Tao-ist ethics... or If you are reading this, you already don't get it.

If you ever find yourself talking about Tao-ism (pronounced Dao-ism), you already don't understand it.  No, seriously.  Tao-ism is something that cannot said in language.  From the Tao Te Ching (which is a bunch of words explaining what the Tao)...

The tao that can be told

is not the eternal Tao

The name that can be named

is not the eternal Name.

See?  I can't even talk about it correctly.  There's more!

In pursuit of knowledge,

every day something is added.

In the practice of the Tao,

every day something is dropped.

So you must 'unlearn what you have learned'.  That sounds familiar... Hmmm...

Those who know don't talk.

Those who talk don't know.

If you cannot talk about the Tao, how does one explain it?  Let's start with this question:  What is it like for a person to flourish?

A Tao-ist would notice that laughing sincerely makes you feel, for a moment, like everything is all right.  An athlete being 'in the zone' and letting the game play through them, or a musician that seems to channel something more than just 'playing music' is participating in in something that transcends the musician.  Perhaps something divine?  Or what about kids playing a game just for the sake of playing?

 You know, Earl, I'm feeling quite heavenly right now.

One of the central ideas of Tao-ism would be that all of those examples above show some sort of spontaneity.

A good traveler has no fixed plans

and is not intent upon arriving.

A good artist lets his intuition

lead him wherever it wants.

A good scientist has freed himself of concepts

and keeps his mind open to what is.

To flourish means to be spontaneous.  Therefore anything that threatens spontaneity threatens our flourishing.  Things like 'desire' or doing something with a 'conscious purpose' are not following the Tao.  You must empty yourself and live spontaneously.  Get rid of ethical rules because they impede your flourishing.  If you are not interested in flourishing, fine, but to REALLY flourish you must rid yourself of desire and purpose.

Monk Fail: Sleep is a desire.

If you tell yourself to not be cruel, you end up following a rule.  The Tao would say that if you have spontaneous urges, then go for it!  Because...

When people see some things as beautiful,

other things become ugly.

When people see some things as good,

other things become bad.

By judging and following a rule you have made a distinction between to things.  But things are by nature not bad to begin with, only your choosing forces them to be so.  Ultimately...

If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial.

If you want to become straight, let yourself be crooked.

If you want to become full, let yourself be empty.

If you want to be reborn, let yourself die.

If you want to be given everything, give everything up.

So there are no rules in the Tao.  Just do it.

Flourishing.  He's doing it.

A Christian Response

That last part got me thinking of the Beatitudes.  They are kind of like the Tao, right?  All backwards and everything?

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst

for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:3-10)

What about when Jesus told the disciples this?

When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say. (Luke 12:11-12)

Jesus was a Tao-ist?  When you are brought before the synagogues, rulers and authorities just live in the moment and depend on the divine (the Holy Spirit) to lead you through it?  What about this verse?

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself ..." (Matthew 16:24)

Superficially -- and I mean as superficial and shallow as humanly possible -- one can try to say that Jesus was all about the Tao.  HOWEVER we need to finish the rest of the verse...

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. (Matthew 16:24-25)

Humans do not flourish because they 'live in the moment' and act spontaneously.  While we are still living on this earth we will be picking up our cross and following Christ.  Our ultimate flourishing will come on Judgment Day.  Jesus said...

"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God." (Luke 12:8)

Thanks for reading!

Modern virtue ethics... or Can you smell what the ethicists are cooking!

A modern virtue ethicist might view ethics like some people view cooking.  A rule of cooking is that adding salt to soup makes it better.  However, how much salt you add depends entirely on your experience with cooking, your familiarity with the recipe, your own ideas of how salty you want your food to taste, the kind of soup you are making, or the people for whom you are making the soup.  So even though the rule "Add salt to soup to make it better" is true, putting the rule into practice is based entirely on ideas that are non-rules (our own personal taste)

But my non-rules are still rules!

Let's start applying this idea to ethics.  There may be a rule that says "Don't kill."  In order to follow that rule, you need to following a rule that says, "Listen to the rule that says, 'Don't kill'."  In order to follow that rule, you need to follow a rule that says, "Listen to the rule that says, 'Listen to the rule that says, "Don't kill"'."  Ad infinitum.

A more modern virtue ethicist would say that this is precisely where purely rule-based ethics break down.  While rules are useful and necessary, we don't apply just because they are the 'rules', rather we apply them according to ideas that are non-rule-based.  So a cookbook is a good guide, but it's not the only way to make soup.  A moral rule may be a good guide, but there can be more than one way live it out because we all have different tastes!  Ta daa!

So what are these things that are non-rule-based?  Different ethicists disagree (surprised?).  Some have said compassion, another said the idea of 'caring' and 'caring for' others, and others have said that we have a 'fellow-feeling' for one another.

