Rational ethical decisions are hopefully made according to some type of criteria. Ethical options are considered and the one that is most likely to achieve your ethical objective will be the one that is chosen. In the philosophy of ethics, approaches to ethical decision making are typically categorized as deontological, teleological, and areteological. Definitions of these ethical approaches and typical Christian usage are now provided.
Deontology. Deontology refers to ethical decisions based on rules and principles. In Christianity, deontology is primarily about making ethical decisions based on the two greatest commandments: to love God and to love others. These rules are typically supplemented with additional specific rules that are based on scriptural teachings.
Teleology. In an ethical context, teleology refers to ethical decisions based upon a desired goal. An example of a secular teleology is utilitarianism, which strives to achieve the greatest good for the most people. In Christianity, teleology typically strives to give the most glory to God and/or to have the closest possible relationship with God.
Areteology. Areteology (also called virtue ethics) refers to ethical decisions based on becoming a more virtuous person. In Christianity, areteology is making ethical decision with the goal of becoming more Christ-like.
Most people use a combination of rules and goals and virtue pursuit when making ethical decisions. But one approach often is often viewed as the most important with the others providing support. A deontological approach will use goals and virtue pursuit to help in following moral rules and principles. A teleological approach will use rules and virtue pursuit to support the achievement of ethical goals. A areteological approach will use rules and goals to support becoming a more virtuous person.
Another approach that is somewhat subjective is to give different levels of importance to rules, goals, and virtues. A person may give the most important weight to virtue building, but if an ethical decision that would only develop virtue a small amount would severely violate certain principles, these principles may influence this particular decision more than virtue building. The same could be true of a person that views rules as typically the most important thing but might sometimes make moral decisions based on virtue building or goal achievement. Similarly, a person that views goal achievement as typically the most important moral consideration might sometimes make decisions based on virtue building or rules.
Deontological Ethics
Deontological ethics are based on rules. The strong form of deontological ethics is based on rules that have their own authority and are not justified based on any other principles. Robin Gill describes the strong form of deontological ethics as follows:
It is a feature of deontological arguments–derived from the Greek for “necessary” or “imperative”–that by nature they are absolutist. One cannot argue beyond them. So, if one maintains that murder is wrong and is asked to give a reason, a deontological response would be: “Because it is against the law of nature,” or “Because it is against God’s will,” or “Because it breaks the Sixth Commandment,” or even “Because it is simply wrong.” Such responses merely refer the other person to some norm or absolute beyond which there can be no further argument.[i]
The weak form of deontological ethics is based on general principles that have their own authority, with corresponding rules that are developed based on these principles. A hybrid form of deontological ethics has principles, rules derived from these principles, and rules that have their own authority independent of these principles.
A positive aspect of rule-based ethics is that it does not require any predictions about how an ethical decision will impact the future. One simply follows the rules and accepts the outcome, whatever it may be. A negative aspect of rule-based ethics is that rules may sometimes conflict. In this case, it may be necessary to rank the importance of some rules above others in a hierarchy. This will still result in some rules necessarily being broken in certain circumstances.
Although rule-based systems may seem straightforward, it is not always clear about how a rule should be applied in certain circumstances. You may have a rule to never lie, but does this mean that parents cannot let their children experience the magic of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? You may have a rule never to murder, but does this apply to wartime bombing where a certain number of civilian collateral deaths is unavoidable?
Of course, Christian deontological ethics are primarily based on rules that appear in the Bible. The obvious examples are the Ten Commandments and the double command to love God and neighbor. But there are many other rules in both the OT and NT where it is unclear how to apply them in modern context or whether they should apply at all. Virtually all Christians agree that the rules surrounding the sacrificial system of the OT no longer apply today, including dietary restrictions. Some examples of OT rules that do not apply today include:
- “If two men, a man and his countryman, have a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from the hand of the one who is hitting him, and she reaches out with her hand and grasps that man’s genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity (Dt 25:11-12)”;
- “It is a permanent statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places: you shall not eat any fat or any blood” (Lv 3:17);
- “When a woman has a discharge … Anyone who touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening. Whoever touches any object on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening.” (Lv 15:19-22); and
- “You shall not cross-breed two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment of two kinds of material mixed together” (Lv 19:19).
