Rex Banks.

Introduction

Even a cursory look at cultures past and present is enough to convince us that human traditions and practices have varied considerably from time to time and from place to place. For example slavery is not practised in twenty-first century New Zealand, but it was widespread among the ancient Romans. Again, "poor houses" and child labour were normal parts of the Dickensian world but they too are unknown in New Zealand today. Apartheid, female circumcision, human sacrifice, holy wars and infanticide are foreign to our society, but at various times and in various place these have been traditional practices. In fact it is not difficult to list and to describe many such differences among social groups separated by time and distance.

However when speaking of these and similar differences among various groups, some individuals do more than simply describe the existence of divergent customs. For example some people use words like "immoral" and "unjust" when discussing slavery, apartheid and infanticide. They speak of female circumcision and the use of children in mines as "wrong," and insist that a "good" society does not tolerate such "unfair" practices. Now, clearly such language ("good," "bad," "right", "wrong", "just", "unjust") goes beyond the merely descriptive and enters the realm of prescription, by which we mean that those who use such terms are not merely telling us about the way things are but they are saying something about the way things ought to be or ought not to be. They are insisting (for example) that some men should not enslave other men, that little children should not be forced into mines and that unwanted babies should not be exposed on mountains. Such language signals that we have left the realm of description and entered the realm of normative ethics, that discipline which is concerned with moral rules and principles. When we study the meaning of words like "good", "right", and "just" we are involved in an area of ethics known as metaethics.

Ethics then is that discipline which is concerned with the process of determining right and wrong and it is usually defined in the dictionaries as moral philosophy, moral principles, rules of conduct, the science of morals and such like. Debates about how men should act are ethical debates. Now clearly distinctions between "good" and "bad," "right" and "wrong" are meaningful if and only if some ground or basis exists for making such distinctions. Moral choices presuppose the existence of some kind of moral standard, and the identification of that standard is the task of ethics. On just what basis do I declare one action to be "just" and another "unjust," and why should I choose to act in a particular manner? Many different answers have been given to the question about what constitutes the ground, source, or basis of moral authority but all of these answers reflect a commitment to one of two mutually exclusive positions.

On the one hand some insist that in the final analysis ethical authority is a human construct derived solely from the mind of man and depending completely upon human convention.

On the other hand some take the position that ultimate moral authority is transcendent, meaning that such authority exists apart from man and derives its legitimacy from some source external to him.

Let's say a few words about both positions.

A Human Construct

C.S. Lewis begins his Mere Christianity by pointing out that "human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it." (Despite the fact that particular groups may differ on such particulars as we have mentioned above). Lewis finds evidence for the existence of an ethical Lawgiver in man's moral tendency, but many others who have acknowledged the reality of this tendency and wrestled with ethical matters, have attempted to construct ethical systems without invoking some moral source external to man. For them such ethical systems are human constructs which do not find validity in some extra-human source.

Now if ethical obligation has a purely human source, then the source of that obligation is either the individual or the group. Consider an example of each case:

An example of ethical obligation derived from the individual: Epicureanism.

Deriving its name from the Greek philosopher Epicurus (c341-270 B.C.) and associated with Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) in the later Roman period, Epicureanism taught that matter was uncreated and eternal, and denied the immortality of the soul. Happiness was held to be the highest end in living, and for the Epicurean the happiness enjoyed by the virtuous person consisted in a mind free from upset and a body free from pain. The prudent person was one who understood the natural order of things and found happiness within the limits set by that natural order. Although Epicureanism is frequently associated in peoples' minds with unbridled self indulgence, Epicurus and many of his followers favoured a simple rural lifestyle.

An earlier 5th century philosopher Aristippus had, like Epicurus taught that pleasure is the good, but in his view the supreme good was the pleasure of the moment, immediate sensation. The views of Aristippus were later adopted by those of the so-called Cyrenaic school who argued, among other things, that bodily pleasures are more valuable than mental. (Some classify this as "unenlightened" hedonism). Critics of the system ask the question "What if one man's pursuit of happiness results in pain and suffering for others?"

An example of ethical obligation derived from the group: Utilitarianism.

Associated mainly with the names of Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill, (1806-1873) the central tenet of utilitarianism is that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by the extent to which it tends to increase or diminish the general happiness. The good action is the one which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people or which produces more good consequences than harmful consequences. (Mill inconsistently attempted to distinguish between higher and lower pleasures). Critics of Utilitarianism argue that the system justifies the infliction of any amount of pain and suffering upon groups and individuals provided the overall sum of human happiness is maximized.

Now Epicureanism is but one of many proposed systems which attempt to derive ethical obligation from the individual, and Utilitarianism is but one of many proposed systems which attempt to derive ethical obligation from the group, but all attempts to explain moral authority purely in terms of human convention must face up to at least one major difficulty. This difficulty is illustrated by the following quotation from The Oxford Companion To Philosophy (moral philosophy, history of):

"The more conservative Sophists such as Protagoras defended the idea of moral codes as useful human creations, sets of customs and conventions which make social life possible, and were thus committed to a form of ethical relativism and to the denial of any universal code of morality or any absolute moral truth. The more radical of their followers ... concluded that, since traditional moral standards are mere conventions, they have no binding force, and the rational way to live is therefore to pursue one's own interests and power, acting unjustly if one can get away with it." (emphasis mine)

Indeed why not draw such a conclusion if moral codes rest on nothing more than human convention? If we personally do not happen to like those moral systems devised by other men, and if we are able to lie, cheat, steal, murder, exploit and enslave with impunity, then why not do so if it increases our own happiness or decreases our own pain? The fact is that if all moral laws originate with man, statements about good and bad amount to nothing more than expressions of personal preferences. In fact each man may devise his own code of conduct, and no one system can claim to be the standard against which all others are to be judged. Because of different codes of ethics men may disagree about the morality of genocide, and because of different dietary habits men may disagree about the taste of goats' eyes, but if both moral codes and dietary practices originate with men there is no final court of appeal in either case. In short if ethical systems are human constructs no effective appeal can be made to that man who chooses to pursue his own interests in defiance of all such systems and at whatever cost to others.

God-centred Morality

Opposed to the view of moral law as a human construct is the position known as moral realism according to which moral law is not a function of human will, reason or emotion, but instead possesses an independent existence. Man can recognise the existence of this law or fail to recognise it, he can apply it or fail to apply it, but man's compliance or non-compliance does not alter the fact that this law exists and it does not affect its content. Morality does not originate with man or depend upon him. Interestingly Plato taught that what men call "justice" is but a dim memory of a perfect "Form" of justice which has an existence in some world other than man's own. However although Plato was a theist he did not derive his moral laws from the existence of a deity, whereas our interest is in a particular theocentric or God-centred ethical system, namely that system set forth in the Christian scriptures.

The Bible affirms unambiguously and unreservedly that moral law is grounded upon and derives its authority from the God who created man. As Creator and Sustainer, God has the same right over man that the potter has over the clay which he is moulding into a vessel. (Rom 9:20, 21) By way of clarifying this theocentric position consider the following points:

a) The Nature of God

In one of his dialogues Plato has a character attempt to define "the pious" as "the god-loved," which provokes the question from Socrates: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because they love it?" (Euthyphro 10a) Known as the Euthyphro dilemma, this inquiry also challenges those who adhere to the divine command theory to consider the question: "Does God command something because it is right, or is something right because God commands it?" This leads on to the next question: "If God commanded men to lie cheat and steal would that make it right to lie cheat and steal?"

Now it is in the answer to these questions that we discover the ground or basis of the theocentric position. Quite simply, scripture teaches that God is perfect in holiness ( Isa. 6:1-7; Jas 1:17) and that because of this He cannot be tempted to do evil ( Jas 1:13) and He cannot condone evil. (Hab 1:13) The God of scripture is constrained by His own holiness which means (for example) that He cannot lie (Tit 1:2; Heb 6:18) and that He cannot command another to lie or cheat or steal. In a nutshell the divine command theory is grounded upon the fact that moral law always reflects the perfect holiness of the God from whom it emanates. Since God is unchanging those laws which reflect His holiness are immutable and universal. Similarly since God is love (1 Jn 4:8) and since this will never change God's laws will always and everywhere require man to act in a loving manner. (Matt 22:35ff)

b) Creation law and positive law

All divine legislation is in complete harmony with the Nature of God, and some ordinances also reflect the work and order of God in creation. For example the male-female relationship is grounded, not upon culture but upon creation order (Gen 2:18-25; 1 Cor 11:7-9; 1 Tim 2:8ff), while the prohibition against taking human life is based upon the fact that man was created in the very image of God. (Gen 9:6) The current debate over homosexuality also involves the matter of creation order. Finally there are those divine laws which do not directly flow from either the Nature of God or the work of God in creation but which are binding simply because of the status of God. For example the command to build an ark, the requirement that the Israelites practice the rite of circumcision and the teaching concerning baptism in the New Testament are examples of laws which are authoritative simply because of their divine source.

c) Deontological ethics and supporting incentives

Under the heading Deontological Ethics, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has:

"Moral theories according to which certain acts must or must not be done, regardless to some extent of the consequences of their performance or non-performance (the Greek dei = one must).......According to deontology, certain acts are right in themselves."

As we have seen what makes an action right or wrong for command theorists is the fact that God has declared it to be so. Clearly in this the deontologist differs from both the utilitarian (see above) who grounds morality on consequences and from the ethical egoist who defines good and bad in terms of self interest.

Having said this, it is worth pointing out that appeals to consequences and to self interest do indeed occur in the Bible, and this is especially true of the Old Testament. Men are to honour parents so that their "days may be prolonged in the land," (Ex 20:12) and if they give liberally their vats will brim over and their barns will be filled to overflowing. (Prov 3:9, 10) Fidelity to the covenant will result in blessings upon the land while rebellion will bring destruction. (Deut 27-30) However while it is true that self interest encourages obedience, and while it is also true that men are urged to consider the consequences of their actions, the ground, source or basis of Biblical morality is always and everywhere the perfection of the One who has revealed Himself in scripture.

d) The role of virtue

Some ethical systems deal not so much with rules of behaviour or principles of conduct as with the nature of virtue. Plato and Aristotle for example sought to identify the inner traits and characteristics of the good man, the man who would make the right decision in a given set of circumstances, and thus they focussed more upon questions of the soul than upon the codification of moral law.

Now, while the Bible does have much to say about principles of conduct and correct modes of behaviour, this goes hand in hand with an emphasis upon the importance of a virtuous character. Men are to act out of that godly wisdom which is "pure, peaceable, gentle, reasonable (and) full of mercy" (Jas 3:17) and they are to let such fruit of the Spirit as "love, joy, peace (and) patience" adorn their lives. (Gal 5:22) Men are not merely to obey God but they are also to desire to obey Him. (Phil 2:13) To engage in the right action (e.g. almsgiving, [ Matt 6:1-4] evangelism [Phil 1:15-17]) for the wrong reason (e.g. the applause of men, [Matt 6:1-4] envy [ Phil 1:15-17]) is reprehensible. The point is that while correct action is vital it is also important that obedience springs from a virtuous character.

e) Mans chief good

Questions about ethics are inseparable from questions about the nature and the purpose of human existence (if indeed a purpose exists). When the writer of Ecclesiastes speaks of the emptiness and weariness of life under the sun, he is describing the futility of man's life when it is divorced from its chief good or proper end. According to Solomon all the human speculation and human reasoning in the world does not alter the fact that man realises his chief good only when he resolves to "fear God and keep His commandments". (Eccles.12:13) According to the wise man, philosophies which view human existence or the pursuit of happiness or indeed anything other than God as the highest good in life are foolish in view of the pre-eminent value of the Creator as over against the created universe. Human life realises its goal and possesses real value when the glorification of God through humble submission is its focus.

To sum up: the divine command theory of ethics set forth in scripture maintains that there exists an immutable moral law which reflects the perfectly holy nature of the Creator. It is because man shares the moral nature of his Creator that he possesses a moral tendency, setting him apart from the beasts. Man's chief good is realised when he fears God and keeps His commandments.

Understanding the Times

When Peter addressed Christians in Asia Minor as "aliens and strangers" (1 Pet 2:11 cf 1:1) he may well have been reinforcing the point that this earth is not the Christian's home, and indeed there are many things in life which remind the believer that he walks to the beat of a drum which the world does not heed. For example it is certainly evident that in New Zealand today those who walk according to the moral principles and precepts of scripture are out of step with society at large. If acknowledged at all, the Christian viewpoint on such matters as pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortion and the like is usually treated as a quaint relic of the past or as an unwelcome restriction upon personal freedom.

The Christian is often confused by such dismissive treatment of his cherished convictions, and in large measure this confusion results from his failure to recognise that fundamental differences exist between his own world view and the dominant cultural world view. Moral decisions reflect philosophical positions, and in order to understand the erosion of Biblical values in our society we need to know something about those influences which have led to the marginalization of the Christian viewpoint.

Moral scepticism

The term moral scepticism has different shades of meaning but in general it is used in connection with the idea that man needs to be sceptical about the possibility of objectively valid moral judgments. Arguments in the defence of the sceptical position include the following:

-There is no God and therefore the idea of morality is ridiculous.

Earlier I argued that if morality is indeed a human construct then no ethical system has the power to constrain those who reject it. Some moral sceptics acknowledge the truth of this position and being atheists they take this to its logical position and deny the possibility of an objective moral code. As the General Theory of Evolution with its naturalistic world view has spread its influence over the minds and hearts of men, this dismissal of objective morality has become widespread. The following from W.B. Provine, Professor of Biological Sciences at Cornell University, appeared in Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal vol. 10 (Part 1) 1996:

"Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear.... There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death..... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life and no free will for humans either." (emphasis mine)

This sounds familiar. In his novel The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky has one of his characters say: "There is no virtue if there is no immortality." The Biblical picture of man as a being created in the image of God has gradually been eclipsed by the idea that humanity is the product of random, mindless forces and is not qualitatively different from the moss growing on the side of a tree. This partly explains why, as a society, we have accepted the mass killing of unborn children with equanimity.

-Since free will is an illusion it makes no sense to speak of moral choices.

In the present era this depressing view of the human condition is mainly associated with behaviourism, and perhaps the best-known presentation of this position is found in a work entitled Beyond Freedom and Dignity by one of its chief proponents B.F. Skinner. In Skinner's view the individual's wants are externally determined and free will is merely an illusion. What we may call "good" or "bad" behaviour is simply a response to contingencies, and Skinner advocates the modification of human behaviour by way of manipulating social environment. He argues for positive reinforcement rather than punishment. A later form of behaviourism is sociobiology.

The influence of behaviourism is widespread in our society as evidenced by our increasing reluctance to take moral responsibility for our own actions. Everyone is "a victim." The rapist, the murderer, the adulterer, the drunkard, you name it, they are all "victims" of heredity and/or environment. What was once a reprehensible perversion is now an "alternative lifestyle." Does any of this sound familiar?

-Since life has no objective point or purpose the concept of objective morality is barren.

Although difficult to define and nail down, the system known as existentialism presents a cluster of ideas which have had a profound influence upon both religious and secular thought in our age. Names like Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) and Paul Tillich (1886-1965) are associated with the former, and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) and Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980) with the latter. Sartre did most to popularize atheistic existentialism.

Briefly, Sartre pictures man as an autonomous being in a universe which is Godless and therefore devoid of objective meaning (Life is "absurd"). In order for man's existence to have point and purpose, the individual must confer meaning upon his own life. Man is his own legislator who shapes his own life by means of his own free choices, and man deceives himself if he believes that religion or science or any force outside self imparts meaning or coherence to his existence. In fact according to Sartre the man who believes that religion or anything else external to him imparts meaning to life is acting in (what he calls) bad faith. Man, says Sartre is condemned to be free.

Much more could be said about the influences which have lead to the widespread rejection of moral absolutes, but from what we have seen it is not difficult to understand why the Christian often feels like a stranger in a strange land when issues such as abortion, euthanasia and extramarital sex are under discussion. Moral cynicism is very much part of the spirit of our age and few areas of public or private life are free from its influence.

Secular humanism

The roots of modern secular humanism are to be found in the Renaissance and the accompanying revival of interest in classical learning. In the fifth century B.C. Protagoras had declared that "Man is the measure of all things" and renewed interest in Greek ideas brought with it an emphasis upon the importance of man. Renaissance humanists were certainly not atheists and God was not excluded, but He was no longer the focus. Inevitably this lead to the view known as deism. Deism affirmed belief in God, but the God of the deist was a remote figure who was not involved in the affairs of man. This movement away from God finally resulted in naturalism, the belief that the material universe is all that has ever existed, all that exists now and all that ever will exist. Naturalism was the soil from which modern secular humanism grew.

In his Dictionary of Philosophy, Peter Angles defines humanism as follows:

"A philosophy that (a) regards the rational individual as the highest value; (b) considers the individual to be the ultimate source of value; and (c) is dedicated to fostering the individual's creative and moral development in a meaningful and rational way without reference to concepts of the supernatural." (emphasis mine)

Secular humanism exists as a well-organized movement with its own clearly-defined goals and its own written manifesto. In the pages of this manifesto (Humanist Manifesto 2) we have the following on ethics:

"We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."

Let's briefly consider two points about the above statement:

First, we have already seen that while there is nothing to prevent humanists or anyone else theorizing about ethics, no ethical system devised by one man or a group of men has a valid claim upon other men who simply say "I disagree." For example the framers of the Humanist manifesto expressed their disapproval of "exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression" and rightly so. But suppose an individual obtained sexual gratification through rape or sadism and that he also subscribed to the view of the ancient Greek philosopher Thrasymachus (at least as Plato represents him) that right is found in might? What makes the humanist position "better" than the right is might position?

Second, there is clearly a problem with the notion that ethics is both situational and autonomous. If ethics is autonomous then I define what is right for me and you define what is right for you. Each man defines "good" and "bad" for himself. If on the other hand ethics is situational then the situation determines what is right and wrong. We can chose one or the other but not both because if man is his own legislator he can simply deny that a given action is wrong in any situation.

Again, the Christian simply must know something of the nature of secular humanism in order to make sense of the world around him. For example Joseph Fletcher, a leading light in the field of medical ethics defends infanticide and argues that human beings without a certain level of intelligence are not persons. It is natural to feel revulsion at such a suggestion but in order to make an adequate response we also need to know something of the humanistic world view which spawned it.

Conclusion

In our increasingly materialistic society the Christian who is committed to the notion of moral absolutes constantly finds himself swimming against the tide of public opinion, but although this can be very tiring let's never forget that truth is never decided by majority vote. Lets also keep in mind that in this battle of value systems the stakes are very high indeed. In his essay Man or Rabbit C.S. Lewis put it this way:

"The Christian and the Materialist hold different beliefs about the universe. They can't both be right. The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn't fit the real universe. Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction." (emphasis mine)