Deontological (rule-based) ethics:
l Duty centred.
l Rule based ethics: A universe
of moral rules. For example, it is wrong to kill innocent people, it is
wrong to steal, it is wrong to tell lies, etc. In a Christian perspective, the
Ten Commandants.
l Do the right thing. Do it because
it's the right thing to do. Don't do wrong things. Avoid them because they are
wrong.
l You can't justify an action by
showing that it produced good consequences, which is why it's sometimes called 'non-Consequentialist'.
l Christian ethics insists that even
some acts that fail are good.
n For example, it is better to have
loved and to have lost than not to have loved at all. The Christian ethics
insists that it is good to work against bigotry and racism, even if one fails.
l Should do the right thing,
even if that produces more harm (or less good) than doing the wrong thing.
n For example, the philosopher Kant
thought that it would be wrong to tell a lie in order to save a friend from a
murderer.
l This is so because moral actions
that reflect God’s nature are good whether they are successful or not.[1]
l Strengths:
n Emphasises the value of every
human being
n says some acts are always wrong
n provides 'certainty'
n deals with intentions and motives
l Weaknesses:
n Absolutist and legalistic, like
the Pharisees
n Because duty-based ethics is not
interested in the results it can lead to courses of action that produce a
reduction in the overall happiness of the world.
n hard to reconcile conflicting
duties
Teleological (consequentialist) ethics:
l Whether the action is right or
wrong is determined by its good or bad consequences.[2]
l The more good consequences an act
produces, the better or more right that act
l Ethical egoism: The individual believes the consequences of
the conduct determine whether it is right or wrong. It is right if it produces
good consequences, but the good must be in that individual’s self-interest.[3]
l Classical utilitarianism: Seeks the greatest good for the greatest
number, where the good is happiness or pleasure. Politicians often speak as
utilitarians, with their claims to seek the good of the whole nation.[5]
l Act utilitarianism: A particular action is morally good only if it produces more
overall good than any alternative action. For example, it may be that in a
given situation a government may decide that vocal dissident should be shot.
The result may be a settled country in which disharmony and violence are
significantly reduced and people feel more secure and able to enjoy a more
fulfilling way of life. We may conclude that if the end result is the greater
happiness of the greater number, then the deaths were morally justified. One of
the arguments used by the Nazis to justify their anti-Semitism was the claim
that the Jews were the cause of much of the country’s economic problem.[6]
l Rule utilitarianism: Whether acts are good or bad depends on moral rules. Moral rules
are chosen solely on the basis of their consequences. An action is right as if
it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good. For example, when Jesus
was talking to his disciples about love for our enemies, he gave the Golden
Rule, ‘do to others as you would have them do to you’ (Luke 6:31). It could be
part of a rule utilitarian approach to ethics, and we could claim that such a
policy is a good rule to follow because it leads to peace and harmony. However,
if we read it in the correct context in which Jesus spoke the words, they are
clearly part of a way of love that does not seek returns and desirable ends. It
is a good example of the difference between the two uses of rules.[7]
l Strengths:
n It seems easy to understand and to be based on common sense.
n Act utilitarianism: Flexible and can take account of any set of
circumstances, however exceptional.
n Rule utilitarianism: Practical and efficient. Rule utilitarianism
gets round the practical problems of act utilitarianism because the hard work
has been done in deriving the rules; individuals don't generally have to carry
out difficult research before they can take action.
l Weaknesses:
n Future consequences are difficult
to predict.
n Measuring and comparing the
'goodness' of consequences is very difficult.
n It is easy to bias in favour of
particular groups.
n It can be inconsistent with human
rights. For example, a billionaire needs an organ transplant. He
says that if he is given the next suitable organ he will fund 1000
hip-replacements a year for 10 years. Giving him the next available organ means
Mr X, who was top of the list, will die - but it also means that thousands of
people will be very happy with their new hips.
n It ignores things we regard as
ethically relevant. Results-based ethics is only interested in the consequences
of an act so it ignores the intentions and character of the person doing the
act.
n The fairness of the consequences
are not directly relevant.
l An interesting point for
discussion: David’s adultery with Bathsheba eventually resulted in the birth of
Jesus as a consequence. This is an example of a good consequence resulting from
a wrong action!