If one agrees that some of the OT rules may no longer apply, how is one to decide? Some distinguish between the moral laws of the OT and the ceremonial laws of the OT. It is then argued that moral laws still apply but ceremonial laws do not. Still others add a third category of judicial/civil law, where specific guidance is given for a range of societal situations. It is also typically argued that these judicial/civil laws also no longer apply today. But it is not always clear which laws are in which categories, and therefore which laws should still be followed under a deontological system. Similar issues arise in the NT. Some examples of NT commands that many argue no longer apply include the following:
- “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel” (1 Tim 2:9);
- Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for it is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved (1 Cor 11:4-5); and
- “As in all the churches of the saints, the women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak … it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor 14:34-35).
Most Christians interpret these NT commands by Paul as cultural in nature. Since our cultural norms are different now, these verses (it is argued) should not be literally interpreted. But who is to make the determination about which NT commands are to be interpreted culturally and which are to be understood literally? The following section performs an in-depth examination of how this difficulty exists for NT teachings about sexual morality.
A final point about deontological ethics is related to the motivation of Protestants in particular to follow biblical rules. If a person is saved and believes that salvation cannot be lost, following biblical rules for their own sake does not seem to be essential. We can follow biblical rules to be closer to God, but this is teleology. We can follow biblical rules to become a better person, but this is areteology. Is there any deontological motivation to follow biblical rules?
The theological position of antinomianism answers in the negative. Antinomianism is the belief that Christians are freed from the Law including the requirement to follow the Ten Commandments because no earthly actions, including sinful acts or good works, will affect salvation. Antinomianism makes a good point, but perhaps misses the bigger point. Jesus says, “The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father” (Jn 14:21). Jesus additionally states, “I came so that they would have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). Clearly Jesus wants us to keep His commandments, but as an act of deontological love rather than deontological obedience. Furthermore, God gives us these rules because He wants the best for us.
Teleological Ethics
Teleological ethics makes moral choices based on objectives. With this approach, optimal ethical decisions will require a single objective from which options can be compared. For example, a secular teleological goal might be the most happiness for the most people (called utilitarianism). A Christian teleological goal might be showing the most love for the most people (called agapism). But in a practical sense, it is almost impossible to rank moral choices based on a single objective. Therefore, teleological ethics typically involves the identification of multiple objectives that are all subjectively weighed against each other when performing ethical assessment.
In ethics, the object of an objective is called a good. The purpose of teleological ethics is to pursue goods. This can be difficult to apply in specific ethical situations because there are typically many goods that must be considered and weighed against each other. The moral framework called situation ethics argues that it is impossible to assess a moral situation according to absolute moral standards and therefore only the particulars of the specific situation should be considered.
Because it is nearly impossible to objectively assess a large number of goals in a specific ethical situation, teleological ethics is often applied to longer-term ethical goals for one’s life. One can set goals for Christian development, education, career, family, mission work, personal health, and so forth. With these goals in place, a plan can then be developed so that life decisions can generally advance one towards achieving these goals. A realistic plan will also identify whether achieving all of the goals are reasonable, or whether some of the goals should be considered “stretch goals” that would be nice to achieve but may not happen. As long as all of these goals are ethical in a Christian sense, making decisions to achieve these goals will generally result in an ethical Christian life. Of course, goals can always be reexamined, reprioritized, and changed. This perfectly acceptable as long as these changes are believed to be part of God’s plan for you after prayerful consideration. It is also important to examine whether a transition from the old plan with the old goals to the new plan with the new goals is realistic and will not be unacceptably disruptive to you or to others.
When setting life goals, Christians must consider the following hierarchy of importance. Of highest import is that your life goals will give glory to God. “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all things for the glory of God.” (1 Cor 10:31). Next is to consider others before yourself. “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility consider one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil 2:3-4). It is perfectly fine to better yourself, but this should always be done in the context of being better able to give glory to God and being better able to serve others. A good test is to examine whether other Christians will see you as a Christian to be respected, liked, and admired and whether non-Christians will be given a positive impression of Christianity through you.
An example of living a life to give glory to God and to serve others is the Social Gospel Movement, which started in the early 20th century in the United States and Canada. This movement tries to advance in society the vision in the Lord’s Prayer that says, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Mt 6:10). The Social Gospel Movement therefore tries to apply Christian ethics to a range of social problems such as poverty, substance addiction, crime, racial tensions, and educational inequality. Many of the participants in this movement are postmillennialists and therefore believe that the second coming of Christ cannot happen until social evils on earth are eradicated.
