christian ethics: we503 christian ethics: a biblical theology of … · 2019-09-16 · can almost...

Christian Ethics:

Transcript - WE503 Christian Ethics: A Biblical Theology of Morality© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 12

LESSON 04 of 23WE503

Theories of Obligation - pt. 1

Christian Ethics: A Biblical Theology of Morality

We come to lesson four in our series in Christian Ethics: A Biblical Theory of Obligation. The end product of this is to cause us to be able to understand how to answer the question: What is our obligation? What is valuable? And how ought we to be motivated as we live our lives. The intent is to do some philosophical overview first and answer those questions from typical approaches that have existed in Western Culture, and then to go back and use a Biblical theological approach and answer the same set of questions from the content of the disclosure of God in His progressives soft revelation.

So in this lecture I’d like to introduce you to the Theories of Obligation as they have existed in the literature of ethics. What’s interesting right away is to come to the understanding that you can almost categorize all ethical systems in one or two categories. In point of fact, almost every Theory of Obligation that I am aware of will fit under the category of either being a Deontological Theory of Obligation or a Consequential Theory of Obligation.

First I’d like to explain to you what Deontological Theories of Obligation are about, what they are like, illustrate them, and that you get a feel for some of their strengths and some of their weaknesses. I would also like you as you listen to this lecture to ask yourself the question as to whether or not your understanding of theological ethics is a Deontological understanding or if perhaps, it is a Consequential understanding.

The major thesis of Deontology is that the rightness or wrongness of an act or a rule is not solely a function of the consequences of the act or rule. Let me say it again in a little different way. The major all comprehensive thesis of a Deontological Theory of Obligation is that the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is comprised of factors that it go beyond just the consequences of the act or rule. Consequences may be relevant but they can’t be solely relevant.

Dr. James M. Grier, Th.D

Experience: Distinguished Professor of Philosophical Theology at Grand Rapids

Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan

Transcript - WE503 Christian Ethics: A Biblical Theology of Morality © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.


2 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

Back in our first lecture we first introduced you to this word Deontological. It comes from the particle ‘dein’ Greek, which means “it is necessary”. So Deontological Theory says: certain things ought to be done, certain things ought not to be done. What constitutes them as ought to be done or ought not to be done, is that which goes beyond just the consequences of that. That means that you can break down your Theories of Obligation in Deontology to two basic sub sets.

The first one is this, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is a function of factors other than consequences of the act or rule. In this first subset, consequences are made totally irrelevant to the rightness or the wrongness of the act or rule. This kind of system says that consequences have no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of an action. Now this may be a difficult way for you to hear this stated, but it is a typical way that you will encounter it in the Ethical Literature. This first subset would assert that the rightness or wrongness of an act is intrinsic to the act and extrinsic to the consequences of the act. Now to say that simply it means this, consequences are totally irrelevant to the judgment of the rightness or wrongness of an act. The philosopher who developed this position and is best known for this position is the philosopher Immanuel Kant and a little later on the lecture, we will look at Kant’s explanation of his Theory of Obligation.

The second subset of the major thesis goes like this, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is a function of many factors, some of which are/or maybe the consequences of the act or rule. In this subset we would say that consequences are partially relevant in the moral judgment of obligation of an act or rule, but they are not solely relevant. Now, again let me remind you that the major thesis of Deontological Theories of Obligation is that consequences alone do not constitute the basis of judging a rule or an act to be right or wrong. One form of Deontology says consequences are totally irrelevant (Kant), the second says consequences are partially relevant, but not solely relevant and the philosopher who has developed that position the most is W. D. Ross.

Now all forms of Deontology come either as a form of rule deontology or a form of Act Deontology. In other words, you could be a Deontologist and say, I believe that this set of rules constitute my moral duty. When I do these rules I do that which is intrinsically right. When I obey these rules, I am making good moral judgments, and therefore a moral act is the application of



3 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

a rule to a particular circumstance. On the other hand the Act Deontologist comes along and says you don’t need a rule to make a moral judgment. You can immediately know if an action is right or wrong without applying a rule. It doesn’t say that rules don’t exist it simply says you can make moral judgments about your obligation without using a rule.

Let’s talk first of all about Rule Deontology. Rule Deontology comes in two forms. It comes in the form of a single rule situation or a multiple rule situation. The single rule situation could be illustrated by the Golden Rule. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and a lot of people would say that is the single rule where by they govern their lives and the consequences of doing that aren’t the only thing that’s relevant to constitute that as a right rule.