These ideas of modern virtue ethicists are, well, modern.  So how could their ideas have been missed over the past +2000 years of ethical rule-based theories?  I smell a thought experiment coming up.

Let's see what happens when you plug your nose, close your 

mouth, put your fingers in your ears and then sneeze.

Let's say that Group A is a group that has been raised in an environment that emphasizes competition, contests, hierarchies, and ranking.  Would you expect that their ethics would be rule-based and an emphasis on following the rules?  Let's also say that Group B has been raised in an environment that emphasizes group success, community projects, and maintaining relationships.  Would you expect that their ethics would have more of an emphasis on interdependence, working together, and group success?

Of course you would.  So one thing that has been noticed over the history of ethical theorists is that most (if not all) of them have been men.  And men are typically more rule-based and define success as 'following the rules correctly'.  Women, on the other hand, are typically more concerned with working together, group success, and all that jazz.

Now a modern virtue ethicist would not put one way of thinking over and against another.  All they are claiming since most of the famous ethical theorists have been men, it's no surprise that they missed this 'key ingredient' that was found in the 20th century.

So true.

So "Don't kill"?  Great!  But putting it into practice will require some non-rule-based idea such as compassion or kindness.  The exact way to carry out that compassion and kindness is up to the individual.

But what if someone doesn't share the same standard of compassion that I do?  Well, the best you can do is to try to make them feel the same way as you do.  This idea does overlap with emotivism (all moral expressions are just reflections of your feelings), but a modern virtue ethicist wants to keep rules, thinks we should follow them, but they still need some interpretation.

A Christian Response

So what can one make of this silliness?  As a Christian I have no problem with rules and virtues.  God as certainly told us rules that He wants us to follow (I can think of about ten of them off the top of my head).  These rules are not just arbitrary ideas that He came up with out of thin air, rather they are based on His character (which can described with words that describe virtues).

The problem that these modern virtue ethicists have is that they have no firm basis on how we are to apply the 'rules'.  They leave it up in the air and say that just like there can be more than one way to season a soup properly, there can be more than one way to be compassionate over a situation.  The problem is that they have no ultimate standard upon which to rest.  The best they can do is to plant their feet firmly in mid-air and make some subjective claim.

Isn't it interesting that they claim that we should be compassionate and care for others?  I wonder where they got that idea?  ;)

Thanks for reading.

Virtue Ethics... or Be good for goodness sake!

So there you are in the hospital and a friend comes to your room and cheers you up.

 Yes, the 1977 cast of General Hospital is your friend.

You thank him for coming over and he replies, "Well, I actually didn't want to come here at all.  But I calculated the happiness I would cause and I decided that I had better."

You'd feel kind of weird, right?  You were thinking that your friend came over because he was, well, your friend for goodness sake!  Him following a rule (a utilitarian one at that) seems to have taken away from your experience.

Aww, I wanted the Kool-Aid man.

So far this semester I've only been writing about rule-based ethical theories.  Egoism says you must always do what is in your best interest.  Social contract theorists say that once the contract is agreed upon you must follow it.  Utilitarians say that you need to calculate the greatest possible happiness and then you must do it.  A follower of Immanuel Kant would say that there is an absolute standard that exists.  In any of these theories you MUST follow the rules, if you don't you are acting  immorally.

Some have said that people just following rules are missing something.  Rules fail to capture the essence of ethics.  It's not that other rule-based theories are completely wrong, it's that those theories are inadequate for human life.

The only thing that rules do is to summarize (though incompletely) our experience, but they are not how we live our lives.  So rather than develop the right rules, we should instead develop virtues in our character and then act them out.

Some days are just like having a tree grow out of your back

while being stuck inside a giant walking egg that people are

trying to break into with a giant knife as a tadpole armed with

a sword tries to attack you, right?

So what the heck is a virtue?  I'm glad you read that sentence and were subsequently forced to ask the question even if you didn't really want to.  A virtue is a general character trait, a description of who you are.  Virtues are the traits that would make us want to seek out or keep the company of another person if they also kept those traits.

There have been many different lists of virtues and much discussion about what should be on those lists, but if you can imagine lots of 'nice' things and you'll probably hit the basics: honesty, loyalty, courage, etc.  Aristotle said that virtues are the middle ground between two extremes.  For instance, courage is the middle ground between cowardice and foolhardiness.

Where does one get virtues?  The virtues are learned in childhood through our experiences.  They are best learned through non-controversial cases.  As you grow up you can rely on the virtues you learned as a child when you are faced with controversial/difficult ethical decisions.

