You are posting a comment about...
Ethics Where We Live and Where We Work
In this issue of Think magazine, the focus will be on ethics in our society and in our lives. The word ethics comes from the Greek word ethos that has a direct meaning of “of the people” and an implied meaning of “the disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement.”[i] In other words, the study of ethics is all about how we should live our lives. We have never lived in a time when this study was more crucial.
Have you had the experience of carefully purchasing a computer, after hours of researching for just the right product at just the right price, just to discover the next day that the newer, faster model has just arrived in the electronics store or at a website at a cheaper price? This illustrates our age: an age of negotiated ethics and disposable values.[ii] We custom-make our ethics to be what we want them to be, we use them as long as we need them, and then we throw them away. In this article, I want to look at the foundation of ethics, note the dilemma in America of trying to believe in ethics without God, and emphasize the need for ethics we can justify in our own personal lives and in our professions.
The Foundation of Ethics
The study of ethics is often divided into the categories of normative and non-normative ethics. "Normative ethics" denotes systems of ethics that claim to produce norms or standards by which value judgments can be made. "Non-normative ethics" denotes just the opposite.
There are three major perspectives employed in the classification of normative ethics: the deontological, the teleological, and the aretaic. The deontological approach emphasizes the nature or essence of the act itself thus often known as “duty-based,” the teleological approach emphasizes the consequences of the act under consideration because the word teleos means “end” or “goal” in Greek, and the aretaic approach emphasizes the character of the person who performs the act. Arete is the Greek word for virtue or moral excellence. These three major systems of normative ethics emphasize the three major focal points of ethics.
If I am trying to determine the moral value of an action x (where x is a variable to represent anything I am considering), then thefirst focal point of ethics is the nature or essence of x itself. Whenever the nature of an action is being considered, this is called the intrinsic value of x. If an action is intrinsically wrong, then it is wrong in and of itself. When we use the nature of God to determine the intrinsic value of x, then the value of action x will never change, whatever the culture, whatever the country, and whatever the period of history. If something is intrinsically right, it will always be right; whenever something is intrinsically wrong, it will always be wrong. Why? Because the nature of God never changes (Malachi 3:6). I personally do not believe that there are any justifiable intrinsic value systems without God, a topic to which we shall return later in this essay.
The other two focal points of ethics will not yield any intrinsic value because they are based on extrinsicor instrumentalvalue. The second major focal point of ethics is the consequences of action x. When viewed this way, actions have no value in and of themselves, but there is some value of these actions when their consequences are used to judge their value. In this category, we find the number one dominant moral theory in America today—consequentialism. The dominant sub-category of consequential theories is utilitarianism. As Spock would say in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” In a less famous way to our culture, the high priest Caiaphas mirrors this view in John 11:49-50.
The third major focal point of ethics is the motives or character of the one who does the action(s) in question. In other words, x is not right or wrong at all. However, one can determine some instrumental value in x if the one who does x has good motives or a good heart. The roots of this ethical thinking are traced to Socrates in western philosophy and to early Confucianism in eastern philosophy.[iii] This way of thinking also finds a residence among many college students.[iv]
What does the Bible teach? The Bible teaches that certain things are intrinsically right or wrong. The Bible often gives lists of things that are always right or always wrong (Galatians 5:19-23; Revelation 21:8; et al.). Thus, the deontological view is confirmed. However, the Bible also teaches that some actions have morally determined values based on consequences. For instance, eating meat sacrificed to idols is not viewed by Paul to be intrinsically wrong. Yet if doing so violates either the conscience of the one eating or the consciences of weak brothers or sisters, then the action becomes wrong; instrumentally wrong, that is (1 Corinthians 8:13; Romans 14:23). Consequences do matter when there is no intrinsic worth. So, teleology does have some place in a Christian’s moral reasoning. Finally, sometimes actions are morally determined by the motives of the one(s) doing the actions. Amos teaches in Amos 5:21 that God can “hate your solemn festivals and feast days” if the motives in worship are not right. One can even preach out of wrong motivations (Philippians 1:15-17). So, the aretaic view is also confirmed in some circumstances. Does the Bible teach each equally? Absolutely not. Consequences and motives should be considered in all situations where there is no absolute or intrinsic worth. Even when there is intrinsic worth, good motives contribute to intrinsic value. For example, murder is not murder unless motives are taken into consideration. If one is guilty of premeditation as opposed to impulsive killing, the punishment is different because the motives differ.
Therefore, the Bible primarily teaches a deontological, or intrinsic value, based approach to ethics. Yet consequences and motives are important in the ethical areas where God has not directly spoken.
An American Dilemma: Ethics Without God
I love this country. I do not intend for anything to interfere with that love. However, there are at least two dilemmas that currently hamper the moral health of our country. The first dilemma is that many U.S. citizens believe this country is in a state of moral decline[v] and yet morality is difficult to define. The second dilemma involves the definition of morality, i.e. if we define ethics in an objective way in this country, then an unchanging moral standard is needed. If we use such a standard to define moral behavior in this country, then the post-1963 Supreme Court would judge such an approach to be unconstitutional. My wife is a public school teacher, a very good one. Yet she faces this dilemma almost every day: how do you teach ethics in your classroom without using God as the standard? If you introduce God as the standard, then you are breaking the law. Parents want their children to be taught not to steal, not to lie, to respect the rights of others, and to be good citizens of this country. However, these values cannot be purchased at a local superstore. We cannot just pull them out of the air.
