Christian Ethics - Lesson 1

Introduction to Christian Ethics

This course will be divided into four parts. Part one will be a Christian response to non-relational ethics, in which the key systems and movements in the history of philosophical ethics will be introduced and explained, followed by a Christian response. Part two of the course will discuss the Christian and society and will cover four big issues, including the Christian and the state, the notion of justice, economics, and education.

Ronald Nash
Christian Ethics
Lesson 1
Watching Now
Introduction to Christian Ethics



I. Course Overview

A. The Christian Response to Speculative Philosophical Ethics

B. The Christian and Society

1. The Christian and the State

2. Justice

3. Economics

4. Education

C. The Biblical Ethic

D. Contemporary Moral Issues


II. Key Words and Distinctions

A. Normative vs. Non-normative

1. Non-normative words

2. Normative words

3. Two key normative words

B. Two Major Emphases in Ethics

1. Intrinsic Goodness

2. Extrinsic Instrumental Goodness

C. Moral Goods vs. Non-moral Goods

D. Two Kinds of Obligations (Duties)

1. Moral Duties

2. Non-moral Duties

E. Two Major Schools of Ethical Thought

1. Consequentialist Theories

2. Deontologist

F. Distinctions Between Act and Action (W. D. Ross)

1. Act

2. Action

3. Four Combinations of Behavior

a. Right act and good action

b. Right act and bad action

c. Wrong act and good action

d. Wrong act and bad action

  • Gain insights into philosophical ethics and Christian responses, and the Christian role in society regarding the state, justice, economics, and education.
  • In this lesson, Dr. Nash introduces you to the concept of hedonism, which is an example of a consequentialist ethic. He reviews non-hedonistic consequentialist philosophies, psychological hedonism, and ethical hedonism.
  • This lesson introduces you to the theory of deontological ethics and Emmanuel Conte. You will learn that the deontological ethic judges morality by examining the nature of actions and the will of agents rather than goals achieved.
  • In this lesson you will learn about the system of ethics that focuses on virtue and introduces the Four Cardinal Virtues, which are temperance, wisdom, justice, and courage, and emphasizes the importance of being the right kind of person who possesses the traits of character, and C.S. Lewis's book "Christianity" provides an informative treatment of the Four Cardinal Virtues and the Three Theological Virtues.
  • You will gain insight into C.S. Lewis's views on Christian ethics and the morality analogy he presents, where morality is like a fleet of ships that must fulfill three conditions to succeed: every ship must run properly, the relations between ships must be proper and orderly, and the fleet must head to the right destination.
  • You will learn about the importance of distinguishing between society and the state. Society is a voluntary organization of people, while the state is the group of people who claim a monopoly on the use of coercive force within a geographic boundary. By understanding this difference, you can prevent the government from interfering with your voluntary associations.
  • You will gain an understanding of how the professor's theory of the state in Social Justice in the Christian Church aligns with the New Testament. He explains that the state is a God-ordained institution to check against sin, and he is a moderate anti-statist who recognizes the need for government but also the inherent evil in any concentration of human power. The New Testament recognizes constraints upon governmental power, and Revelation 13 is an example of how the state can symbolize anti-Christian government. The lesson also discusses the concept of justice and how it is often invoked without a clear understanding, suggesting that Christians should study ancient Greece for a better comprehension of the term.
  • In this lesson, you will gain insight into the evangelical civil war that happened 20 years ago, learn about its early stages recorded by Clark Penick, understand the harmful effects of left-wing evangelicalism, and see how many evangelicals on the left became enamored with their own self-virtue in what they thought was a crusade to help the poor.
  • By studying this lesson, you will gain insight into the major differences between capitalism, socialism, and interventionism. You will learn that interventionism is often responsible for economic crises that are attributed to capitalism. You will also learn about the overlapping and continuum nature of economic systems and the gray area where an economic system may be viewed as socialism or interventionism.