Ontological (virtue) ethics:
l A right act is the action a virtuous
person would do in the same circumstances. It’s the sort of characteristics
and behaviours a good person will seek to achieve.
l Focuses on the character of the
agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission)
itself.
l Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre
proposed three questions as being at the heart of moral thinking:
n Who am I?
n Who ought I to become?
n How ought I to get there?
l Traditional list of cardinal
virtues:
n Prudence: also described as
wisdom, the ability to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions
at a given time.
n Justice: also considered as fairness, the
most extensive and most important virtue.
n Fortitude/Bravery/Courage: also
named fortitude, forbearance, strength, endurance, and the ability to confront
fear, uncertainty, and intimidation.
n Temperance: also
known as restraint, the practice of self-control, abstention, and moderation
tempering the appetite.
l Modern theologian James F Keenan
suggests: Justice (treat all human beings equally), Fidelity (we treat people
closer to us with special care), Self-care (we each have a unique
responsibility to care for ourselves, affectively, mentally, physically,
spiritually), Prudence (must always look for opportunities to acquire more of
the other three virtues).
l Strengths:
n It's a useful theory since human
beings are often more interested in assessing the character of another person
than they are in assessing the goodness or badness of a particular action.
l Weaknesses:
n It doesn't provide clear guidance
on what to do in moral dilemmas.
n There is no general agreement on
what the virtues are and any list of virtues will be relative to the
culture in which it is being drawn up. Therefore I think a Christian should try
and strive for the character of Christ as described in the bible and inspired
by the Spirit in this case.
Situationism:
l Right and wrong depend upon the situation.
l Located between the extremes of
legalism (having a law for everything) and antinomianism (having no laws).
l There are no universal moral rules
or rights - each case is unique and deserves a unique solution.
l Rejects 'prefabricated decisions
and prescriptive rules'. It teaches that ethical decisions should follow
flexible guidelines rather than absolute rules, and be taken on a case by case
basis.
l Approaches ethical problems with
some general moral principles rather than a rigorous set of ethical laws and is
prepared to give up even those principles if doing so will lead to a greater
good.
l The elements of situation ethics
were described by Joseph Fletcher, its leading modern proponent,
originally devised in a Christian context: There is one absolute law:
the law of love.[8]
"Love thy neighbour." Within the framework of this absolute norm of
love, everything else is pragmatic, relativist, positivist, and personalistic.
n Pragmatism: An action someone makes should
be judged according to the love influenced in it, so the user must always ask:
what is the most loving thing to do? For example, war may not - to a
situationist - be considered the most 'loving' thing and so many are quick to
deem it as morally wrong.
n Relativism: Points of view have no absolute
truth or validity. Approaching every situation with a relative mindset and thus
opposing legalistic approaches - avoid words such as 'never', 'complete' and
'perfect'.
n Positivism: The form of empiricism that all
knowledge regarding matters of fact is based on the “positive” data of
perceptual experience. In Christian thought, the supremacy of Christian love is
established by the decision to say “yes” to the faith claim that “God is love”.
It rests on a fundamental value judgment which cannot be rationally proved. The
most important choice of all in the teachings in 1 John 4:7-12 is "let us
love one another because love is from God".
n Personalism: Putting people in first place. Whereas
the legalist thinks people should work to laws, the situational ethicist
believes that laws are for the benefit of the people. This forces the user to
ask 'who is to be helped?' instead of 'what is the law', stressing the
importance of people before laws.
l A form of consequentialism, though
distinct from utilitarianism in that the latter's aim is "the greatest
good for the greatest number", while situational ethics focuses on
creating the greatest amount of love.
l Eg. Moral dilemma: lying to save
Jews from Nazi death camps. Lying is sometimes right, there is only one
universal moral law, love is the only absolute. Lying may be the loving thing
to do. In fact, lying to save a life is the loving thing to do.
l Strengths:
n Personal: sensitive to the
circumstances, context, etc. Avoids the logical detached impersonal ways of
thinking that some people think are overemphasised in ethics.
n Based on doing good
l Weaknesses:
n Excludes most universal moral
truths: removes any possibility of satisfying human needs for a useful ethical
framework for human behaviour.
n It is not clear what ‘love’ means:
the notion of love is vague and can be interpreted in many ways.
n Can’t produce consistent results:
as it procures a lack of consistency from one situation to the next.
n It may approve of ‘evil’ acts: it
teachings that particular types of action don’t have an inherent value, whether
they are good or bad depends on the eventual result.