The problem with single rules of course no matter what kind of system you’re using is that they have very little specific content and very often they can cause you to do that which is morally wrong. In other words if you had a masochist hold to the Golden Rule we would have a problem, wouldn’t we? He enjoys inflicting suffering on himself and that rule would say to him do unto others as you would have people do unto you. I don’t think we’d be too happy living with a masochist next door who was living by the Golden Rule, because the Golden Rule there seems to imply that he is doing something which is right, when in point of fact, we would all admit that it is wrong.

Multiple rules system could be like the Ten Commandments were each of these rules are viewed as being moral absolutes, and therefore they become the Deontological rules that govern our life. Now, if you have a rule system, usually your Theory of Obligation is stated as a general principle that sounds like this, “Any act which has the properties of being commanded by God is a right act.” This act has the property of being commanded by God; therefore this is a right act. We will have some general principle, which will allow us to apply it to a particular circumstance. Now if you’re a Deontologist who says that consequences are totally irrelevant, then you would say any act commanded by God is a right act. Consequences are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of the act. This act is commended by God and therefore this is a right act and consequences don’t enter into the evaluation of the rule and/or the act.



4 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

If you hold the second subset you would say that one of the values that are part of the role is that consequences are partially relevant, commanded by God and leads to beneficial consequences, this is a right act, so that you can have Rule Deontology on either subset of the Deontological position.

What’s interesting is for the Rule Deontologist, for him, the rules constitute the morality. And we have a word for that we call them Constitutive rules. These rules actually constitute our moral obligation. They are not summary rules. These rules actually define the very nature of what morality is. For instance, if you are playing baseball and you said the rule is three strikes and you’re out. That rule is a Constitutive rule. That rule constitutes the game. If you play the game and you have seven strikes, you may be playing a game but you’re not playing baseball, because baseball is constituted by the rule three strikes you’re out. You could do that with a lot of things you could do it with chess. The rules of chess constitute the game of chess. You could make up any kind of rules you wanted on the chess board and use all of the figures that belong to chess anyway you wanted but if you were doing that, let me assure you, you would not be playing chess, because the rules of chess constitute the game of chess.

Well in analogies and analogous way, the rules of ethics constitute ethics. They are Constitutive rules. They are indeed those things that actually constitute the stuff whereby we make moral judgments and we determine what we ought to do and what we ought not to do. I suppose most of us would feel very comfortable with that, that the moral commands of God constitute the actual basis of moral conduct. And if you’re going to live a life pleasing to God, you will live a life pleasing to God if indeed you render obedience to these rules. And no matter what you say you’re doing if you’re not rendering obedience to those rules, you certainly are not living a life pleasing to God.

Most of us are very, very comfortable with the rule base. I’m not sure how comfortable you are with rules that have consequences irrelevant or if you feel more comfortable with rules that have constitute, that have consequences partially relevant. In point of fact, I probably ought to ask you to contemplate that as you listen to this material. If you believe the Ten Commandments are a part of your moral obligation before God and therefore keeping them constitutes your duty and violating them is something that you ought not to do. Are these rules right in and of themselves regardless of their consequences? Or are the consequences of



5 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

these rules partially relevant to their rightness or wrongness? Now very obviously you would prefer for me to answer these questions rather than raise them, but I’m not going to answer that question. I’m going to let you to reflect on that as you work with these lectures and as you read the textbooks and eventually when we get to the Biblical material we will raise that again and we can see where you have come or to what kind of conclusions you have arrived.

The Act Deontologist is a position that we feel very nervous with. The Act Deontologist simply says to justify a moral judgment you do not need to use a rule. You can just simply say this act is right. Now most of us find difficulty with that, because for us what makes an act right is usually an implication from something more general and if we have an immediate way to make a judgment about an act, then we have set aside the need for a rule. And our tendency of course is to set this aside. Very often, the Act Deontologist wants us to think about the fact that there may be something called moral intuition. And, moral intuition may not need to follow the logic of inference from a general principle.

Before we dismiss that there are some things in Scripture that ought to give us pause. I think in particular of what Paul has said in Romans 2, that there are Gentiles, who do not have the law. They are anomos – without law. Yet, they do by nature, the things of the law. It seems to imply that there is something inwrought internal to man that has some moral direction or moral content to it. There is something of value there I think.

Man created in the image of God certainly wasn’t created a moral amoeba, some neutral being. He was created with a disposition; he was created with instincts and direction that would incline him to righteousness, for he was a copy of a Being who was righteous. And somehow there is some sort of moral inscription that belongs to image that is an aspect of God’s self disclosure that is a part of all human self-consciousness.

In point of fact, in that same Chapter in Romans and in chapter 3, Paul argues that the unregenerate man, no matter what he says verbally, knows certain moral things that are inescapable. Number one, he knows he’s guilty. Very often when I bear witness to Christ with people that I meet in airplanes and other parts of my life in ministry you sit down and you talk to them. And you talk to them about the fact that they’re sinners and the wrath of God is abiding on them and they continually articulate that they don’t



6 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

consider themselves sinners. They consider themselves prone to error because they’re finite but sin and guilt isn’t something they readily admit to and yet Paul says that every man suppresses both an internal and an external revelation of God and in suppressing that revelation they are without excuse, and that they know that they’re guilty and they know that they are worthy of death.

It always amazes me that when you go to the Book of Acts, and you read the Gospel proclamation of the apostles that Gospel proclamation always ends up with a moral demand for repentance. Now I don’t know if you’ve ever thought this thought, but let me put it in seed form into your mind. The point of contact for the Gospel is a moral point of contact no matter what men says. Paul tells us as a creature with creaturely self-consciousness, he knows he’s guilty, and he knows he’s worthy of death. I don’t know if you’ve thought this thought and let me put this second seed in your mind. That the atonement that Jesus Christ rendered was a moral atonement and that when we talk about sin and atonement were talking primarily about moral issues and not metaphysical issues. In point of fact, after we’re saved, we’re told that we’re given a new heart and guess what’s inscribed on that heart? The law of God so that we have an internal inclination as well as the external Commandments that stand above us.

Although I’m not trying to drive us to accept Act Deontology, I want us to understand that they may have a modicum of truth that we hadn’t ought to set aside too quickly and that is this, that there is an internal self-conscious moral aspect to man in the image of God. And man does have the ability to know what’s right and what’s wrong. And in point of fact, if that wasn’t true, then society with unbelievers would be impossible, because God by His common grace restrains the pattern of sin in the world. And He gives civil righteousness to pagans who suppress that revelation, which enables us to live in harmony in society that laws that we both keep; to have respect for children and for wife, to have respect for employers not to steal, and many other kinds of things.

Well, the Act Deontologist has a point. Quite frankly his point is very, very hard to escape because he too like Fletcher will point out that it’s very possible if you hold multiple rules to have those rules come in conflict. If those rules come in conflict, all you can do is write a new rule, and then that rule will come in conflict and you write another rule and therefore rules can get so multiple that you end up with a rule book so big that you’re almost paralyzed in



7 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

ethical decision making.

Quite frankly, we have lived with some of that haven’t we? We haven’t been content with the moral commands of God ‘cause clearly God wasn’t as smart as we are and He forgot to cover some things. What He forgot, we tend to put into our student handbook or into our church covenants, and quite frankly, we’d like to have some more of those because morality would be a lot easier if we had a rule to cover every part of life and all we had to do is check the rule book. Maybe we could call it up on our laptop and get the answer quickly. But God doesn’t do that. The vast range of our decisions in life are not covered by explicit divine command and we are left with some struggle and we are left with some aspect of having levels of uncertainty about what we ought to do. I think that’s good and eventually we’ll get to discuss it when we come to our Biblical material.

Well, the Act Deontologist certainly makes room for rules, but for him rules don’t constitute the game, rules are summary rules that is, these rules in and of themselves do not constitute ethics. These rules are summary rules; they are inductively achieved. After making immediate moral judgments and you make four or five or six of them and they closely parallel each other, then you can induce from that data a generalization that will exist in the form of a rule. It’s a summary of what you have found in your moral experience. And those kinds of rules are perfectly adequate to teach morality. You don’t have to have constitutive rules to teach morality. All you need are summary rules that are induced from your own moral judgments, which are immediate forms of judgments not based upon a rule and a logical inference but an immediate judgment from moral intuition that belongs to the human individual.

Now these rules have a function for the Act Deontologist. If indeed during your life you come to a moral situation where you are very perturbed and you’ve lost mental balance, and you have no ability to immediately intuit what’s right or wrong then you use the summary rules to guide you in the midst of moral tempest. They kind of function like a ballast on the ship. When there is no storm, the ballast isn’t important and you can operate without thinking about it. When the storm comes, it is the ballast that keeps the ship balanced amidst the heaving sea. That’s exactly how the summary rules are used. In the tempest of morality when one loses one’s direction, when one is panicked, when one faces things and is experiencing anxiety and dread, then one can turn



8 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

to the summary rules for guidance. These summary rules help in the midst of moral tempest but are not the normal base of making moral decisions. Well, that’s the two ways that can be approached. Either subset A of Deontology that is consequences are totally irrelevant that can come in the form of rules or in the form of act. The second subset of Deontology – that consequences are partially relevant that two can be viewed in terms of rules or in terms of act.