  • This lesson discusses the decline of old liberation theology and how some of its proponents are now advocating for capitalism and democracy as being what the poor of the third world need, and presents shocking quotations from individuals characterized as evangelical, such as Jose Marquez Bonino, who promotes Marxism and praises tyrants like Castro and Mao Tse tung, as well as material about the three major kinds of Marxism that have existed in the world.
  • This lesson will provide you with a comprehensive understanding of interventionism and its role in the Great Depression, including the fact that blaming capitalism for the depression is based on four myths, and that interventionism actually deepens recessions by disguising the information produced by a market economy.
  • Through this lesson, you will gain an understanding of the crisis facing American education, as highlighted by Alan Blum's book The Closing of the American Heart and the author's complementary book. The focus is on the importance of values, standards, and morality in education, and the need to reopen the American heart to reopen the American mind. The lesson introduces the three kinds of illiteracy currently affecting Americans at every level of the educational process, with a particular emphasis on functional illiteracy, which refers to the inability to read, write, or use numbers well enough to get along in society.
  • In this lesson, you will learn about the incompetency of public school teachers in America, caused by academically weak students being attracted to the profession, lack of content courses in their college curriculum, unimpressive and radical left-winged professional educationists, and the National Education Association being an enemy of America's young people, with four essential steps to improve education, including getting a clear focus on the educational role of the family, increasing local control of education, changing the curriculum to prepare students for life after school, and changing teacher education programs.
  • Gain knowledge of the difference between the biblical ethic and other philosophical systems. Though it may seem simple, it is an underlying system that can lead to complex issues. The divinely revealed scriptures are the starting point for moral reflection, but not a ready-made answer. Some New Testament commandments are archaic or obsolete, and many modern moral problems are not discussed in the Bible.
  • You will gain insight into the pro-life stance and be equipped to inform others. Christians need not be timid about talking about these issues.
  • This lesson explores the arguments and counterarguments surrounding abortion, arguing for caution and conservatism in ending any life, emphasizing the need to balance the right of the mother with the rights of the infant, and briefly touching on the issue of rape and how it complicates the matter.
  • As you go through the lesson, you will learn about infanticide and euthanasia, and how the disrespect for unborn human life has led to an increase in cases of infanticide, along with some suggestions for what Christians should do in the case of children born with life-threatening handicaps.
  • In this lesson, you will explore the five major passages of Scripture related to homosexuality, including different interpretations of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and concludes that the Bible clearly condemns homosexual activity.
  • This lesson explores the topic of capital punishment in the context of Christian beliefs, arguing for consistency and emphasizing the need to view Old Testament laws in the context of specific situations that are no longer applicable.
  • This lesson discusses the three approaches to war and peace and distinguishes between principled pacifists and hypocritical, unprincipled pacifists, who are members of the political left and denounce American military actions but support violent revolutionary organizations.
  • You will gain an understanding of the growing issue of divorce and remarriage within the church, the responsibilities of Christian leaders in addressing it, and the need for Christians to think through what the Scripture teaches on these matters and formulate principles that will guide their thinking and conduct.
  • This lesson provides insight into how responsible Christians can make ethical decisions about birth control, considering the importance of intention, distinguishing between ethically acceptable and unacceptable forms of birth control, and emphasizing the importance of wise and careful means in achieving family planning goals.

