Davo

Primal,

It is a straw man because you made the sweeping statement that such absolutism is "Xian morality", as if Christian ethics cannot be any more subtle or intelligent than universal commands. You're attacking absolutism, but you managed to make it out as if you're attacking Christian morality broadly.

Well I don't think you're arguing against Christian ethics then; you're arguing against an extremely broad and naive absolutism, which practically everyone recognises is nonsense anyway.

DigitalDruid

I think christian ethics is absolutist in the sense that it assumes that moral code expresses God's will. A christian may be subtle to his heart's content, but ultimately if some of his moral views do not conform to God-given moral code (as expressed in the bible), then he has found some other source of moarlity (his own thinking, or any of the many ethical theories). Which means such a christian found biblical morality inadequate to address some moral issues.

It seems to me, since christian ethics is absolutist, any criticism of absolutist ethics applies to it. Or am I missing something here?

I see three main problems with absolutist ethics such as that of christianity:

The position that moral code is what God has ordained is reasonable only if it can be shown that God is good. Why obey the prescriptions of a divine being who may not be all good? At this point, christian ethics is faced with a dilemma: either resonable evidence has to be supplied (instead of being assumed that) that God is good. Or, one must attempt to justify God's precepts on ethical grounds, rather than on theological ones. The first task is a hard one - there has been no satisfactory explanation of God-sponsored atrocities and cruelty mentioned in the bible. Bible supports or atleast accepts slavery. Also world has other evils such as plagues and premature death. If one attempts the other alternative and attempts to justify christian ethics on nontheological grounds than it is of no real consequence that christian morality is divine-ordained! In that case, a christian has agreed to apply the same rational process one uses to critique any other ethical theory - say Platonism or Utilitarianism. Chritians I know do not attempt a crtique in this sense - they accept christian moral code because it is purportedly God's word.

The second problem with christian ethics is that most philosphers, from Aristotle onwards, say that an action is moral only if done from free choice and in full knowledge of the situation. This view of morality precludes action done out of obedience - even to a supernatural authority - from being regarded as truly moral. To act morally, we must do something because it is right, not merely because an authority says it is right.

A third difficulty with christian ethics is : how can we decide what God ordains? The bible can be shown to be inconsistent. To avoid these inconsistencies some interpretation of the bible is necessary. Interpretation is necessary even if the bible was found to be consistent - if we want to be guided by the bible in solving present day moral problems. But then the authority doing the interpretation is subject to challenge. Should we accept the Catholic position that the church knows God's will? Or do we look towards dozens of protesttant denominations many with differing views on some critical moral questions?

Thses are some of the questions that come to my mind. I would like to hear views and opinions regardin these.

Davo

DigitalDruid,

I think you've got a lot of good insight, which is why I think the view 'The Bible is our ultimate source of ethics' is too simplistic.

For one, rational Christians disagree about what the Bible has to say on abortion and homosexuality, and rational Christians also disagree about the extent to which the Bible has authority on modern ethical dilemmas, especially since the Bible was written within its own cultural context. The challenge for Christians who believe in a Biblical absolutist morality is to demonstrate:

1) That the Bible is an inerrant and infallible authority on ethical matters
2) The means by which we come to a decision on ethical matters not covered in the Bible
3) That their interpretations and hermeneutics on Biblical morality are correct

Primal

The vast majority of Christians adhere to an absolutist moral code. If a Christians moral stance is situtaional; then my criticism of course does not apply. I think I actually listed that as a viable option. Do not call my arguments a "straw man" just because they do not criticize a position they were never meant to in the first place.

I'd be careful here; this "broad" and "naive" laregely Kantian definition is actually shared by the majority of Christians. If you claim it is not; prove it. Mine and others personal experiences with so-called "presuppositionalists" begs to differ.

What you are saying is that a) The Christian morality *may* be situational...ok. Never said it could not be. b) The absolutist code may be super-specific i.e. murder is bad when it is Serena who has harmed no one, absolutely and Murder is ok when it is george the jerk who kills kids for fun, absolutely. In which case I'd say there was really no distinction between this and situational morality. As the claims then derive there "subtlelty" from the differences in the situation at hand. An absolute code has to be broad,i.e. universal,allow for no exceptions and change. If you are going to get as specific as the paticulars of any situation in evaluating a moral claim; then you are being consequentialist/situational in your approach and not absolute. In which case go back to arguments a).

[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Davo

Primal,

I'm now having difficulty understanding the point you're trying to make. I've never met a Christian who thinks "Killing is wrong" is an absolute; your example of killing in self-defence is testament to that. So are you simply saying that Christians are misdefining their moral code if they say it's absolutism?

Primal

Yes, as Immanuel Kant(who was an absolutist)pointed out; many claim to adhere toa bsolute morality but many are unwilling to adhere to what this entails.

I'm "simply" saying you are making it far too broad if you say that what is "absolutely" moral or immoral is so sensitive a subject as to require information of the exact characters and situation at hand and change accordingly.

John Page

Why just Christian morality? Are religions not just the devil's device for imposing a uniform code of behaviour, subjugating the will of the people to some higher cause that the devil controls?

A true god, on the other hand, permits complete freedom to seek one's fate and future and attain the ultimate of selfless annihilation.

Are morals relative to the minds that bear them into action - absolutely!!

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Primal:

The way I understand it, the original concept referred to as forbidden in the Ten Commandments was not killing, but 'murder'.

Thou shalt not commit murder.

Thus, Biblical morality is not situational.

(It is still dogmatic/arbitrary; not objective or rational, but not situational, either.)

Keith.

Primal

I realize this but in an absolute code can you really make this distinction? Either killing is ok or it isn't...to say killing is ok "if" is to make it conditional. Murder is simply a "kind of killing" hence an "Ok, IF" type killing.