Religious Ethics: Christianity

Religious Ethics: Christianity Christian Ethics is an umbrella term which covers a broad range of approaches: Biblical Ethics, which can support both teleological theories (eg Situation Ethics) and deontological (eg Divine Command). Liberal Christian ethics, such as Situation Ethics, or Absolute Christian ethics, such as Divine Command Theory, or the rationalistic deontological approach of Natural Law. The pronouncements of the churches such as papal encyclicals supporting a Natural Law view (eg Casti Conubii or Humanae Vitae). How are Religion and Morality linked? Autonomy an ethical theory is autonomous if it is independent of religion, it s principles are justified on the basis of reason and experience without reference to religious concepts. It is not necessarily anti-religious but it does not require any assent to religious ideas. Arguments for moral autonomy: Many religious rules and ethics work out of the fear of punishment and abdicate personal freedom and responsibility. Can a moral choice truly be moral if you re acting out of fear? Cultural Relativism If God is omnipotent and omniscient that he knows what I am about to choose and would be able to prevent me from making this choice. If I accept this then God is always an accomplice to my deeds, by making them possible. Moral responsibility requires freedom and freedom Heteronomy an ethical theory is heteronymous if it depends on religious beliefs, or if it has been devised in such a way that it presupposes ideas and values given by religion. Examples: 1

Arguments for Moral Heteronomy Society is influenced by religious ideas people cannot help but be influenced by religious ideas to some degree. All ethical language is influenced by religion you cannot start from scratch and have to admit the religious influence. Religion provides the inspiration to act morally. It can be easy to work out what s the right thing to do but sometime people need encouragement to act morally religion does this. Autonomous ethical theories depend on good will and people s reasonableness for them to work. Perhaps ethics needs religion to deal with peoples selfishness and compel them to act morally. Natural Law ethics escapes this problem by arguing for an a priori (before experience) desire to do good and avoid evil, the synderesis rule. Theonomy an ethical theory is theonomous if both it and religion depend on a common source for their principles and values. Western religions speak of this authority as God, so theonomous morality comes from an understanding of God without depending on the authority of institutions like the church. Arguments for Theonomy Without some form of religious experience it is difficult to account for the sense of moral obligation, which is experienced almost universally. There s no such thing as autonomous reason. If God is the source of everything then human reason will eventually discover something of God s will and purpose. Many philosophers have thought that ethical systems rest on something that cannot be described rationally but only through intuition or immediate awareness. This has parallels with religious experience. Which theory do you think is strongest? Why? 2

Part I: Three Christian Approaches Christian Ethics Absolute Rationalistic Relative I.i Divine Command I.ii Natural law I.iii Situation Ethics Kantian Ethics Fig. 1 Varieties of Christian Ethics 3

I.i Christian Absolutism: The Divine Command Theory is morality dependent on God? Divine Command Theory was supported by Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1509-1564) during the Protestant Reformation, and before that by Franciscans like Duns Scotus (1266-1308). Modern evangelical Christians take a very similar view, as the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy (1978) illustrates (see below). Ivan Karamazov in Dostoyevsky s Brothers Karamazov, declare If God doesn t exist, everything is permissible. Is this right? The name divine command theory can be used to refer to any one of a family of related ethical theories. What these theories have in common is that they take God s will to be the foundation of ethics. According to divine command theory, things are morally good or bad, or morally obligatory, permissible, or prohibited, solely because of God s will or commands. It is therefore a morality of law or commands which are non-negotiable and absolute. Carl Henry is a modern day proponent of divine command: Biblical ethics discredits an autonomous morality. It gives theonomous ethics its classic form- the identification of the moral law with the Divine will. In Hebrew-Christian revelation distinctions in ethics reduce to what is good or what is pleasing, and to what is wicked or displeasing to Creator-God alone. The biblical view maintains always a dynamic statement of values, refusing to sever the elements of morality from the will of God The good is what the Creator-Lord does and commands. He is the creator of the moral law, and defines its very nature. What are the key points of the Divine Command Theory? Divine command theory is often thought to be refuted by an argument known as the Euthyphro dilemma. This argument is named after Plato s Euthyphro, the dialogue in which it has its origin 4