What I would like to do now is to explain to you part of the Rule Deontological Systems. And I am interested in explaining to you at least two of them and just a very mild reflection on a third. Let me explain to you the single rule Deontological System of Immanuel Kant. Now please recall that Immanuel Kant was indeed viewed as the great Christian Philosopher, who made room for faith, while putting science on an absolute foundation. But for Kant, the ultimate basis for faith and the ultimate basis for believing in God is the concept of ougthness.

It was Descartes who said “I think therefore I am,” before him Augustine said “Si fallor sue”, if I err I am.” Now Kant comes along and says: “I ought therefore I am”. Immanuel Kant is a Rule Deontologist who has one single rule and this single rule is a rule to which all consequences are irrelevant.

So he is a Rule Deontologist subset one. This is his system. He says that for an act to be a moral act it must have three characteristics. The first is this—the agent of the act must will the maxim of the act. Now remember back to the first lecture, a maxim is a rule that we can choose to have describe our conduct or choose not to have describe our conduct; a maxim is something that you act from. So that the first category for determining whether an act is a moral act is the question, did the agent will the maxim?

That’s a very interesting concept. For instance, if your mother willed the maxim for you and gave it to you and told you to act from it and you acted from it and that maxim was an appropriate maxim your act would have no moral worth, because you didn’t will it, somebody else willed it and gave it to you. In Kant there is an incredible autonomy to the human will when it comes to morality. He had a fantastically optimistic view of the human will; that the first criteria for a moral act, is indeed did the agent will the maxim?



9 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

The second is that the agent must act from the maxim. If he doesn’t freely choose to have the maxim describe his behavior then indeed his act is not a moral act. If someone coerces him, if someone forces him to act according to this maxim then his act will not be moral or immoral it would be morally indifferent.

First two criterion: One, the agent must will the maxim; he must give it to himself. It can’t come from God, it can’t come from society. It must come from the agent himself. Number two, the agent must freely choose to have this maxim describe his conduct. And then number three, the maxim of his action must pass the test of the categorical imperative.

Now you heard no doubt the words categorical imperative, because Immanuel Kant made them famous. Most people that I encounter are able to identify the words with Kant but don’t have a very clear notion about what the categorical imperative is. If I said to you I think I know what it is and I’m going to explain it to you and after you listen to the explanation you will probably say he didn’t know what it was either. The categorical imperative says this, that you must be able to consistently will, that the maxim of your action will be a universal law in the kingdom of God; that’s the categorical imperative. Let me say it again, you must be able to will consistently, that the maxim of your action will become a universal law in the kingdom of God. That is, that everyone in the same moral circumstance you were in would will that maxim, would choose to have that maxim describe their behavior and thus their maxim like yours, would be a universal law.

Suppose you are in the tight spot. You had bent to truth and you were about to be found out and now you’re going to have to bend the truth again. So you will the maxim. When a person is in a tight spot, it is perfectly legitimate to break your word and to speak untruth. Well, you could give yourself that maxim. Hundreds of thousands of people have done it all through history. You could choose to have that maxim describe your behavior. And in point of fact, you could act on that maxim which you gave to yourself and which you are acting from. But the question becomes, could you consistently will that maxim to be a universal law? Well Kant’s answer to that is no you couldn’t. Because if you consistently willed that you would destroy truth and promise keeping. Truth and promise keeping are at the heart of the kingdom and therefore your maxim cannot pass the test of the categorical imperative and therefore you hadn’t ought to break your promises and you hadn’t ought to speak untruth. And, that’s how the system would



10 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

apply.

It would simply apply in saying that, “Okay, I willed it. Nobody else willed it for me. I have chosen to have it describe my behavior. I’m not being forced against my wishes. And now can I consistently will that this maxim be a universal law in the kingdom of God?” Now you say to me and you should say to me this all sounds very nebulous. Sounds very difficult to use, it has no prescription to it. It is so general that it leaves you with so much ambiguity. How could this be a theory of obligation, and I think I agree with it. The problem with Kant’s single rule is the simple fact that it is so general and so broad and so ambiguous that it’s not able to give you very explicit moral direction in the affairs of life.

And I don’t think you have ever encountered a person in your life who holds to a Deontological single rule system called the Categorical Imperative. I don’t think I have ever met a person like that or read a contemporary ethicist who would holds this position.

The second position I’d like to explain to you is that of W. D. Ross in a position that he calls “Prima Facie Duty”. Now, what’s interesting about Ross is not only that he is multiple- rule Deontologist but he holds to subset two. That is, for Ross, consequences are partially relevant to the rightness or wrongness of a rule or the rightness or wrongness of an act. So we will have illustrated single rule Deontology in Kant in which consequences are irrelevant and multiple-rule in Ross, where consequences are partially relevant. The system is called Prima Facie Duty.

