute morality. A moral ideal can exist nowhere and no how, but in a mind, an absolute moral ideal can exist only in a mind from which all reality is derived. Our moral ideal can only claim objective validity insofar as it can rationally be regarded as the revelation of a moral ideal, eternally existing in the mind of God. Another point. It is important what we do. It is also important what kind of people we are. The fact that moves us into the territory of virtue ethics. This would be a good time to review the important material about virtue and character. In my earlier discussions of Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. As stated earlier, it is not enough that we just do the right thing. As important as performing the right act is, we should also make sure that our deeds are morally good actions in the sense that they reflect morally good motives. Something that seems unlikely in the case of people who have not been attentive to their character. Now I want to talk about the relationship between three topics Love, law and the Christian ethic, the fact that all human beings carry the image of God. One of Christianity's more important worldview beliefs explains why human beings are creatures capable of reasoning, love and God consciousness. It also explains why we are creatures capable of moral behavior. Of course, sin, which is another presupposition of the Christian worldview. Sin has distorted the image of God and explains why humans turn away from God. And the moral law explains why we often go wrong with regard to our emotions, our conduct and our thinking.

Because of the image of God, we should expect to find that the ethical recommendations of the Christian worldview reflect what all of us at the deepest levels of our moral being know to be true. As C.S. Lewis pointed out. Quote, Christ did not come to preach any brand new morality. Really great moral teachers never do introduce new morality. It is quacks and cranks who do that. The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back time after time to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see the end of that quote. That's from C.S. Lewis. Your Christianity. When one examines the moralities of different cultures and religions. Certain differences do stand out. But C.S. Lewis was more impressed by the basic underlying similarities. Let me quote him again. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle or where a man felt proud of double crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to, whether it was only your own family or your fellow countrymen or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired according to the Christian worldview. God is the ground of the laws that govern the physical universe and that make possible the order of the cosmos. God is also the ground of the moral laws that make possible the order of the cosmos. God is the ground of the moral laws that ought to govern human behavior and that make possible order between humans and within humans.

Christian theism then must insist that there are universal moral laws. In other words, the laws must apply to all humans, regardless of when and where they have lived. They must also be objective in the sense that their truth is independent of human preference and desire. Final Subject Principles and Rules. Much confusion surrounding Christian ethics results from a failure to observe the important distinction between principles and rules. Let us define moral principles as general moral prescriptions, general in the sense that they are intended to cover a large number of instances. Moral rules will be regarded as more specific moral prescriptions that are applications of principles to more concrete situations. The differences between principles and rules contains advantages and disadvantages. One advantage of moral principles is that they are less subject to change because of the larger number of instances they apply to. They possess a greater degree of universality. One disadvantage of any moral principle is its vagueness. Because principles covers so many situations, it is often difficult to know exactly when a particular principle applies. Rules, however, have the advantage of being much more specific. The problem with rules concerns their changeability because they are so closely tied to specific situations. Changes in a situation usually require changes in the appropriate rule. For example, Paul warned the Christian women of Corinth not to worship with their heads uncovered. Some Christians have mistakenly regarded Paul's advice as a moral principle that should be observed by Christian women in every culture in all times. But a study of the conditions of ancient Corinth reveals that the city's prostitutes identified themselves to their prospective customers by keeping their heads uncovered. In the light of this, it seems likely that Paul's advice was not a moral principle intended to apply to Christians of all generations, but a rule that applied only to the specific situation of the Christian women, of corns and to women in similar situations.

I recognize that the distinction I am drawing here suffers from some degree of preciseness. It is due in part to the fact that the difference between principles and rules is sometimes relative. That is, Scripture presents a hierarchy of moral prescriptions, beginning at the most general level with the duty to love. This duty to love is then further broken down into the duties to love God and love man. Matthew 2237 through 40 and then broken down still further into the more specific duties of the Decalogue. Romans 13, nine and ten, yet more specific duties spelled out in the New Testament, such as the prohibition against the lustful look and hatred are further specifications of the Ten Commandments. Matthew 521 232. The distinction between principles and rules suggests that whenever a more specific scriptural command is derived from one more general, the more specific injunction is the rule and the other is the principle. It is possible to read First Corinthians 13 in this way. First, Paul proposes love as a moral duty binding on all humans. Then he proceeds to provide more specific rules about how a loving person will behave. For example, he will be kind and patient based on our distinction between principles and rules, plus a careful study of the New Testament. Several conclusions can be drawn. One. The New Testament gave first century Christians plenty of rules, but the rules cover situations that may no longer confront Christians, such as Paul's injunction against eating meat offered to idols, too. The New Testament does not provide contemporary Christians with any large number of rules regarding our specific situations. The reason for this should be obvious. The rules were given to cover first century situations, a first century book that attempted to get moral rules to cover specific situations in the 20th or 21st century would have been unintelligible or irrelevant to readers in the intervening years.

What moral help could the first century Christians in Rome or Ephesus have derived from such moral rules as Thou shalt not make a first strike with nuclear weapons, or it is wrong to use cocaine? Three. At the same time, some of the New Testament rules apply to situations that have existed throughout time. Passages dealing with acts of hating, stealing, lying and the like continue to be relevant because the acts are similar for. But often what many people miss is the importance of searching out the moral principles behind the New Testament rules. These principles are equally binding on Christians of all generations. A careful consideration of the Bible's first century rules can enable us to infer the more general principles behind them. Principles that apply to us. It may be unimportant today whether Christian women keep their heads covered, but it is important that they avoid provocative dress and behavior. Though few Christians in our generation are bothered by pagan butchers who have offered their wares as a sacrifice to false gods, we can profit from the principle that we should do nothing to cause a morally weaker person to stumble. In spite of all this. Life often confronts us with ambiguous moral situations in which even the most sincere among us can agonize over what to do. There are times when we do not know enough about ourselves or the situation or the moral principle that applies to be sure we are doing the right thing. As many of us know, a weakness of character can also hinder moral decision making in the unambiguous situations of life. Scripture teaches God judges us in terms of our obedience to His revealed moral law. But how does God judge us in the more ambiguous situations where the precise nature of our duty is unclear? God looks upon the heart.

Scripture tells us we are judged if we break God's commandments. This is certain. But in those cases where we may not know which commandment applies or where we may have incomplete knowledge of the situation, God's judgment will take into account not merely the rightness of our acts, consequences, something that we ourselves are sometimes unable to determine in such ambiguous situations, but also the goodness of our intentions. Well, we've spent about 3 hours together. I hope you've learned some things from this tape. I learned a lot of things from writing this stuff and publishing on it and from teaching it. It's up to you now. I hope you'll give serious consideration to listening to that longer tape on ethics. We talk about a lot of issues that I have not discussed on this summary tape, but I trust, as you continue your study of philosophy and ethics, that you'll continue to sharpen your tools that you can use in the service of the Lord. Thank you for listening to this lecture. Brought to you by biblical training, dawg. Feel free to make copies of this lecture to give to others, but please do not charge for these copies or alter the content in any way without permission. We invite you to visit our web site at WW W dot Biblical training, dawg. There you will find the finest in evangelical teaching for use in the home and the church. And it is absolutely free. Our curriculum includes classes for new believers, lay education classes, and seminary level classes taught by some of the finest seminary teachers drawn from a wide range of evangelical traditions. Our mailing address is Post Office Box 28428. Spokane, Washington 99228 USA.