In Euthyphro dilemma Socrates poses two questions (originally it referred to holiness but people have adapted this to : A) Are good things good because God commands them? Or B) Does God command what is Good because it is good? What are the implications of: View A: View B: Why are they opposed? Opinion has been divided over which proposition to accept. Thinkers as diverse as Descartes and C.S. Lewis have held that things are good because God commands them but Hobbes, Hume and to some extent Thomas Aquinas think that some things are good irrespective of a belief in God. Explain how Aquinas, by appealing to reason, rejects the Divine Command Theory: The Chicago Statement (1978) as a modern day version of divine command: The Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy, available on this site, is a good example of how divine command theory has been adapted by evangelical Christians. 1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself. 2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises. 5

This applies to scientific research as well: we further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood. What are the implications for this view of the Bible in interpreting passages such as Joshua 6 and 8? http://www.philosophicalinvestigations.co.uk/index.php?view=article&catid=47%3achristianethics&id=89%3aextract-divine-command-the-chicago-satement-on-biblicalinerrancy&option=com_content&itemid=54 The Decalogue as an example of Divine Command Theory Philip Quinn, a modern divine command theorist, comments: Monotheists of all stripes should, at least initially, be sympathetic to an ethics of divine commands. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share the view that the Hebrew Bible has authority in religious matters. Both Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, which recount the revelation of the Decalogue, portray God as a commander, instructing the Chosen People about what they are to do and not to do by commanding them. It seems natural enough to suppose that the authority of the Decalogue depends on the fact that it is divinely commanded. It is possible, of course, to understand these divine commands as nothing more than God's emphatic endorsement of a moral code whose truth is independent of them. Being omniscient, God would know such moral truths, and being supremely good, God would want to communicate them to the Chosen People. On this view, commands are God's way of transmitting important moral information to humans. But it is also possible to understand the truth of the moral code expressed by the Decalogue as dependent on the divine commands. Summarise Philip Quinn s view: Problems with Divine Command Theory: If the theist gives the first answer to the Euthyphro dilemma, holding that morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then he faces the following problems: Arbitrariness Arbitrariness is the problem that divine command theory appears to base morality on mere whims of God. Most of us will argue that killing the innocent is wrong but if God should command us to do it (as he appears to do in Joshua 6 verse 21 or Joshua 8 verse 1) then killing innocent women and children becomes right and we are morally obliged to do it. If divine command theory is true, it seems, then God s commands can neither be informed nor sanctioned by morality. How, though, can such morally arbitrary commands be the foundation of morality? 6

God s Love destroyed Leibniz (1646-1716) thought that the ethic of divine command destroyed any idea of God s love: Also, if we say things are good by no rule of goodness beyond the will of God alone, we thoughtlessly destroy, I feel, all the love and glory of God. For why praise Him for what He has done if He would be equally praiseworthy for doing the opposite? Where will his justice and His wisdom be, if all that remains of Him is some kind of despotic power, If His will takes the place of reason, and, by the very definition, of tyranny, what pleases the Almighty is ipso facto just? The Emptiness problem On the divine command analysis of moral goodness, statements like God is good and God s commands are good are rendered empty tautologies: God acts in accordance with his commands and God s commands are in accordance with his commands. The problem of denial of Freedom or Autonomy Divine command theory takes away freedom from autonomous moral agents the key assumption of Kantian ethics (for example, in judging that Joshua was mistaken to slaughter the women and children of Jericho and Ai). A truly moral act can never be imposed or enforced by any command, even a divine command. Problem of abhorrent commands The divine command theory appears to entail that if God were to command abhorrent acts malicious deception, wanton cruelty (Joshua 6), rape (Numbers 13) etc. those acts would become morally good. Problem of Religious Pluralism Given the variety and number of religions in the world, how does the divine command theorist know which divine commands to follow? The Bible sometimes gives conflicting accounts of the nature and content of the commands of God (eg thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20) and eliminate the people of Ai (Joshua 8:1). Moreover, even if such a person believes that her religion is correct, there remains a plurality of understandings within religious traditions with respect to what God commands us to do, and how to handle apparent contradictions in the Bible itself. Support for Divine Command Bite the Bullet One possible response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to simply accept that if God does command cruelty, then inflicting it upon others would be morally obligatory. In Super 4 Libros Sententiarum, William of Ockham (1235-1387) states that the actions which 7