Theoretical and theological basis for Christians  living an ethical life.

Dr. Ronald Nash

Christian Ethics


Introduction to Christian Ethics

Lesson Transcript


And I guess we could see that the course will be divided into four parts. Part one, which I hope will not take me much more than next week, will be a Christian response to important steps in speculative ethics. By speculative ethics. We mean non relational ethics or philosophical ethics. What I will be doing in this part of the course is introducing you to some of the key systems, some of the key movements in the history of philosophical ethics, explaining those moves and then giving you a Christian response. For example, what is hedonism and what is a proper Christian? What is a proper Christian response to hedonism? What is utilitarianism? What are the major contributions that we find in COP Emmanuel Kant's system of ethics? And what is the proper Christian response to that? And so on down the line. Part two of the course will deal with the Christian and society and will we'll talk generally about four big issues here. And I'll tell you what. Well, I'll identify the issues first and then I'll tell you why We're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about the state, the Christian and the state. And for about your background reading will be the previously described material in my book, Social Justice in the Christian Church. We'll also talk about the notion of justice. Let me say here that a lot of Christians today, a lot of Christian leaders, want Christians to have a broader social conscience, and that's good. And so you'll find people like this saying a lot about justice. For example, have you ever been in a meeting and someone came? I have. And someone comes up to you and says, I'm a peace and justice, Christian. Mm hmm. And you can just see them exude the pride and the arrogance. I am a peace and justice, Christian. What these people really are are left wingers. People who would have been at home in Stalinist Russia, who have no idea what peace and justice are, but who manipulate those concepts in the service of a left wing ideology. Well, that was later on in the course. You're going to hear your professor saying that it's unlikely that one out of a thousand people who talk about justice these days have any idea what the word justice means. Can even give you a preliminary definition of the word justice. You are going to be exceptions to that. You see, you are not only going to be able to talk about justice, you're going to be able to define the term. We're also going to talk a little bit about economics. And the reason for that is this. Again, now, all kinds of Christians out in the world are telling us that we should adopt a certain attitude towards society. We should approve certain social programs, because as Christians, we have an obligation to help the poor. The big problem here is that these people who are the same people, incidentally, who have no idea what justice is, these same people have no idea what economics is. And consequently, Christians all over this country are being motivated to support certain social programs under the illusion that these programs will help the poor when in fact, these programs are devastating the poor. And then, of course, the the fourth subject that we will cover under the heading, the Christian in society is the whole business of education. We must not only be good Christians, we must be good Christian citizens. And we have reached a day when Christian workers, whether you're going to be in the pastoral or whether you're going to be a layperson or whatever field of work the Lord calls you in, you had better get geared up on the education business. If you're going into the pastorate, there may there's a very good chance that you may someday find yourself in charge of a church or as part of a church that runs a Christian school. So anyway, we're going to be saying a few things about the whole business of education in this country and what Christians should be doing about it. All right. Part three of the course will deal with important elements of the biblical ethic. And I can hear people saying, well, it's about time we get to the Bible in this cause. But remember, it's called pastoral and social ethics. All right. So I've told you that we're going to give you a grounding in philosophical ethics. We're going to give you a grounding in social ethics. And then finally, we will end the course by talking about some of the most important contemporary moral issues of the day and our textbook. There will be Jack Davis's book, Evangelical Ethics. If you've looked at Davis's book, you know that his chapter headings include things like contraception, reproductive technologies, divorce and remarriage, homosexuality, abortion, infanticide, capital punishment, war, disobedience, and rebels, civil disobedience and revolution, war and peace. And we'll give you a what I hope is a brief introduction to ethics. And what I'm basically going to do here is simply introduce you to some key words that we will be using throughout the semester. For example, let's try the color blue. Let's, uh, let's big come acquainted with the difference between the words normative and non-normative. Non-normative words are words that describe. They are words that report facts. If I say to you, for example, that incidentally, I got my baseball tickets for spring training and you better hurry if you're if you're a baseball fanatic, there's one really bad team that plays down here in Florida. I think it's from Toronto. Is that right? Or you get or you get free tickets. Really? Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Because I was just kidding. I was just kidding. But I really love the Blue Jays is such a pretty symbol, I think. Anyway, I got my baseball tickets and you better hurry, because these I understand they're going real quickly. If I say to you, the Kansas City Royals train in baseball city. That's a fact. That is a that is a non normative statement. Okay. If I say to you, the Kansas City Athletic athletics are a bad baseball team, that's a normative statement. I don't know whether they are or not. I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just giving you an example. Normative words are words that evaluate. They are words that are praise. They are words that are praise. APRA. I see. Examples of normative words are are the following the word good, the words good and bad. What is a normative word, good, bad, or what obligation, right or wrong and beautiful, ugly. Any word? Any word that offers an appraisal or an evaluation of something is a normative word. Now, there are two normative words that are most important. Obviously, in this course we will be concerned with normative words and normative sentences for the most part. Anybody have any idea what the two most important normative words are? Let me hear right who we heard, right? Well, somebody. One of the more one of the two most important normative words is the word art and the corollaries that go with it. And those corollaries that go with it would be duty and right. So anybody who said right or duty or ought, give yourself a check. All right. What's the other key? Central normative word? Good. And of course, the corollaries would be the obvious corollary here would be the word bad. Now, these two fundamental normative concepts introduce us to introduce us to the two major emphases in ethics. What we find is that a great deal of ethics is concerned with the use of the word good. Applications of the word good. And let me give you a further breakdown on this. Once we begin to unpack the word good, the first thing we encounter is a distinction between intrinsic goodness and X intrinsic goodness. Or sometimes we use the word instrumental goodness. Now who knows the difference here between intrinsic goodness and extrinsic goodness? It's really not a difficult one. No doubt many of you already know the answer to that. What is what is intrinsic goodness? Something that is good in itself? Something that is valued for itself. Something that is extrinsic like good is good as a means to an end is good as a means to something else. Now consider the sentence. Drinking milk is good for your health. The value of drinking milk is extrinsic. See, if only you had known that when you were eight or nine years old. You could have you could have gotten out of a lot of trouble with your milk, with your mother. You could have said, Mom, look, this stuff is only in extrinsic like, good. And she said, I don't care. Drinking any quality milk is instrumentally good, but hell is intrinsically good. Being healthy is good in itself. It is good for itself. Now it may be good. Being healthy may also be good for as a means to something else. In other words, you probably aren't going to be a very good athlete if you're not in good health. But the reason why most of us pursue good health, at least if we have any sense, is not because it's a means to being an athlete or something else, but because it is desirable in itself. All right. So we have a distinction here between things that are good in themselves and things that are good only as means to something else. Lots of people could, could, could live richer, fuller, happier allies if they get the distinction between intrinsic and intrinsic extrinsic goods straightened out. As you know, money, money is only good as a means to other things. And you all know the people who have trouble getting that sorted out. Now, one other point that we'll make by introduction here about the notion of goodness, there is a further distinction We can distinguish between moral goods and non moral goods. Now, that may surprise some of you, but a little reflection will help you see very quickly that we often use the word good in senses that have nothing to do with morality. It is still normative, but it is not moral. For example, if I say yum yum, this pudding is good. I am simply using the word good in a non moral sense. It tastes good. It makes me feel good. But that has nothing to do with the moral characteristics of the pudding. If I say to give another example, this is a good knife. I am again not saying anything about the moral uses or moral characteristics of the knife. I'm simply saying it does its job effectively. What a knife is supposed to do is cut. And since this knife cuts, well, it is a good knife. But this language has nothing to do with morality. If I say this man is a good boxer, Mike Tyson, for example, he is a good boxer. But take my word for it. We're using the word good in a non moral sense here. All right. Okay. So don't make the mistake of assuming that every time you use the word good, you are making a moral judgment. You are not. You are making a normative judgment. But it is often not a moral judgment. It is. Okay. Now, the word art also invites further analysis. Only here our analysis will be a little briefer. There are two kinds of duties in life. There are two kinds of obligations in life. And they are moral duties and non moral duties. Now, again, some of you may say, Wait a minute, I always thought every time I encountered a duty it had a moral ring or a moral dimension to it. No. And a little reflection will make that clear when we get to Emmanuel Conte's ethics. And that will probably come early next week. We will find Conte introducing two interesting terms that we can use in this connection. Conte called moral duty, as he called them, categorical imperatives. I love that language. I wish I had invented it. A categorical imperative is a moral duty. It is a duty you have Because of certain moral considerations, non moral duties can't called hypothetical imperatives. Just think how you can impress your friends this week by using these terms. Try to use try to use these terms this week. Now, here's what Conte meant when he talked about non moral duties as hypothetical imperatives. A hypothetical statement is a statement that always takes and if then form if you want a job, then you ought to do b. If you want an A in this course, then you ought to study hard, read your texts, prepare for your quizzes, write a bang up term paper and so on. But notice the obligation that says you ought to study hard is not a moral obligation. It is a hypothetical and imperative, and it is tied directly to your desire for a particular objective. If you don't want that objective, then you don't. Then you're you're under no obligation to behave