Ethics - all the options

Teaching Format Outline of "Christian Ethics", by Norman L. Geisler

Chapter 1 - All the Options

Definitions of Ethics:

Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong.

Christian Ethics deals with what is morally right and wrong for a Christian.

Central problem in ethics:  How can we know or determine what is meant by a morally good action?

Non-Christian Views:

Might is right:    "justice is the interest of the stronger party".

What is morally right is defined in terms of who has the power.

Problems:
- What of the difference between power and goodness?
- Are tyrants like Hitler and Stalin somehow good because they had power?

Morals are mores   "community demands are ethical commands"

What is morally right is determined by what the community says is right

Problems:

- The "is-ought" fallacy

Just because something is happening a lot, does that mean it ought to be happening?
    - rape, theft, murder all happen - does that make it right?

- How do we arbitrate between two different communities with different sets of values, mores, demands or expectations?

- Can lead to the same thing being right in one community and wrong in another - denies an absolute morality.

Man is the measure "If its right for me, its right"

Geisler says this means that each person's will is the standard for what is right and wrong.

Problems:

- Implies that something can be right for someone, even if it is cruel, hateful, or tyrranical.
- If practised, society would break down. Chaos, lawlessness and hurt would result. Nothing would be dependable.
- Which aspect of human nature should be taken as the measure of all things? How do we know which of these aspects are good?

The situation might look a bit different, though, if we substituted "individual's conscience" for "will". But then we still have problems.

- a person's conscience can change over time through the influence of society.
- a person may be sincere but ignorant of the effects of their actions.
- society will still break down. One person may coerce a person to violate their conscience. Who is right?

The Human Race is the Basis of Right "what the group decides is right"

The human race as a whole is seen as the standard for good.

Problems:
Even whole communities have done things that are wrong. The majority of people could do something wrong, too.

The ethical standards of humanity are changing. If we judge one standard to be better or worse then it implies we are measuring against another more absolute standard. But this means the human race itself is not the basis of "rightness".

We cannot know that the human race is better or worse unless there is a perfect standard outside it by which it can be measured.

Right is Moderation "the golden mean"

The basis for right is that it is neither one extreme nor the other.

Examples: courage rather than fear or aggression. Temperance as the mean between indulgence and insensibility.

Philippians 4:5 "Let your moderation be known to all men".

Problems:
The right thing to do is sometimes the extreme thing.
Is moderation the best in self-defense, wars against aggression?
Should we be only moderately loving, grateful or wise?
Who defines what "moderate" means?

Moderation is a general guide, not a universal ethical law.

Right is What Brings Pleasure

"What brings pleasure is right and what brings pain is wrong."

The idea here is that what brings the most pleasure and the least pain to the greatest number of people is the best definition of "goodness".

Problems:

What kind of pleasures are the most good, and how do you evaluate it?
Is sadism good, if it gives pleasure to some?
Pain tells us there is a problem. Is that bad? Is the pain you get when putting your hand in boiling water "bad"?
Do we use immediate pleasure or ultimate pleasure as the test? How do we know the ultimate results of our actions as far as how much long-term pleasure or pain they will yield?
Would it be good to have the whole society drugged out to maximise pleasure?

Right is the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

Utilitarianism defines moral rightness in terms of what brings the greatest good for the greatest number of persons in the long run.

Problems:

Quantitative or qualitative good?
Who defines what we mean by "good" or "greatest good"?
How can we predict what will happen in the long run?
 

Right is What is Desirable for its Own Sake

Aristotle and others define what is right as what is desirable in and of itself as an "end".

Problems:
Get your free registration and log in to view entire article