In the field of political discourse, both Christian and secular, a recurring topic is the topic of Social Justice. Indeed, many debates aim to seek to find and enforce that which is truly just. As a nation which strives to be "one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all", the topic of Social Justice is quite important.
Yet, an impasse often occurs for several reasons. One such reason is the disagreement of definitions and foundational assumptions in our argumentation. What is a person? How is justice to be defined? Upon what basis can anyone make a universal ethical/moral claim?
Imagine a situation where an atheistic humanist(AH) tries to convince an adherent of female circumcision(AFC) to stop the practice. Suppose that AFC holds to this practice for religious reasons, yet it turns out that the practice is actually physically harmful to the person. AH would argue that this practice is harmful and barbaric and must be stopped. AFC would recognize the danger, but valuing religion more, would endure the cost of the practice. AH, not valuing the religion, would continually persist for the person to stop. Indeed, AH would probably genuinely feel bad for the physical harm the person endures. Not being persuasive to AFC, AH would mount a campaign among others to stop the barbaric practice of female circumcision.
The point here is not to argue for female circumcision, but to highlight the difference in assumptions and reasoning. To adopt AH's position is to hold a low value of the religion relative to preventing physical harm. To adopt AFC's position is to hold a high value of the religion relative to preventing physical harm. So, though AH's argument at first seems to be unrelated to religion, it is actually making a value judgment concerning AFC's religion. As such, this is an example where the study of an ethic/moral which is to apply universally does indeed interact with the topic of religion. Such is the case as can often occur in the study of secular ethics.
Secular ethics classes have been known to occasionally be hostile to Christian ethics. One example of such hostility can be found here. Indeed, the person at that link states that they are not attempting to sway someone toward a particular position, yet there are consistent and repeated negative statements toward Christianity throughout. Additionally, the Divine Command theory presented there appears to be a straw man of the Christian perspective. Yet, the link is a free online class and so one can't complain too much. Giving the person the benefit of the doubt, one could argue that an ethics professor is not a theologian and cannot be expected to be thoroughly familiar the subject of theology. And thus, it is the goal of this article to highlight a more accurate Christian understanding of the matter.
C.S. Lewis observed that most people hold to some kind of morality. And from that he argued that our morals come from God. Indeed, there's much for this line of argument. The Bible goes further and states that people will be judged based upon their own moral standard that they happen to hold to. It is argued that people don't actually adhere perfectly to their own standard, much less the standard that God commands.
Philip Hallie suggests a difference between sympathy and morality, where one's emotion of sympathy can potentially conflict with one's beliefs of morality. This could ultimately turn one to modify one's moral beliefs, dismiss one's emotions, or live with conflict between the two. Yet, in response to Hallie, it seems strange to have a conflict between emotion and reason. Where does this emotion come from? Does it come from God? Or, perhaps could it be unconscious reasoning and beliefs expressing itself? Or both? If one's experience of sympathy is just one's unconscious reasoning being expressed, then a conflict of sympathy and morality is merely the conflict between one's conscious reasoning and one's unconscious reasoning. If one stops and considers carefully why one might feel a conflict, perhaps the reasons would emerge and a more consistent conclusion can come as a result. Thus, a lack of emotion conflict merely would be a conformance of one's actions to one's unconscious beliefs rather than the problem that Hallie suggests. Thus, for example, the dry manner in which Jonathan Edwards, seemingly without sympathy, presents the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is not uncompassionate. Certainly, Edwards presents one aspect of God, God's judgment against our crime. And the Bible echoes this sentiment in other places as well.
Given that God has communicated commands to us and wishes for us to adhere to them, a question comes up as to whether these commands are right merely because God commanded them or whether they are right independent of God. In fact, the Bible teaches that the moral commands we are to adhere to are not merely because God commanded it, but because they reflect the unchanging moral principles of God's character. Thus, because it is based upon God's character, the commands are not arbitrary. The absolute moral standard exists separate from an arbitrary decision because it stems from God's character meaning that truly knowing morality involves knowing God. And it is here, where we come to understand the Bible's understanding of moral agency.
Humans have moral agency because we are created in God's image. Animals, which are not created in God's image, do not have moral agency. Yet, moral innocence was lost at the first disobedience of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It is unclear whether this disobedience granted sexual knowledge, more advanced moral knowledge, or a special divine wisdom. But, nevertheless, humanity has been under the effect of this original sin to this day.
Now, while meditating on God's commands often will give us the clear moral direction we need for the situations we encounter, there perhaps may be an occasion where one command appears in conflict with another. Christians have been known to follow one or more of the following choices:
1. Pick one of the commands (whichever you feel strongly for), in priority over the other. Perhaps, take the more restrictive option if possible.
2. Have a universal Bible virtue, such as "love" or "covenant", which will take priority over and guide all other commands.
3. Look for examples in the Bible for similar apparent conflicts and follow the example there.
Though a Christian's primary focus should be on sharing the Gospel, we are indeed called to do good works. Thus, it is from this foundation that we can begin to discuss on how to best do Social Justice as members of the City of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment