Why should people act ethically? For most, the answer is spiritual faith. They believe in a faith system that includes a moral code. They know by faith that everyone should generally try to be nice, unselfish, and helpful rather than mean, greedy, and unhelpful. They believe that they should try their best to be a good person. They feel bad when they fall short.
A theological treatment of ethics is essentially using the Bible as a standard for how one should act. But before studying theological ethics, it is beneficial to first examine the secular philosophy of ethics. A basic understanding of the philosophy of ethics can serve as a solid foundation for correct thinking on the subject. Any faith system can then be compared against this philosophical framework.
Are some moral choices better than others? For example, if you find a wallet full of money, is it more moral to try to find the owner rather than keep the money and buy yourself a luxury item? A similar question can be asked of political systems. During World War II, was the political system of Great Britain more moral than the political system of Nazi Germany? Is it possible for moral codes to improve over time? Slavery used to be an acceptable practice from the earliest days of civilization. Does today’s condemnation of slavery represent a moral improvement?
When examining these questions, it is important to distinguish between moral behavior and social animal behavior. Social animals like humans benefit in numerous ways by living in groups. Acting in unselfish ways often strengthens the group, which results in individual benefits. Social norms and social instincts have developed so that most individuals will try to avoid most antisocial behavior most of the time. Actions motivated by social norms and social instincts are good for society but, strictly speaking, are not moral because they seek selfish benefits. Examples of selfish motivations for following social norms are avoiding punishment, seeking societal approval, feeling good about yourself, avoiding guilty feelings, and so forth. If you do something in the pursuit of personal happiness or in the avoidance of personal unhappiness, you are acting for self-benefit regardless of whether your actions are good for society.
True moral choices in a secular sense are made because they are the right thing to do, without consideration of whether they will increase personal happiness (although they may) or reduce personal unhappiness (although they may do this as well). This brings us back the philosophical question about whether there are standards by which moral actions can be judged.
If the universe is deterministic, libertarian free will is impossible and moral standards are matter of opinion. Different moral systems can be logically consistent within themselves but completely at odds with each other. Different moral systems are free to use different criteria for assessing moral behavior, which is equivalent to defining a moral standard. If each moral system is free to define what moral behavior is, no absolute moral standard is possible. The best one can do is assess a moral choice against a particular moral system. According to Immanuel Kant, compassion for weak people by strong people is moral. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, compassion for weak people by strong people is immoral. According to Aristotle, moral behavior involves the pursuit of individual happiness. According to John Stuart Mill, moral behavior involves the pursuit of the aggregate happiness of everyone. In a deterministic world you can simply take your pick from a variety of moral systems.
Most of us have strong feelings about moral behavior. People shouldn’t act selfishly. People shouldn’t harm others for their own pleasure. People should try to help others, even if it is inconvenient. We approve of attempts at good moral choices even if they are not successful. We disapprove of attempts at bas moral choices even if they fail. Moral judgement is therefore about intent rather than outcomes. Your moral judgement is very different if someone hurts you intentionally rather than hurts you by accident. Your injury is the same, but your moral judgement is not. An action results from a moral choice, but the results of the action may or may not be what was intended.
If you believe that some choices are moral and that some choices are immoral, you must also believe that there is a true moral standard by which moral choices can be compared. This moral standard cannot be inherent in a deterministic universe because moral choices cannot be made in a deterministic universe (all choices are predetermined by definition). Any absolute moral standard must be based on something extramundane. This fact is summarized with the following assumption and the resulting conclusion that must hold if the assumption is true.
Assumption: Some moral choices are better than others.
Conclusion: There is a standard for moral behavior that is based on something extramundane.
If the world is deterministic, moral choices are impossible and moral standards are meaningless. You can believe in a deterministic world where moral standards are a matter of opinion, or you can believe in true moral standards that come from something outside of the physical universe.
A third logical position on moral standards is possible. This involves a non-deterministic world with no absolute moral standards. For example, the Zoroastrian religion believes that there are two equal and opposing supernatural powers corresponding to good and evil (i.e., dualistic cosmology). Each has its own moral code and people are given free choice to pick one of the other. As with determinism, moral standards become a matter of personal opinion. We all have strong feelings that people should try to act in certain “good” ways and avoid acting in “bad” ways. We tend to approve when others act in good ways and disapprove when they act in bad ways. We also tend to feel good about ourselves when we do something good and feel guilty when we do something bad.