To add to the problem, if there is no God, then an evolutionary view of nature would be the next most likely source to provide a basis for moral behavior. Since the world of nature is by nature always changing, then where is the objective standard for morality? There is no standard for morality in the world of nature.
Perhaps American pragmatism gives us the approach that many Americans employ at this stage. If our country needs a strong sense of morality, and if our laws will not permit God as the justification for real ethics, then we just need to do what works for the majority of the country—i.e. a combination of utilitarianism and pragmatism. Although a clever attempt to establish ethics without God, I believe it is self-defeating for a number of reasons. Yet utilitarians or pragmatists cannot, in any sort of an objective way, define words like ethical, good, love, caring, immoral, and other words whose nature indicates that an objective standard for value determination must exist. How can one decide whether certain teleological principles are valid without God? Is hedonistic or non-hedonistic teleology to be preferred? Should it be egoistic or altruistic? Or if hedonism is preferred, will it be qualitative (J.S. Mill) or quantitative (Jeremy Bentham) utilitarianism? The recognition of a teleological principle is absolutely dependent upon the possibility of making an accurate value judgment relative to a certain set of consequences. If one cannot judge certain consequences to be "good" or "bad," then he is no better off than when he started. It should be apparent that there exists a weakness inherent in the axiology of any attempt to establish ethics without God. Here is the logical dilemma: if a teleologist or consequentialist accepts his or her philosophical presuppositions, then the study of ethics is relative—in which case there can be no moral responsibility. On the other hand, if a teleologist or consequentialist feels compelled to argue for moral responsibility, then he or she must posit the existence of a metaphysically objective standard external to the universe—and that, by our English word, is God. If not God, then what? Thus, a world without God is destined to be a world without objective, justifiable ethics, i.e. moral chaos.
Ethics Where We Live and Where We Work
Do ethics matter? Ask any employer. For that matter, ask any employee. We may disagree about the specifics of ethics, but almost all of us would recognize their importance. There may be an exception or two, but in my experience, everylegitimate academic discipline and everyprofession have their own corresponding sets of academic or professional ethics, generally listed in formal ways. Many professions are so serious about their systems of ethics that conformity of their members to their ethics is essential to get into and to maintain a good relationship within the profession (e.g. doctors, lawyers, accountants, nurses, teachers, scientists, etc.).[vi]
Ethical expectations within your chosen career or profession are important to know and at times even crucial, but the most important person to satisfy about how you choose to work and live is God. Our relationship to Him supersedes any human organization or human creed. For years, those of us who work in Christian education are accustomed to receiving accolades about our alumni from their supervisors in their career fields. It is not a new occurrence for us. We expect our former students to do well when they begin their careers, and they overwhelmingly do not disappoint. Why? Our students have been taught God-given principles that help them to excel in their careers and in their personal relationships with God. Learning about Biblical ethics is really about learning how to live and serve others, whether in a job or in other ways.
Conclusion
When I learned that I had prostate cancer two years ago, I did all the research I could to find the surgeon whose credentials and experience gave us reasons to believe in him or her. After all, “credential” comes from the Latin credo, or “I believe.” When my wife and I interviewed the doctor before the surgery, the last question I asked was, “Are you a man of faith?” He was not only a man of faith, but last year he went to some of the most economically deprived parts of Africa to teach urology and to heal many with medical problems. Bingo—he was a man, I believed, in whom we could place our trust. To me, this is the main reason why ethics is needed more in this country than perhaps ever before. For if people teach and live a good ethical life like Jesus (Acts 1:1, 38), it tells you who you can trust and it tells other people they can trust you. If Jesus is not seen in the ethics where we live and work, then He is not truly indwelling in us at all.
[i] Definition is from freeonlinedictionary.com and answers.com.
[ii] There is a real difference in “values” and “ethics” in other contexts. In my classes, I teach that “values” are anything to which is attached worth, significance, or importance whereas “ethics” are prescribed values. Thus, ethics takes one into the category of right and wrong. However, in more informal contexts, “ethics” and “values” are used synonymously.
[iii] See Bryan Van Norden’s book Virtue Ethics and Consequentialism in Early Chinese Philosophy (Cambridge University press 2007).
[iv] Research found in collegevalues.org confirms that motive-based ethical thinking is still preferred by many college students over any form of absolutism (i.e. the belief that some moral values are absolute or have intrinsic value).
[v] Some studies to examine are “Moral Decline in America” at hubpages.com; “More Moral Decline in America” (11-5-09) at video.aol.co.uk/video; “Irrefutable Evidence of America’s Moral Decline” in The Boston Globe at encyclopedia.com; et al.
[vi] For legal ethics, go to abanet.org or legalethics.com; for medical ethics, go to ama-assn.org; for accountants, see cpahandbook.com; for teachers, go to knea.org or aae.org; etc.
