INTRODUCTION
This week we're going to finish the examination of moral objectivism. Last week covered one of the sub-groups (Divine Command Theory) and this week will cover the remaining two: Natural Law Theory and Moral Egoism.
NATURAL LAW THEORY EXPLANATION
To help us understand this theory, it's helpful to consider natural physical laws or the laws of nature. Consider gravity, water freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, warm air rising, etc. These are consistent laws that the physical world "obeys."
St. Thomas Aquinas described the Natural Law theory as similar to laws of nature in that they're inherently true and all humans have an understanding of them and an obligation to obey them.
Here's an official definition: a body of principles that are considered to be inherent in nature and have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong.
Aquinas said this about the idea: "under the divine lawgiver, various creatures have various natural inclinations, so that what is, as it were, a law for one is against the law for another; thus I might say that fierceness is, in a way, the law of a dog but against the law of a sheep or another meek animal. And so the law of man, which, by the divine ordinance, is allotted to him according to his proper condition, is that he should act in accordance with reason."
So Aquinas' argument is that we all have a sense of morality and ought to abide by it. To support this claim, we could point to ideas such as that you shouldn't kill the innocent, you shouldn't commit adultery, and you shouldn't steal. These are pretty general moral issues that we could argue everyone agrees with even though people come from different backgrounds and cultures and religions.
NATURAL LAW THEORY PROBLEMS
However, there are problems with this idea. It may sound good and simple, but if you think about it, there may not be this "universal agreement" that we may be tempted to at first believe. During our Dinner and Dialogue discussion, people pointed out that different people WILL have different opinions. They'll differ on what or who qualifies as "innocent." They'll differ on whether or not there are exceptions to "don't steal." And as you move away from generic moral ideas, you'll have even more disagreement. For example, even though the question of homosexuality is a critical issue, there is vast disagreement on whether it's moral or not and people will claim that their "natural inclinations" either approve or disapprove of it.
NATURAL LAW THEORY CONCLUSIONS
So you can't use Natural Law Theory as your overarching standard of morality because there's not enough agreement to validate it.
However, I think this idea does point to God. Humans have consciences and basic moral understandings and I think they point to God's law. Our agreed upon respect for other human beings didn't just get wired into us for no reason. It points to God's moral law and the fact that we were created in His image.
MORAL EGOISM EXPLANATION
Now moral egoism is kind of a weird ideology in that it's hard to place it in one of the two families of moral philosophy and also because it's simply dangerous.
We can define moral egoism as "the belief that it's always morally acceptable to do what one believes to be in one's own self interest."
Therefore, whatever you perceive to be beneficial to you is fair game.
Now, even though this may seem like it should go in the morally relativistic family of moral nonobjectivism, moral egoism still qualifies as a morally objective theory because it applies across the board. It's a moral "rule" that applies to everyone. Now, the "rule" says that you there can be relativity, but it's still the "rule." It's difficult to explain, but hopefully you get it.
MORAL EGOISM PROBLEMS
The problems with this idea are pretty obvious. If murder, rape, stealing, torture, or anything are in your best interest, it's all okay. Clearly we're repulsed by those ideas. Additionally, it ignores people and it ignores God.
But how can we prove that moral egoism is invalid? Just because we don't like something doesn't mean it's false. First, there's basically no evidence to suggest that moral egoism IS valid. Secondly, it goes against what people conclude to be reasonable. Third, it contradicts conscience. Fourth, you could argue that because it's against the Bible and the Bible's true, then moral egoism is false. Fifth, the idea doesn't work. If you live solely for your benefit, you could end up going to prison, being killed, starving to death, etc. Lots of things could go wrong that end up in your extermination and thus, not benefiting you. You could probably devise other reasons as well.
MORAL EGOISM CONCLUSIONS
But moral egoism is a very dangerous idea with very little going for it.
CONCLUSION
In the end, neither Natural Law Theory nor Moral Egoism prove to be completely valid forms of determining morality. At this point, Divine Command Theory is our best bet.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Divine Command Theory
INTRODUCTION
Last week we examined the two families of moral philosophy: moral objectivism and moral nonobjectivism. One of the ideas within moral objectivism (the idea that at least some morality is objectively true and independent of opinion) is the Divine Command Theory. That's what we're going to study this week.
Let's begin by defining it.
Divine Command Theory: the idea that the true standard of moral right and wrong is God's Law.
Thus, morality is what is divinely commanded. Now, some of you may have hesitations about this theory and may not like all that it has to say. What we're going to do is try to mold this theory so that it lines up with Scripture and we'll do that by trying to fill the holes that traditional Divine Command Theory leaves.
TWO VERSIONS
Two versions exist that try to explain how the Divine Command Theory works:
#1 God's commands do not make things right and wrong; He commands them because they are right or wrong. Thus, morality is logically independent of God's will.
#2 God's commands make things right and wrong. Thus, morality is logically dependent of God's will.
This is like a "which came first: the chicken or the egg" scenario. Does the standard of morality pre-date God's law or do God's laws create the standard of morality? We'll sift through both of these as we look at the supposed "problems" of Divine Command Theory.
"PROBLEMS"
Problem #1: Not everyone believes that God exists.
How do we resolve this? Well, frankly, a simple response would just be "So?" Just because someone does not believe in God's existence doesn't cause Him to disappear. In short it doesn't matter what you think. Here's a quote from a pastor Eric Ludy:
"Two plus two equals four. And no matter what you do, it will always equal four; no matter how you feel about it, it will equal four; no matter your experience on planet earth of having bad experiences with the number two, it makes no difference! Two plus two equals four! In other words, you have no say in it. It is true outside of you. It is known as a fact. And God is fact! He is not wishful thinking. That is a very important thing for you to notate in your soul because the enemy will make an appeal and he will say, 'Look at this. The natural evidence says this God is merely a concept, God is merely an illusion, God is merely a thought.' No, God is fact. God is real. God is true... There is a north whether you acknowledge there is a north or not. Two plus two equals four whether you acknowledge it or not... Two plus two equals four - it always will. God is who He says He is and He defines truth. Whatever God says goes!"
Problem #2: How do we know what God's law is?
Simply, we learn it from the Bible. But there's different interpretations and understandings of the Bible so now what do we do? You can go into a lot of detail about this, but first you take God at His word and believe what He says. Second, you interpret Scripture in light of its historical and cultural context, in light of the original language, and in light of the entirety of Scripture. If you do that, you can get a very good understanding of God's word.
Additionally, I think we can know what God's law is naturally: through conscience and logic. We all have a conscience given to us by God that does a rather good job at exposing moral rights and wrongs to us. Also, I would hold that you can logically draw conclusions of what is moral and what is immoral. Now, we can't rely solely on conscience and/or logic, but they sure can help.
Problem #3: If God's commands make things right and wrong, is morality arbitrary?
Let me re-explain it with a question: under the second version of Divine Command Theory (where God's laws make morality), couldn't God make rape, torture, and human sacrifice morally acceptable?
In the technical sense, could He? Sure. But would He? No. From what we can understand of God, He seems to take two things into account: His glory and practical consequences. Rape doesn't glorify him and the consequences of it are not at all positive. Am I appealing to some kind of standard of what is "glorifying" and what are "positive" consequences when I say this? Sure. But I'm interpreting in light of what God has already done, not by what I think God should do or what God should obey.
You see, if you answer "no" to the question of could God make rape, etc. morally acceptable, then you are appealing to a law or standard that you perceive to be higher than God. Logically, then that mental standard is the real god and the "above all." If you think there's something higher than God that you can understand and figure out on your own, then you might as well do-away with the idea of God completely! But the truth is that there is nothing higher than God.
Now, rather than siding with either of the two versions of Divine Command Theory listed in the second section, I think you can devise a sound theory that fuses both. They do seem to work in harmony when you think about it. Even though God makes morality, logic seems to be perfectly in in step at the same time. So a combination of the two seems to carry a healthy amount of validity. If you have a great way of explaining it, please comment below as this is something we didn't discuss in detail during the actual Dinner and Dialogue.
VERDICT
So here's the conclusions I believe we can draw from what we've learned.
- God determines morality and has the final say.
- God exists whether you like it or not. (I love phrasing it that way for some reason)
- God has revealed His law through Scripture
- Nothing, no standard or law or ideal, is higher than God.
Comment any disagreements or edits you might have.
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
Finally, here are some verses that touch on several of the points that were addressed.
Psalm 33:4 - For the word of the LORD is right and true...
John 17:17 - Sanctify them by your truth; your word is truth.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God.
Colossians 1:17 - He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Ephesians 4:6 - One God and Father of all, who is over all...
Last week we examined the two families of moral philosophy: moral objectivism and moral nonobjectivism. One of the ideas within moral objectivism (the idea that at least some morality is objectively true and independent of opinion) is the Divine Command Theory. That's what we're going to study this week.
Let's begin by defining it.
Divine Command Theory: the idea that the true standard of moral right and wrong is God's Law.
Thus, morality is what is divinely commanded. Now, some of you may have hesitations about this theory and may not like all that it has to say. What we're going to do is try to mold this theory so that it lines up with Scripture and we'll do that by trying to fill the holes that traditional Divine Command Theory leaves.
TWO VERSIONS
Two versions exist that try to explain how the Divine Command Theory works:
#1 God's commands do not make things right and wrong; He commands them because they are right or wrong. Thus, morality is logically independent of God's will.
#2 God's commands make things right and wrong. Thus, morality is logically dependent of God's will.
This is like a "which came first: the chicken or the egg" scenario. Does the standard of morality pre-date God's law or do God's laws create the standard of morality? We'll sift through both of these as we look at the supposed "problems" of Divine Command Theory.
"PROBLEMS"
Problem #1: Not everyone believes that God exists.
How do we resolve this? Well, frankly, a simple response would just be "So?" Just because someone does not believe in God's existence doesn't cause Him to disappear. In short it doesn't matter what you think. Here's a quote from a pastor Eric Ludy:
"Two plus two equals four. And no matter what you do, it will always equal four; no matter how you feel about it, it will equal four; no matter your experience on planet earth of having bad experiences with the number two, it makes no difference! Two plus two equals four! In other words, you have no say in it. It is true outside of you. It is known as a fact. And God is fact! He is not wishful thinking. That is a very important thing for you to notate in your soul because the enemy will make an appeal and he will say, 'Look at this. The natural evidence says this God is merely a concept, God is merely an illusion, God is merely a thought.' No, God is fact. God is real. God is true... There is a north whether you acknowledge there is a north or not. Two plus two equals four whether you acknowledge it or not... Two plus two equals four - it always will. God is who He says He is and He defines truth. Whatever God says goes!"
Problem #2: How do we know what God's law is?
Simply, we learn it from the Bible. But there's different interpretations and understandings of the Bible so now what do we do? You can go into a lot of detail about this, but first you take God at His word and believe what He says. Second, you interpret Scripture in light of its historical and cultural context, in light of the original language, and in light of the entirety of Scripture. If you do that, you can get a very good understanding of God's word.
Additionally, I think we can know what God's law is naturally: through conscience and logic. We all have a conscience given to us by God that does a rather good job at exposing moral rights and wrongs to us. Also, I would hold that you can logically draw conclusions of what is moral and what is immoral. Now, we can't rely solely on conscience and/or logic, but they sure can help.
Problem #3: If God's commands make things right and wrong, is morality arbitrary?
Let me re-explain it with a question: under the second version of Divine Command Theory (where God's laws make morality), couldn't God make rape, torture, and human sacrifice morally acceptable?
In the technical sense, could He? Sure. But would He? No. From what we can understand of God, He seems to take two things into account: His glory and practical consequences. Rape doesn't glorify him and the consequences of it are not at all positive. Am I appealing to some kind of standard of what is "glorifying" and what are "positive" consequences when I say this? Sure. But I'm interpreting in light of what God has already done, not by what I think God should do or what God should obey.
You see, if you answer "no" to the question of could God make rape, etc. morally acceptable, then you are appealing to a law or standard that you perceive to be higher than God. Logically, then that mental standard is the real god and the "above all." If you think there's something higher than God that you can understand and figure out on your own, then you might as well do-away with the idea of God completely! But the truth is that there is nothing higher than God.
Now, rather than siding with either of the two versions of Divine Command Theory listed in the second section, I think you can devise a sound theory that fuses both. They do seem to work in harmony when you think about it. Even though God makes morality, logic seems to be perfectly in in step at the same time. So a combination of the two seems to carry a healthy amount of validity. If you have a great way of explaining it, please comment below as this is something we didn't discuss in detail during the actual Dinner and Dialogue.
VERDICT
So here's the conclusions I believe we can draw from what we've learned.
- God determines morality and has the final say.
- God exists whether you like it or not. (I love phrasing it that way for some reason)
- God has revealed His law through Scripture
- Nothing, no standard or law or ideal, is higher than God.
Comment any disagreements or edits you might have.
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
Finally, here are some verses that touch on several of the points that were addressed.
Psalm 33:4 - For the word of the LORD is right and true...
John 17:17 - Sanctify them by your truth; your word is truth.
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God.
Colossians 1:17 - He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Ephesians 4:6 - One God and Father of all, who is over all...
Friday, September 16, 2016
Introduction to Moral Philosophy
Welcome to the first week of Dinner and Dialogue! This post covers what was discussed at the Baptist Student Union on Thursday, September 16, 2016.