in that particular way. It is the obligation is relative to the desire. And because all human desires differ from person to person. The hypothetical imperatives will be different. Here's another example. If you don't want a speeding ticket or if you want to avoid the risk of an automobile accident, then you ought not to drive recklessly. Now, the imperative that you ought not to drive your automobile recklessly is, in this instance, a non moral situation. This is probably not the best of examples because there are moral considerations involved in driving a car recklessly. I mean, you can injure other people, you can damage property and so on. But here we're simply relating the obligation to drive carefully to your desire to avoid a speeding ticket or something else. So many duties in life have nothing to do with morality. They are purely relative to a person's desires at a particular time. You can't said the moral law is different. The moral law is not a hypothetical imperative that wants to know how you feel about something at the moment. The moral law is hard as nails. There is. There are no conditions attached. It isn't related to your desires or your feelings. The moral law says this is your duty and do it body bother, do your duty, period. That's the way the moral law is. Earlier, I said. You can get an interesting paper by comparing what Can't wrote about the moral law and what Christians like C.S. Lewis write At that point. If you just stop there, you might think that court is on a way, is on a is on a path that many Christians can agree with. Well, we'll find out. Maybe we can, maybe we can't. So some duties are non moral, some good, some examples of goodness are non moral. Next distinction we are going to introduce you. Beginning later today and next week to three or four major schools of ethical thought. Today I will simply introduce you to two of them. Moral systems that stress that stress the word good are called consequentialist theories. Let's leave the word good up here. Moral theories that place their emphasis upon the good are called consequentialist theories. Now that comes from the word consequence. Consequential socialist or consequential ism. Now, of course, the language makes it clear then that we are when we start talking about these people, we're talking about people who place who whose determine whose reflection about human behavior is based upon the consequences of a human being's actions. Now, there are two other synonyms that mean the same thing. Once again, a consequentialist is a person who says what a human being should do in life depends upon the consequences of his or her behavior. Now, there are two other terms that we use as synonyms. Sometimes we call this kind of ethical theory teleological that comes from the Greek word telos, which means and. And so once again, we're simply introducing a term here that draws our attention to the end results of our conduct, to the consequences of our conduct. The other synonym for this position is utilitarianism. Now, later on, I'll point out that the word utilitarianism is used in several different ways, in several different senses. But what I'm the sense in which I'm using it here is simply this in the broadest possible sense of the word, a utilitarian is a consequentialist. A person who says that we can determine our required conduct by focusing on the end results, the tree loss, the consequences of our behavior. The other school of thought. Let's draw a line here to separate. So if a moral philosopher places his emphasis upon goodness, he is a consequentialist, a utilitarian, a teleology. If a moral philosopher, on the other hand, places his emphasis upon duty, obligation, what we ought to do then that person is a d ontology. Now you will not find the word Scientologist in the Orlando Yellow Pages. I don't believe. Although, you know, if it didn't cost money, I might put my name in there as a Scientologist. Wouldn't have to put up a shingle. All right, D.A. Allergist. What would people expect to get from a Scientologist? Well, I give it to them whatever they expected. All right? A Scientologist is a person who says. Consequences do not determine your obligations in life. You and I have duties to behave in certain ways, regardless of the consequences. Now, what I want you to see here then, is that philosophers who have fallen into this part of the ballpark tend to follow fairly rigid ways of thinking. Deon Taylor Just ignore consequences. In fact, Kant said, if you if you if you follow your desires and you do something because you think its consequences will be good, you are behaving immorally. So Consequentialist and Deon Taylor just don't get along very well. In fact, you know, I was just thinking about it. I'm not sure in the whole history of the human race, one consequentialist has ever married a Scientologist. And, you know, I'm I can't imagine their marriage working. That might make a good, interesting term paper. What would happen if a D.A. maybe it would make a good comedy series for NBC? I don't know. We'll think about it. These then are two of the four theories of ethics that we'll be looking at over the next couple of weeks. Don't worry about the other two right now. You have enough to worry about. You might, however, make an initial inquiry in your own thinking. You might ask yourself right now if my only choice is between Scientology and consequential ism, which one do I pick? Am I a consequentialist? Or am I a Scientologist? You might also ask what you think God is. Is God a utilitarian? I'll give you the answer. God is not a utilitarian. All right. That influences your thinking on this or not. I can't say. Next distinction. And I borrow this next distinction from a British philosopher named WD Ross. I like it. I think it's very helpful. WD Ross. I'm not sure we have Ross's book in our library, but we certainly have anthologies that contain selections from Ross's writings. Ross distinguish between two words the word act and the word action. Oh, am I? Am I getting some good stuff for next week's quiz? Oh, I'm so excited. I wish I could give it to you today. The word. Now, remember, any philosopher, I suppose, has the right to use certain words in his own idiosyncratic way. And this is what Ross did in Ross's ethical system. The word act is a word that refers only to the outside of something that we do. And it concerns itself primarily with the flirting ness of what we do, the fitting ness of what we do. With respect to the word act, the proper question is, is this the right thing to do? Is this the fitting thing to do? If you're standing at a busy street corner, say, at 436 and you know, by the Altamont mall, and here's a little old lady and you assume she wants to cross the street. Perhaps the right thing to do would be to help her across the street. All right. The wrong thing to do might be just to look at her and say, suffer, lady, and then walk across the street yourself. That wouldn't be a very nice thing to do. All right. That would be wrong. So when we consider acts the right, the right adjectives are right and wrong, and action looks at the inside of of of our behavior. It looks at our motives are reasons for behaving in certain ways. And it says those motives or those reasons are either good or bad, good or bad. So you decide to help that little old lady across the street because, you know, she's wealthy and she's prone to give large tips to seminary students who do kind things for her. Wouldn't you feel shame for behaving in a way like that for nothing more than monetary gain? And I wish you could see the guys in the back row. Oh, now we know why they're sitting in the back row. A motive like that would be contemptible. All right. But if, on the other hand, your motive is to help a needy person, then your action is good. Helping the little old lady out of greed is bad. Helping the little old lady out of a motive of love or concern or whatever else turns that into a good action. You get the distinction. Now, W.D. Ross said you can get four combination of behavior from these two words, and here they are. You can get an action that is, you can you can do something that is the right act and a good action. That's how to get stars in your crown. All right. You do the right thing and you do it for the right reason. Good reason. Hmm. Let's put a star right up here. Okay. That would be the way in which I suggest God would want us to behave always. That what we do is the good action that is our motive is pure and good and kind and loving. And it is the right thing to do. What? Life is more complex than that because we live in a fallen world. And so that person could do the right act that is at the same time a bad action. Right. It does help. I mean, let's say the little old lady is drowning down at upper Daytona Beach. Right. And you you say, is that the rich? Is that the rich lady? I think it is. All right. And somebody says, yes, that is the wealthy scepter jet septuagenarian. Yeah. Oh, well, let me let me be the one to saver. See? There's Marty Fields. He runs, he jumps right in, swims and helps you out. All right. Does the right thing. That's. Look, helping the little old lady is better than watching her drown. Please. Does the right thing. But his action stinks. Oh, that's a bad word to use on tape, but it's appropriate. Right. Act bad action. But then you get a third possibility. You get the wrong act. It is a good action. Now, somebody described this kind of behavior. What would you have? Don't give me an example necessarily, but a definition. What would you have to do to do the wrong act but have it be a good action helping a little guy. This is where for the people listening by tape, the example given was helping the little old lady across the street when she doesn't want to go see. This is where your motive is pure. You're doing what you want to do is is behave in a properly moral way, but you don't know what your duty is in this case. And thus, even though your intention is pure, you end up doing the wrong thing. Let me say here the Christians do this quite often in life and we can be thankful that God is a forgiving God. All right. Have you ever done. I'm going to put my hand down, but it really should be up. Have you ever done the wrong act when you misunderstood what your duty in life was? Your motive was pure, but you didn't understand the circumstances well enough. Hmm. Well, and then, of course, we come to the fourth situation where you do the wrong act. That is also a bad action. Now, let me suggest that you really got to be not only a bad apple, but you got to be stupid also. All right. This is bad news. Yeah. If you know anybody who who repeatedly behaves in this way, this guy needs all kinds of help, all right? He needs all kind of help. He's not only got a bad character, but he's too dumb to not to know what he should be doing. I once had a professor who took these four kinds of behavior and applied them to famous American presidents. But he did that. He did that. Who was president then? Oh, I guess John F Kennedy was president then. And we didn't know a whole lot about John F Kennedy character. All right. The problem is, you know, that a great many American presidents have shown their adeptness at behaving in this fourth kind of way, behaving out of bad motives and doing the wrong thing. Well, we won't you know how timid I am about making political judgments, so I will not name any names in this case. One other thing about this distinction, and this is one reason why I why I'm fascinated by it, Ross, is distinction may be a way. In which we can preserve the best elements of consequential ism and de ontology. You see, what W Ross is saying by implication is that neither the D ontology just who stresses duty alone or the consequentialist two stresses goodness alone. Neither one of them. Neither position alone is adequate to give us the full picture of the truth that perhaps the best, the most mature way of approaching moral decision making is to recognize both the outside and the inside of what we do. Now, I'm going to leave it to you to think, to reflect about how Ross's distinctions here might relate to things that play an important role in the biblical ethic. Over the next week, you give some thought to what Scripture says about the inner reasons for our behavior. Or what Scripture says about the consequences of our behavior. And, you know, Rosh may be on the right, may be on a right track here.