Most people feel that right and wrong behavior are not just a matter of opinion. If a person selfishly cuts in line, most people think, “That action was wrong, and that person shouldn’t have done it.” They do not tend to thing, “That action was inconvenient for me.” These feelings about right and wrong behavior have traditionally been called the Law of Human Nature; people know the general rules of right and wrong behavior by nature and do not need them to be taught. C.S. Lewis addresses the Law of Human nature as follows:
“I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behavior known to all men is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences in their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference … 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 put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. It seems, then, that we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.”[i]
One can either agree or disagree with Lewis, but his arguments are worth understanding. If there are absolute moral standards, are people generally aware of them? The Law of Human Nature says that they are. People can grow in their understanding and application of moral conduct, but everyone knows the basics. If everyone knows the basics, we can expect everyone to understand when they are making good moral choices and when they are making bad moral choices. This point is summarized with the following assumption and corresponding conclusion that must hold if the assumption is true.
Assumption: Most people inherently have the same basic ideas about moral and immoral choices.
Conclusion: Most people understand when they are making good moral choices and when they are making bad moral choices.
If the Law of Human Nature is true, people can fairly be held accountable for their moral choices (barring certain situations such as mental illness). They know when they make a bad moral choice, everyone is in general agreement that it was a bad moral choice, and it is just to hold them accountable for their bad moral choice.
Assume for now that that meaningful moral responsibility exists. If so, does moral responsibility mean that moral choices matter? Do our bad moral choices have any consequences beyond the avoidance of shame, guilt, and punishment? Do our good moral choices have any consequences beyond good feelings, increased respect by others, and the general betterment of society? These earthly good and bad consequences are real and certainly have an influence on our behavior. But this “social contract” aspect of moral behavior is not the same as altruistic morality. Altruistic morality requires moral choices to be made without consideration of whether they are personally or socially beneficial. A true moral choice is made because it is the right thing to do.
Beyond possible earthly benefits, does it matter whether we obey the Law of Human Nature or not? If the universe is deterministic, moral choices cannot be made and moral behavior cannot matter beyond the good or bad that results to the individual and society. The only way that moral behavior can matter beyond this must be a result of something extramundane. If you believe that altruistic moral behavior matters, you must also believe that there is something extramundane that responds to your moral choices in a way that somehow matters to you.
Assumption: Your moral choices have an impact on you beyond their physical-universe consequences.
Conclusion: Something extramundane is responding to your moral choices in a way that matters to you.
At this point we have examined moral standards, moral awareness, and whether moral behavior matters. The last philosophical issue that needs to be addressed before discussing theological ethics is moral failings. We know that we should act in a certain way, but often fail to do so.
People are not perfect. You are not perfect and probably do not expect perfection in others. This does not excuse the fact that everyone makes poor moral choices, probably daily for most of us. We know we should do something but are too tired. We know we should refrain from doing something, but it is too tempting. We know we shouldn’t think bad thoughts but do so anyway. We know we shouldn’t take our bad mood out on others, but we had a really tough day. When we make poor moral choices, we tend to minimize, rationalize, and make excuses. Lewis describes the situation as follows:
“[L]ikely, this very day, we have failed to practice ourselves the kind of behavior we expect from other people … That is to say, I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much – we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so – that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it.” [ii]
Why do we so often fail to make good moral choices? In answering this question, it is helpful to examine the tension between our animal nature and our moral nature: the law of the jungle versus the law of human nature, survival of the fittest versus compassion for the weakest.
Higher animals have developed strong instincts related to personal survival and reproduction. Instincts that increase survival chances for primitive humans include seeking pleasure, avoiding pain, “fight or flight” when faced with danger, eating as much as you can when food is available, and so forth. Instincts that increase reproductive success for primitive humans include promiscuity for males and seeking the best mate possible for females. These instincts, still with us all today, are often in tension with moral choices. Different people have different moral struggles to different degrees, but we all succumb to our animal instincts regularly and often. Why must our animal instincts so often conflict with the Law of Human Nature? The answer is a mystery but consider the following. If moral choices matter, then the difficulty of the moral choice also probably matters. It is not very impressive if someone makes an easy moral choice. The moral choice becomes increasingly impressive as its difficulty increases. Being faced with regular and difficult moral choices allows us to mature as moral creatures.
Summary of Philosophical Ethics
- Moral choices can only be made if we have free will. If we have free will, our choices are not completely determined by the physical universe.
- Moral standards can only exist if some moral choices are better than others. If some moral choices are better than others there must be an extramundane standard for moral behavior.
- Moral responsibility can only exist if people making moral choices are aware of and generally agree upon right and wrong behavior.
- Moral choices only matter if something extramundane is aware of them and is responding to them.
- Everyone has moral failings. People often make poor moral choices even though they know they are making poor moral choices.
[i] C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, New York, NY: HarperOne, 1952/2002: 5-6.
[ii] Ibid., 7-8.
Leave a Reply