Another consideration when setting life goals is how you can best serve as part of the body of Christ. This will typically involve an assessment of your spiritual gifts, developing these gifts, and putting these gifts to good use. It is equally important to recognize where you are not gifted and to not place to much hope and effort into these areas. Paul writes:
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work. Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines. Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body. (1 Cor 12:4-12)
Paul uses the analogy of life being a race with the objective of winning. To win, of course one must run in a way that allows you to win. In life, to achieve your objective, you must do the things necessary for these objectives to be achieved. Things that do not work towards your objectives are aimless. Paul writes, “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win … Therefore I run in such a way as not to run aimlessly” (1 Cor 9:24-26). Paul also likens life to a fight. At the end or your life, will you be able to say what Paul says, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith” (2 Tm 4:7). If yes, you can expect at Judgement Day to hear the words from your Lord, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Mt 25:23 ESV).
Areteological Ethics
Areteological ethics, as previously discussed is primarily concerned with making moral choices that will improve one’s character in terms of virtues. This is why areteological ethics is sometimes called virtue ethics. For a Christian, areteological ethics will motivate a person to make moral choices that will result in one becoming more Christ-like. Christ, after all is perfect in all of His virtues. In common parlance, Christians are to ask when faced with a moral choice, “What would Jesus do?”[ii]
But it is not always clear what Jesus would have done in a particular situation and it is certainly true that Jesus is able to do things beyond human capabilities. Therefore, it is typically better to think of specific virtues that are to be pursued when taking a areteological approach to ethical decision making.
As discussed earlier, Christian ethics is primarily about being a good person rather than acting like a good person. A choice is morally good if it is motivated by love and is not good if it is motivated by something else. Although theoretically correct, relying on love when making moral choices is problematic because of its generality, similar to efforts to become more Christ-like. This becomes clear when examining moral dilemmas. Is it moral to steal food to feed your hungry family? Is it moral to lie to someone to prevent distress? Is it moral to kill one person to save thousands? In each moral dilemma, love can be used to justify either action. The same is true for many moral choices that commonly occur. Should you provide honest feedback when it might hurt someone’s feelings? Should you give preferential treatment to your children over other people’s children? Should you support your spouse when you think that they acted wrongly towards someone else? Examples are endless. And so, many moral choices are not as simple as doing the loving thing. Instead, it is often helpful to think of moral choices as doing the virtuous thing.
A virtue is a dispositional characteristic that supports good moral choices. A vice is a dispositional characteristic that inhibits good moral choices. The classical way to enumerate aspects of virtue are with three “theological virtues” and four “cardinal virtues.” Theological virtues involve cooperation with the Holy Spirit and include faith, hope, and charity. The cardinal virtues date from antiquity, are secular in nature, and include prudence, temperance, justice, and fortitude. C.S. Lewis writes:
[T]here are seven virtues. Four of them are called Cardinal virtues, and the remaining three are called Theological virtues. The Cardinal ones are those which all civilized people recognize: the Theological are those which, as a rule, only Christians know about … The word cardinal has nothing to do with Cardinals in the Roman Church. It comes from a Latin word meaning the hinge of a door. These were called cardinal virtues because they are, as we should say, pivotal. They are prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude.[iii]
The theological virtues are listed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” (1 Cor 13:11-13 KJV).
Before addressing each specific virtue, a general comment is warranted. Performing a virtuous act is not the same thing as being a virtuous person. Christianity is primarily concerned with the type of person that you are rather than the type of behavior that you exhibit. C.S. Lewis continues:
Someone who is not a good tennis player may now and then make a good shot. What you mean by a good player is a man whose eye and muscles and nerves have been so trained by making innumerable good shots that they can now be relied on. They have a certain tone or quality which is there even when he is not playing, just as a mathematician’s mind has a certain habit and outlook which is there even when he is not doing mathematics. In the same way a man who perseveres in doing just actions gets in the end a certain quality of character. Now it is that quality rather than the particular actions which we mean when we talk of a ‘virtue’.[iv]
And so, the goal of virtue ethics is to become a person where acting virtuously is natural, habitual, and automatic. Like sanctification, this is progressive and will never be perfected in this life. But intentionally and consistently acting in virtuous ways, though not ends in themselves, will gradually transform us from less virtuous creatures into more virtuous creatures.
[i] Robin Gill, A Textbook of Christian Ethics, 4th ed., London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014: 4.
[ii] The phrase “What would Jesus do” (also abbreviated WWJD) was made popular by the 1896 book In His Steps: What Would Jesus Do? by Charles Sheldon.
[iii] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952/2002: 76.
[iv] Ibid., 79-80.
Leave a Reply