we call theft and adultery would be obligatory for us if God commanded us to do them. Most people find this to be an unacceptable view of moral obligation, on the grounds that any theory of ethics that leaves open the possibility that such actions are morally praiseworthy is fatally flawed. However, as Robert Adams (1987) points out, a full understanding of Ockham s view here would emphasize that it is a mere logical possibility that God could command adultery or cruelty, and not a real possibility. That is, even if it is logically possible that God could command cruelty, it is not something that God will do, given his character in the actual world. Given this, Ockham himself was surely not prepared to inflict suffering on others if God commanded it.. Human Nature Another response to the Euthyphro Dilemma which is intended to avoid the problem of arbitrariness is discussed by Clark and Poortenga (2003), drawing upon the moral theory of Thomas Aquinas. If we conceive of the good life for human beings as consisting in activities and character qualities that fulfil us, then the good life will depend upon our nature, as human beings. Given human nature, some activities and character traits will fulfil us, and some will not and lead to eudaimonia or flourishing. For example, neither drinking petrol nor lying nor committing adultery will help us to function properly and so be fulfilled, as human beings. God created us with a certain nature. Once he has done this, he cannot arbitrarily decide what is good or bad for us, what will help or hinder us from functioning properly. God could have created us differently. That is, it is possible that he could have made us to thrive and be fulfilled by ingesting gasoline, lying, and committing adultery. But, according to Aquinas, he did no such thing. We must live lives marked by a love for God and other people, if we want to be fulfilled as human beings. The defender of this type of response to the Euthyphro Dilemma, to avoid the charge of arbitrariness, should explain why God created us with the nature that we possess, rather than some other nature. What grounded this decision? A satisfactory answer will include the claim that there is something valuable about human beings and the nature that we possess that grounded God s decision, but it is incumbent upon the proponent of this response to defend this claim. Does the Divine Command Theory stand up to scrutiny? 8

I.ii Christian Relativism: Situation Ethics A situation ethic has been the view of Liberal Christians such as Roald Niebuhr or Dietrich Bonhoeffer who see principles overriding law. The most important principle is love, and according to Joseph Fletcher, love and justice are the same thing. Situation Ethics was developed by Fletcher in the 1960 s. The aim is to choose the most loving outcome in any situation, where love here means agape (sacrifical love, or unconditional love for a stranger). Teleological Actions are instrumentally good, not intrinsically good (contrast with Kantian Ethics). Fletcher believed that Situation Ethics was close to utilitarianism: Love and justice are the same Justice is love coping with situations where distribution is called for. On this basis it becomes plain that as the love ethic searches seriously for a social policy it must form a coalition with utilitarianism. It takes over from Bentham and Mill the strategic principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. This is a genuine coalition, even though it reshapes the good of utilitarians, replacing their principle with agape. In coalition the hedonistic calculus becomes the agapeistic calculus. I.iii Christian Rationalism: Natural Law Natural Law has been the accepted view of the Roman Catholic Church since the Middle Ages. For modern statements of Natural Law, see extracts from papal encyclicals available on this site. Natural law is a version of Christian rationalism because it maintains that human reasoning reflecting on human nature can discover God s moral wisdom. The form of reasoning here is twofold: 1. A priori because the synderesis rule, a key assumption, is an intuitive grasp of what it emans to do good and avoid evil. 2. A posteriori because we observe the natural tendencies or purposes of human beings and this confirms the natural law. Thus certain acts (e.g. contraception, homosexuality, direct killing) are seen to be against nature and intrinsically wrong. 9

Strongly deontological E.g. Advocates of Natural Law in 1994 opposed rubella vaccinations as the jabs had been developed from dead foetuses. Utilitarianism may violate the sanctity of life as actions have instrumental value (means to the end of happiness), not intrinsic value. Primary principles are absolute, but secondary principles are not. Aquinas makes this clear: In its secondary principles, which, as we have said are certain detailed proximate conclusions drawn from the first principles...it may be changed..through some special causes hindering the observance of such precepts". (Aquinas) Part II: Main Ethical Principles of Christianity II.i Jesus Ethics A quick way into Jesus ethics is through an analysis of the last antithesis in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sixth Antithesis: On Love of Enemy 43: "You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' 44: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45: so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46: For if you love those who love you, what rewards have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47: And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48: You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matthew 7 Gerd Theissen (University of Heidelberg) in Social Reality and the Early Christians (1992) pays careful attention to this antithesis. He thinks there is no doubt that Jesus radically calls into question our normal behaviour and that this is linked to eschatology. Theissen s analysis of this antithesis not only highlights the importance of perfection but also provides one of the clearest descriptions of the key points of Jesus ethical theory: 10