For instance, as a child your friend asks you to take care of his Gameboy.  You protect it, hold on to it, and then give it back once he asks for it.  You have now learned about loyalty, honesty, and faithfulness.

Later as an adult, a friend of yours asks you to hold onto a gun for him.  You protect it, hold on to it, and you notice as he asks for it back he appears very angry muttering, "I'm going to kill him."  So because you are a loyal, honest, and faithful person you give it back.  Or would you?  This is a much more controversial decision and thankfully you are an adult and have had a virtuous upbringing so you know that maybe giving the gun back wouldn't be a good idea.

But what if you didn't have a virtuous upbringing?  As these virtues are universal, because they were true today means that they were true before this time.  If you don't "get it", then that's just your bad luck.

It has seemed to some virtue ethicists that all ethical dilemmas are usually between two competing virtues, rather than between what is right or wrong.  Take the case of your angry friend who wants his gun back.  You know that you should be a faithful friend and give him his property back, but at the same time you have the urge to protect others and not want to give the gun back.  Both actions are virtuous but what does one do?  The virtue ethicist would say to trust yourself and let the chips fall where they may.

Now this does NOT mean that you can do anything you want.  Remember, these virtues are universal and true for all people (though ironically virtue ethicists differ on which virtues to put on their lists), and there can be more than one way to make a right decision.  Some things are certainly wrong, but as long as you are acting from a virtue, you'll be just fine.

Some people find the whole style of virtue ethics attractive because it does seem to match situations where there does not seem to be many decisions in life where you are torn between two virtues.  Virtue ethics does seem to mirror how we learn ethics and make ethical decisions.  For instance, we learn not to lie as a child and then are able to apply that knowledge in our adult life with more difficult decisions.

Other people do not like virtue ethics simply because there is more than one right way to do things!  There ought to be one correct decision in any matter that comes up in life.  And others do not like that there is no universally agreed upon list of virtues.  There is no way to check if you did the right thing because there is no certain thing to fall back upon.

A Christian Response
As I was sitting in class I was wondering what does the Christian make of all of this?  The teacher had us look at my textbook's list of virtues...

benevolence           fairness                patience
civility                     friendliness          prudence
compassion            generosity            reasonableness
conscientiousness   honesty                self-discipline
cooperativeness     industriousness     self-reliance
courage                 justice                  tactfulness
courteousness        loyalty                  thoughtfulness
dependability         moderation           tolerance

...and I thought, "You know, these are all attributes of God!"  There IS a reason why we are obligated to act this way because our thoughts and attitudes are to mirror the thoughts and attitudes of God.  It may be tough to find an example of God acting courteously or being tactful, but generally God told us through Paul...

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.  Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:8-9)

It may seem like Paul was a virtue ethicist, after all he encourages the congregation in Philippi to think about what they have learned and then put it into practice.  But unlike modern ethical philosophers, at least he had the sure foundation on which all virtues rest - God's character.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:22-26)

In summary, I can see some attractiveness to virtue ethics.  After all it says to be good for goodness sake ...  subsequently leading everyone to argue about what is and is not 'good'.  This is the failure of virtue ethics.  It is a system that correctly recognizes that there are universal virtues but has no foundation for them.  That they are able to recognize virtues at all is only because God's law is written on their heart.  Seems like  I can't have a single post without reference to that!

Thanks for reading!

Kantian Ethics... or If all friends jumped off a bridge, would you?

The Gullerud family vacation has an abrupt end.

I guess that Immanuel Kant was a great thinker, or something.  For a guy who never went outside the boundaries of his hometown (seriously, he NEVER left his town, not even once) he really had a huge influence on the way people have thought about philosophy for the past few hundred  years.  Now I'm not an expert on Immanuel Kant by any means, nor am I an expert on his other writings of philosophy.

However, I did* just have a lesson in Kantian ethics so by the power vested in me by the internet I shall write about it!  I'll begin by a few thought experiments.

Let's say that A wants to borrow some money from B.  A says, "I'll pay you back" but secretly has no intention to keep it.  In other words A is making a false promise.  In order for us to see if this is a morally good action, we need to ask the following of ourselves:

Q: Could I will (or impose a rule upon the world) that "One can make a false promise"?
A: I suppose one could make a rule that yes, one can make false promises.
Q: If one can make false promises, what if everyone made false promises?
A: All people could still make promises, but if they were all false promises then none of those promises would be kept.
Q: So would there even be such a thing as promises anymore?
A: I suppose not.  If there were no such thing as promises, then there wouldn't even be such a thing as false ones!

And that is exactly Kant's point.  The idea that "one can make false promises" leads to it's own destruction.  Therefore, a rule like "one can make false promises" cannot be true.  Let's see another very similar example.  This time, C wants to lie to D.  Who cares why, he just wants to lie.