Ethical positions:
l Two broad classes
n Those that believe in binding
ethical rules
u Universally binding ethical laws:
Absolutism
l Unqualified absolutism
l Conflicting absolutism
l Graded absolutism
u Generally binding laws: Generalism
(eg. utilitarianism)
n Those that do not believe in
binding ethical rules: Antinomianism (eg. hedonism, existentialism, scepticism,
nihilism).
l Generalism: there are some general laws but no absolute ones.
l Unqualified absolutism: believes in many absolute laws that never conflict.[9]
Though it is no doubt true that moral conflicts are not God’s ideal, it is also
a fact that this is not an ideal world. It must find a morally acceptable way
to preserve absolutes while honestly and adequately providing an answer for
every moral situation.[10]
Whether or not one should ever lie to save a life: unqualified absolutist
answer is ‘no’! The trap with this in a Christian life is that we can become
too legalistic!
l Conflicting absolutism: contends there are many absolute normal that sometimes conflict,
and we are obligated to do the lesser evil.[11]
It has the merit of retaining absolutes and yet being realistic about the
fallen world in which we live. However, it does not appear to have successfully
defended itself against either the moral or the Christological charges levelled
against it. It seems morally absurd to say that there is a moral duty to sin or
to blame someone for what is unavoidable.[12]
l Graded absolutism: holds that many absolute laws sometimes conflict, and we are
responsible for obeying the higher law.[13] Moral
laws are absolute in their source; absolute in their own sphere, where there is
no conflict; and absolute in their order of priority when there is a conflict.
In contrast to nonconflicting absolutism, graded absolutism believes that there
are real moral conflicts. But in distinction from conflicting absolutism, it
holds that in these circumstances one is not culpable for subordinating the
lower duty to the higher duty.[14]
Natural law:
l There are ways of behaving that apply
to all human beings, irrespective of their backgrounds and upbringing.
l A morality based on the nature
of things or on the nature of people. God has made the world and us
in it so that some things are good and right for us and other things are
harmful and wrong. What is bad tends to harm us, while what is good helps us
to flourish.
l It is the use of human reason
to analyse human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behaviour.
l Natural law transcends national
laws in its universal application.
l Natural law is known apart from
any religious teaching, or divine revelation. It is accessible to human beings
through reflection on their humanity. Natural law is an ethical idea that is
common to Christians and non-Christians alike.[15]
Christ and Culture:
l Christ against Culture (opposition). For the exclusive Christian, history is the story of a rising
church or Christian culture and a dying pagan civilization. Christians
in this mode see the world outside the church as hopelessly corrupted by sin.
The kingdom of God comes to supersede it—currently in the purity of the church,
and ultimately in the messianic kingdom. God calls Christians to "come out
from among them and be ye separate" in communities of holiness. Loyalty
to Christ and the church entails a rejection of culture and society.
l Christ of Culture (agreement). For the cultural Christian, history is the story
of the Spirit’s encounter with nature. Sometimes this attitude lapsed
into nationalism that has virtually merged American patriotism with the
cause of Christ.
l Christ above Culture. All that is good in human culture is a gift from God. For the
synthesist, history is a period of preparation under law, reason, gospel, and
church for an ultimate communion of the soul with God.
l Christ and Culture in Paradox (tension). We are “in the world but not
of the world” and must be careful not to estrange ourselves from the world,
but at the same time not to embrace it either. In short, we are citizens of two
worlds that are often at odds with each other. Two cities or two kingdom view
as the rule of thumb for Christian attitudes toward mainstream culture. For the
dualist, history is the time of struggle between faith and unbelief, a period
between the giving of the promise of life and its fulfillment.
l Christ Transforming Culture (transformation/reformation). Church
influencing culture. For the conversionist, history is the story of God’s
mighty deeds and humanity’s response to them. Conversionists live somewhat less
“between the times” and somewhat more in the divine “now” than do the followers
listed above. Eternity, to the conversionist, focuses less on the action of God
before time or life with God after time, and more on the presence of God in
time. Hence the conversionist is more concerned with the divine possibility of
a present renewal than with conservation of what has been given in creation or
preparing for what will be given in a final redemption.
l Postscript: encouraging readers to
not settle on one of these views to the exclusion of the others. No
“Christian answer” exists that applies definitively for all time, since
faith is “fragmentary,” and we do not have “the same fragments of faith”
Personal thoughts:
Each of these ethical
approaches have some aspects which are helpful for living a Christian life, and
some aspects which are unhelpful. There isn’t one particular approach which is
perfect. Even the deontological/principle based approach, which is probably the
most Christian of all approaches, is fallible to its absolutism because we live
in an imperfect fallen world, which makes it impossible to live out all the
biblical commandments without one principle conflicting another at times. Therefore,
as Christians, when we make ethical decisions, I believe we cannot look at only
one approach in isolation. We have to think through all of these approaches.
Resources:
Wikipedia
Notes made from listening to
Miyon Chung’s lectures in Christian Ethics PE501
[1] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
17.
[2] Brown, Crash Course, 8,
11.
[3] Brown, Crash Course, 11.
[4] Brown, Crash Course, 34.
[8] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
35.
[9] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
18.
[10] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
81.
[11] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
18.
[12] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
95.
[13] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
19.
[14] Geisler, Christian Ethics,
115.
[15] Brown, Crash Course, 78.