What are the motives for loving one s enemies? 1. Imitatio dei Imitate God Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your father. Son of God is being used ethically as it is used in Sirach 4:10, Be like a father to orphans you will then be like a son of the most high, and Wisdom 2:18 for the righteous man is God s son. Jesus is being very Jewish! By fulfilling these extreme ethical commands one is acting like God and therefore becomes a son of God. At the time of Jesus this was not an unattainable goal that could only be the preserve of one literal son of God, rather it was the aim of all law-abiding Jews to become through their actions and covenant membership a son of God. There are parallels in the ancient world for kings being urged to forgive their enemies e.g. in Seneca and the Jewish letter of Aristeas says as God is forgiving so the king should also forgive. Jesus extends the imitation of God to all; the poor and the powerless are to forgive all - The imitation of God usually required of kings and the powerful is called for in the form of generosity on the part of those who are powerless, persecuted and humiliated. Theissen 2. Differentiation - be different! A key aim of ethical action is to be different, to stand out from the crowd through their perfection and holiness do not the tax collectors and gentiles do the same.?. This stresses the Christian s superiority to other groups by putting into place the commands in the antitheses they are different, something special. 3. Reciprocity Underpinning this, and the other antithesis, is the notion of the Golden Rule And as you would wish that men would do to you, do so to them. (Matthew 7:12). Acting in certain ways encourages reciprocal behaviour basically if you treat others well you will be treated well in return. Is the Golden Rule an absolute, deontological (i.e. strict rule to be obeyed without thought in every situation) ethic or a relative, teleological (i.e. a flexible principle, to be applied differently in different situations which looks to the consequences of an action) ethic? Might Jesus Jewishness explain why it is difficult to decide? 11

4. Eschatological Reward - Bubbling beneath the surface is the threat of eschatological judgement. Behave or else! For if you love those who love you what reward have? (Matthew5:46), so that you may be sons of your Father (Matthew 5:45) Jesus seems to be calling people to re-orientate themselves to focus on God in the face of the forthcoming judgement. Perfection and ultra-holiness will lead to salvation when God s kingdom arrives. Jesus purpose is to reshape human intentions and establish a new will, that he wants to claim for God not just the body but the heart, the whole person. Wolfgang Schrage To what extent is Jesus teaching on perfection and holiness useful ethical theory? The Love Command: Enemies, Sinners & Gentiles The commandment to love is often regarded as the distinctive feature of Jesus ethics. In John 13:34 it is regarded as the new commandment which Jesus left behind for his disciples. However a look at Jewish sources from the time of Jesus reveal that Love was commonly used a summary of the Torah: The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs reveal Love of others is the beginning and the end of the Torah (b. Yebamoth) and Rabbi Akiba (c. 135 CE) said of loving one s neighbour That is a great and comprehensive principle in the Torah. although he would not have thought a neighbour was a gentile but only a fellow Jew. The best basic summary of Jesus love command is Mark 12:38-34. One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with your entire mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." Love of Enemies The last antitheses in the Sermon on Mount the urges people to Love their enemies (Matthew 5:44). However, Matthew follows this with the qualification so that you might be sons of your father. This leads some to think that love is a part of imitating 12

God and gaining eschatological reward and therefore no more important than mercy, meekness and purity in heart the spiritual virtues laid out in the Beatitudes the series of sayings beginning Blessed are the that begin the Sermon (Matthew 5:1-12). Love the Foreigner Luke places his version of the double command in close relationship to the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). The well known parable that illustrates the command to love your enemies : The Samaritans were regarded as a mixed Jewish- Gentile race and bad Jews since they had, for a while, their own temple on Mount Gerizim. There was considerable hatred between the Jews and the Samaritans so much so that Samaritans scattered human bones in the Temple on the night before Passover (Josephus Antiquities 18:29f)! Thus a good Samaritan would have been a truly shocking thing (think: good member of al-qaeda) and represents all non-jews who were held in contempt. Read the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). What do you think Jesus is saying about the nature and demands of love? Jesus reasons for urging love to the hated foreigner might be two-fold: 1. His eschatological beliefs led him to believe that God was coming to judge the whole world and the gentiles would be given a chance to turn to Yahweh. 2. Jesus might have been part a Jewish wisdom tradition which was interpreting the command to love your neighbour universally. E.g. Every creature loves its like and every person his neighbour; all living beings associate by species. (Sirach 13:15-16) Love of Sinners Lots of traditions attest Jesus loving outreach to sinners, although they do not necessarily mention the actual word love! While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the "sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 17On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:15-17) Why does Jesus urge people to love sinners? So that they would change, and therefore be saved on the arrival of the kingdom of God. Jesus is not preaching unconditional 13