I have to tell you a little story from my teaching days; I asked a question about Prima Facie Duty on a test at the undergraduate level once. There was a very creative student in the class. He didn’t know what prima facie was for anything, and he wrote this little essay that says: “prima facie is Latin for old maid and prima facie duty is indeed the duty of every person to find old maids a husband.” Oh! I was so impressed with the creativity that actually I gave him 10 points on the test for that. But when I finished evaluating his test he had gotten himself a nice big fat “F”. Then as I turned the last page over I found a note addressed to me it said this: Mr. Grier, I’d tell you to eat your heart out but you would break your teeth. Now I have to admit to you that I found that very humorous and I have kept in my memorabilia file, and hopefully it’s not true. Although maybe after you take the test in this course on the bottom of your test I will read the same thing, I certainly



11 of 12

Lesson 04 of 23

hope not.

Prima Facie means first glance and Prima Facie Duty actually means conditional duty. Duty that isn’t absolute, it is conditioned by multiple factors. In order to understand that let me explain to you the six characteristics of acts that Ross proposes as being the basis to determine right from wrong. These six he says to the best of his knowledge constitute the full range. If there are other characteristics he’s very willing to have someone argue for them and add them. But as far as he’s concern, you can determine your conditional duty by the application of these six criteria.

The first is this, it’s a duty you have that rests on previous acts of your own. That is if you made a promise then the duty of fidelity demands that you keep the promise. If you did a bad act and you destroyed somebody’s property then you have the duty of reparation to make amends and to take care of that. That’s the duty based upon previous acts that you have committed. So under that heading there are two duties; the duty of fidelity and the duty of reparation.

The second criterion is that previous acts of other men that had been done to me, also constitute a duty on my part. Basically this is the duty of gratitude. God by His grace has redeemed me; I owe God gratitude. It is my duty to express that gratitude based upon His previous acts to me. That would be true of the persons who educated me, that would be true of my parents who gave me life, it would be true of my wife, who habitually cares for me and helps me within the framework of my life and ministry.

The third duty is the fact or possibility that the distribution of happiness or pleasure is not in accord with what one deserves. Now friends, here we touch a consequential duty. If I see someone who’s getting happiness, who deserves unhappiness then I have a duty of justice to interrupt that. If I see somebody getting unhappiness who deserves happiness then I have a duty to interrupt that; it is the duty of justice. It’s an important duty. It is a consequential duty that’s why Ross belongs to Deontological System subset two that is consequences are partially relevant.

The fourth is that the fact that there are beings in the world whose condition I can better in respect to virtue, intelligence and pleasure, this he calls the duty of beneficence. I have a duty to do people good, it is a conditional duty. I have to determine which of these characteristics are present or absent as I face a moral

Transcript - WE503 Christian Ethics: A Biblical Theology of Morality© 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

12 of 12

Theories of Obligation - pt. 1Lesson 04 of 23

circumstance and out of that determination I decide what I ought to do or what I ought not to do.

The fifth duty is the fact that we can improve our own condition in respect to virtue or knowledge. This he calls the duty of self-improvement. If I can improve myself and my virtue, if I can improve my knowledge, I have a duty to do that. Please note I have no duty to improve my pleasure, just virtue and knowledge. And then the final duty is that I have a duty not to injure others, and this is a very strong duty. It is stronger than the duty of beneficence. With beneficence my duty is to do them good in this duty which he calls the duty of non-maleficence. That is the duty not to inflict harm on them, this is a stringent duty. In fact, it might be the most stringent duty of all of these six duties.

Now for Ross these six duties are conditional. They are conditional this way: as you face a moral situation you must see which duties are present and which duties are absent and to what degree they are present or absent. You go through the evaluation process and see which of them has the strongest power to cause you to choose this particular moral action because it better than any other action enables you to fulfill your conditional duty. Please understand the reason it’s conditional is because you have to make the judgment the presence or absence of these six characteristics. When you make that decision, when you’ve taken this circumstance and you’ve applied these six duties and you have determined how much is present and how much is absent then you can determine your conditional duty and in doing that you will do that which is right.

So here’s a multiple rule Deontological System with six basic criteria. These criteria constitute a moral action; you apply the rules, you make the determination, you choose what you ought to do. That should give you at least some understanding of two of the major Deontological systems that have impacted Western Culture.

christian ethics: we503 christian ethics: a biblical theology of … · 2019-09-16 · can almost...

Documents