ORIENTATION
As we kick off this semester, here's the overall framework for what we'll be learning: we're going to be examining moral philosophy, morality, and ethics. Today we're going to go over some foundational ideas and concepts so that we can all be on the same page for the rest of the year.
The first thing that I'd consider one of the biggest takeaways you can have from this semester is the power of inquiry and especially this question: "What do you mean by that?" This question is SO important! Terms always need to be defined and understood. In fact, I'd say that many arguments and debates result from a misunderstanding of the basic terms that are used.
For example, if I'm having a discussion with someone about the existence of God and they say, "Well I don't believe in God," what should I do? Rather than immediately trying to convince them that God exists, suppose I ask, "What do you mean by 'God'?" If they respond with, "You know, that mean ol' bully in the sky who hates everyone and wants to send them all to hell!" then I should be glad that I didn't launch into an argument to convince them that "god" exists. Instead, I can now explain the God that I know rather than talking about a "god" in general that we haven't defined.
So ask questions and especially "What do you mean by that?"
INTRO TO MORALITY
Accordingly, let's go ahead and define a couple terms:
- "Morality": principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
- "Moral Philosophy": a branch of philosophy dealing with both argument about the content of morality and the meta-ethical discussion of the nature of moral judgment, language, argument, and value.
Here's a question: do you think morality exists in the world? Basically all of us will answer "yes." Nearly everyone in the world knows that the idea of right and wrong is real. If people don't, you can probably convince them pretty quickly by simply punching them in the throat! They'll immediately try to convince you that you did something "wrong" and they deserve some form of "justice." Anyway, the point being that the idea of morality is pretty much a universal concept.
Now when someone makes a moral claim like, "not paying attention to Matthew when he's talking is wrong," the natural follow-up question is "why?" Moral claims deserve justification. That's one of the main things we'll be studying this semester: whether or not there's adequate justifications for moral claims.
FAMILIES OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Now when it comes to moral philosophy, there's two main families: Moral Objectivism and Moral Nonobjectivism.
Moral Objectivism: a family of theories that maintain that at least some moral claims, beliefs, and principles are objectively true and others are objectively false - that is, they exist independently from opinion.
Moral Objectivism includes the following ideas:
- Divine Command Theory: the idea that morality originates from God
- Natural Law Theory: the idea that morality originates from natural laws
- Moral Egoism: the idea that morality originates only from what's in your self-interest
Moral Nonobjectivism: a family of theories that maintain that no moral claim, belief, or principle is either objectively true or objectively false (or objectively better justified than another) - that is, morality either doesn't exist or it originates from opinion.
Moral Nonobjectivism includes the following ideas:
- Moral Nihilism: the idea that morality doesn't exist
- Moral Relativism: the idea that morality originates from the individual
- Moral Subjectivism: the idea that morality originates from the individual
An additional category that doesn't fit well in the two main families is Consequentialism.
Consequentialism: the idea that morality is determined by the consequence
The well-known expression of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism which we'll spend a week on.
THINKING THROUGH MORALITY
How do we determine morality? (Answers from the group: God, the Bible, parents, culture, logic, experiences, etc.) Everyone comes from a starting place in how they understand morality. When having discussions with others, you have to keep this starting point in mind and perhaps direct the discussion to it.
Suppose I was having a debate on homosexuality with someone and I was using the Bible as my starting point and they were using just their own ideas. My Bible verses aren't going to mean a whole lot to them. I need to address the root problem.
Or, if someone thinks that morality is relative and I don't, they're not gonna give a rip about my view because they'll just say it's only my personal standard. I'm probably going to have to address their presupposition that morality is relative rather than hammering them with my moral views.
Can/should we impose our views of morality on others? (Group consensus: IF there are absolute moral truths, we should inform people of them. IF there are no absolutes, then there's no logical basis for imposing our views on other people)
OUR WORLDVIEW
Finally, here's the worldview that will be central to our discussions this semester: God is the Authority and He sets the standard of morality and right and wrong. Now, this does not mean we have to ignore logic and reasoning. They happen to work in harmony. God has the whole thing rigged. But going forward, our stance is that God is right, God is always right, Scripture is right, Scripture is always right. We, as believers, have to be strong on this issue. God. Is. Right.
ORIENTATION
As we kick off this semester, here's the overall framework for what we'll be learning: we're going to be examining moral philosophy, morality, and ethics. Today we're going to go over some foundational ideas and concepts so that we can all be on the same page for the rest of the year.