love, but conditional love God s love and offer of salvation is contingent on people turning from their unhealthy lives and embracing God. Why is it controversial to say Jesus offered conditional love? Is it right? How central & useful is love in Jesus Ethics? An American scholar Leander Keck (Yale University) thinks that people latch onto love in Jesus teachings and blow it up out of all proportions. Jesus actually said little about love, and nothing at all about God s love for humans, locating love as the principle from which Jesus ethics are derived shows clearly enough that it is the ethics-minded interpreter who makes this move in order to give coherence to the diverse and often divergent sayings. In effect, one thereby creates Jesus ethics for him, as if compensating for what he had overlooked. (Pp.157-8 Who is Jesus? 2001) Do people put too much emphasis on love as a part of Jesus ethics? Many cite the example of people like Martin Luther King who have put Jesus commands to Love you enemies into action, but in truth leading a civil rights movement needed more basis than simply love. Rudolf Bultmann said Agape[love] cannot be regarded as an ethical principle from which particular concrete requirements can be derived How useful and clear is Jesus love command? II.ii St Paul s Ethics St Paul s writings pre-date the gospels by 20-30 years. He was a convert to Christianity from Judaism and fired up by his conversion, travelled the Mediterranean preaching and establishing churches. His letters are full of practical and theological advice for the early Christians and touch upon ethics. 14

David Catchpole thinks that an overall summary of his ethical theory is be who you are. What does this mean? The foundations of his ethical advice: Christological basis Galatians 2:20, 1 Corinthians 12 The Spirit & Love 1 Corinthians 13 Galatians 5:16 Eschatology (the end times) Romans 13:11 ff 1 Corinthians 7:25-31 15

Part III Utilitarianism and Christianity Biblical Ethics All Christians are inspired by the bible but in different ways, ranging from an absolute moral authority to simply a general guide. The bible gives rules (Decalogue), principles (the Golden Rule) and virtues (love, justice, compassion). Deontological vs. Teleological Romans 3:8 - Should one do evil that good may come? By no means The Golden rule is the same as the principle of utility, according to Mill. Utilitarianism sees people as pleasure/ pain organisms not images of God. Jesus teaching suggests that fulfilment comes through service and possibly suffering, not solely happiness. (Mark 8:35, 10:35) Motives Matter- Gal 5:22 16

Exercise: Are Christian Ethics Absolutist or relativist? Absolute Relativist Are Christian ethics absolute or relativist? 17

Conclusion: Problems with Christian Ethics Bibliography: Adams, Robert Merrihew. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Develops a divine command account of moral obligation within a framework of theistic Platonism according to which God is the Good. Andrew of Neufchateau. Questions on an Ethics of Divine Commands. Edited and translated by Janine Marie Idziak. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. Medieval defense of divine command ethics. Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Hafner, 1948. Contains criticism of divine command ethics. See p. 22. Clark, Kelly James and Portenga, Anne, The Story of Ethics: Fulfilling our Human Nature. Pearson education, 2002. Cudworth, Ralph. A Treatise Concerning Eternal and Immutable Morality. New York: Garland, 1976. Criticizes divine command ethics. See pp. 9-10. 18

Fletcher, Joseph, Situation Ethics. Westminster, John Knox, 1966. Original text on Situation Ethics. Hauerwas, Stanley, and Charles Pinches. Christians Among the Virtues: Theological Conversations with Ancient and Modern Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997. A defence of theological virtue ethics by a leading Protestant moral theologian (Hauerwas) and one of his former graduate students (Pinches). Idziak, Janine Marie, ed. Divine Command Morality: Historical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1979. Contains a useful bibliography. Keck Leander, Who is Jesus? T&T Clark, 2001. Kierkegaard, Søren. Works of Love. Edited and translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995 Defends a distinctively Christian divine command ethics of love. See pp. 19 and 39. MacIntyre, Alasdair. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopedia, Genealogy, and Tradition. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. A defense of Thomistic virtue ethics by a leading Roman Catholic moral philosopher. O Donovan, Oliver, and Woodhead, Linda. Studies in Christian Ethics: Community and Christian Ethics Vol 10.1 T&TClark, 1997. Theissen, Gerd, The Bible and Contemporary Culture. Augsburg, 2007. Quinn, Philip L. Divine Commands and Moral Requirements. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Develops several versions of an ethics of divine commands. References Thomas Aquinas. Summa theologiae. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1981 [1266-1273]. See I-II, q. 94 and q. 100 and II-II, q. 104. 19