The first thing that I'd consider one of the biggest takeaways you can have from this semester is the power of inquiry and especially this question: "What do you mean by that?" This question is SO important! Terms always need to be defined and understood. In fact, I'd say that many arguments and debates result from a misunderstanding of the basic terms that are used.
For example, if I'm having a discussion with someone about the existence of God and they say, "Well I don't believe in God," what should I do? Rather than immediately trying to convince them that God exists, suppose I ask, "What do you mean by 'God'?" If they respond with, "You know, that mean ol' bully in the sky who hates everyone and wants to send them all to hell!" then I should be glad that I didn't launch into an argument to convince them that "god" exists. Instead, I can now explain the God that I know rather than talking about a "god" in general that we haven't defined.
So ask questions and especially "What do you mean by that?"
INTRO TO MORALITY
Accordingly, let's go ahead and define a couple terms:
- "Morality": principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
- "Moral Philosophy": a branch of philosophy dealing with both argument about the content of morality and the meta-ethical discussion of the nature of moral judgment, language, argument, and value.
Here's a question: do you think morality exists in the world? Basically all of us will answer "yes." Nearly everyone in the world knows that the idea of right and wrong is real. If people don't, you can probably convince them pretty quickly by simply punching them in the throat! They'll immediately try to convince you that you did something "wrong" and they deserve some form of "justice." Anyway, the point being that the idea of morality is pretty much a universal concept.
Now when someone makes a moral claim like, "not paying attention to Matthew when he's talking is wrong," the natural follow-up question is "why?" Moral claims deserve justification. That's one of the main things we'll be studying this semester: whether or not there's adequate justifications for moral claims.
FAMILIES OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY
Now when it comes to moral philosophy, there's two main families: Moral Objectivism and Moral Nonobjectivism.
Moral Objectivism: a family of theories that maintain that at least some moral claims, beliefs, and principles are objectively true and others are objectively false - that is, they exist independently from opinion.
Moral Objectivism includes the following ideas:
- Divine Command Theory: the idea that morality originates from God
- Natural Law Theory: the idea that morality originates from natural laws
- Moral Egoism: the idea that morality originates only from what's in your self-interest
Moral Nonobjectivism: a family of theories that maintain that no moral claim, belief, or principle is either objectively true or objectively false (or objectively better justified than another) - that is, morality either doesn't exist or it originates from opinion.
Moral Nonobjectivism includes the following ideas:
- Moral Nihilism: the idea that morality doesn't exist
- Moral Relativism: the idea that morality originates from the individual
- Moral Subjectivism: the idea that morality originates from the individual
An additional category that doesn't fit well in the two main families is Consequentialism.
Consequentialism: the idea that morality is determined by the consequence
The well-known expression of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism which we'll spend a week on.
THINKING THROUGH MORALITY
How do we determine morality? (Answers from the group: God, the Bible, parents, culture, logic, experiences, etc.) Everyone comes from a starting place in how they understand morality. When having discussions with others, you have to keep this starting point in mind and perhaps direct the discussion to it.
Suppose I was having a debate on homosexuality with someone and I was using the Bible as my starting point and they were using just their own ideas. My Bible verses aren't going to mean a whole lot to them. I need to address the root problem.
Or, if someone thinks that morality is relative and I don't, they're not gonna give a rip about my view because they'll just say it's only my personal standard. I'm probably going to have to address their presupposition that morality is relative rather than hammering them with my moral views.
Can/should we impose our views of morality on others? (Group consensus: IF there are absolute moral truths, we should inform people of them. IF there are no absolutes, then there's no logical basis for imposing our views on other people)
OUR WORLDVIEW
Finally, here's the worldview that will be central to our discussions this semester: God is the Authority and He sets the standard of morality and right and wrong. Now, this does not mean we have to ignore logic and reasoning. They happen to work in harmony. God has the whole thing rigged. But going forward, our stance is that God is right, God is always right, Scripture is right, Scripture is always right. We, as believers, have to be strong on this issue. God. Is. Right.
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Welcome!
Thank you for checking out "Dinner and Dialogue!" This is the official blog for the Dinner and Dialogue ministry of the Baptist Student Union at Missouri Western State University. Each week during the school year we gather to discuss Christian apologetics, Biblical theology, and various worldview and ethical topics. Our goal is to build people in their faith, give them confidence in what they believe, equip them to think and live biblically, and prepare them to engage the world with wisdom and grace for the sake of God's Kingdom. The notes from each weeks' speaker and the points discussed during each session will be posted on this page. Feel free to comment and share these informative posts with your family and friends. God bless!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)