What if we willed "one can lie"?  Then it's fine for people to lie.
What if everyone lied? Then nobody would believe anybody else.
Would there be any reason for language anymore?  I suppose that it's reasonable to conclude that if nobody would believe anybody anymore, language would be useless... which would lead to no more lying.
And if there is no more lying, then the rule "one can lie" can never be done.

Kant was a big "rules" guy.  He believed that since we are humans that brings with it certain obligations (rules) on our behavior.  Kant distilled this idea into one wonderfully tangled statement called the categorical imperative:

We should always act so that we might will that our action be universal.

What the heck does that mean?

In other words, the only moral law is that you should only act so that anybody in your same position would do the same thing.  So when it comes to lying or false promises, if those are actions that can be universalized without destroying themselves, then Kant gives them the thumbs up.  But those two actions cannot.  Therefore, thumbs down.  :(

So let's make the rubber hit the road.  E is at home.  F comes running to the door and says, "Hide me!"  F immediately hides in the attic.  An angry mob comes to the door and asks, "Where is F!  We're going to kill him!"  What should E do?  If E says, "Yes, he's upstairs" the mob will kill F.  If E says, "No, he's not here" the mob will inexplicably say, "Oh," and go do something else.

So what SHOULD E do?  According to Kant, if E lies about his knowledge of F, then we should test and see what happens if everybody believes that lying is okay.  We saw above that it implodes.  So this means that E must tell the truth and say, "E is upstairs."  Kant is not worried about the consequences, all he is concerned with is telling the truth.  Always.  Circumstances matter not.

Kant believed that the main difference between us and the animals was that although we both have 'practical reason' (getting at some particular goal like food), humans have 'pure reason'.  Pure reason is reasoning without a particular goal, trying to see what makes things tick.  Questions like "what makes a stick float in water while a rock will sink?" are examples of humans trying to find rules.

If it is the case that humans are rule-followers, then in order to be human we should follow rules.  If we should follow rules then we should only act because a rule allows it.  All your actions ought to apply (as a general rule) to anybody.  Thus we see the categorical imperative begin to emerge.


A Christian Response
Is lying okay?  Person F saying "Hide me!" could easily have been Anne Frank and the angry mob could be Nazis.  What would you do if some Nazis were banging on your door asking if you were hiding Jews?

Me, I'd lie to their face.

BUT WAIT!  GOD CAN'T APPROVE OF LYING CAN HE?

Give me a second to explain.  Kant's ideas about rules can easily be translated into the idea that there are 'absolute' morals.  I don't like that word absolute.  It has some baggage with it.  In fact, throughout this blog I've purposely used a different term and that is 'objective'.

If all killing is absolutely wrong, then if a police man sees a terrorist with bombs strapped to his chest running into a public building the police man cannot shoot the terrorist even to save the people.  "But surely there are exceptions to the rule"- No.  If it is absolutely wrong to kill then it is always wrong in all situations.  Yes, it's wrong for the terrorist to kill, but then it's equally wrong for the police man to kill.  Strictly speaking, this is what the word absolute means.

So how is the word objective any different?  This places moral values and duties in an object, namely God.  As the source of all goodness and just behavior, His holiness is the standard by which all moral behavior is judged.  So the terrorists actions - morally wrong.  It has pleased God to grant life to people and He alone has the right to take it away.

What of the police officer's actions should he have decided to shoot and kill the terrorist?  A police officer is a role that someone can fill at the request of the government.  His job is to protect people and the government has given him the authority to use deadly force if necessary.  And where did the government get this authority over life?

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.  (Romans 13:1-4)

And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.  "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.  (Genesis 9:5b-6)

There would be no justification for the terrorist's actions because he was acting contrary to God's rules (fifth commandment).  The police officer does have justification for his actions because the authority for his actions can be traced back to God.

That is why I (at least I hope that I would have the courage) would lie to Nazis.  They were an example of a government that was 'bearing the sword for nothing' (or if you'd rather, the NKJV's 'bearing the sword in vain').  I would appeal to God's standard that says, "We must obey God rather than men!" (Acts 5:29).

Immanuel Kant.  Because you had God's law written on your heart you knew that people ought to obey rules.  But close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

Thanks for reading!

*stay at a Best Western last night... sorry, couldn't resist ;)

Utilitarianism... or Did you remember your Pain-o-meter?

Let's say that you are an doctor and you come upon six injured people.  Five of them are moderately hurt and one of them is extremely hurt.  You have enough supplies to help out both groups but you only have enough time to pick one group before the other group dies (sounds silly, but bear with me).  Which group do you pick first?

If you pick the extremely hurt person, congratulations, you know what the word triage means.

But if you pick the five other people, then congratulations, you just might be a utilitarian.

What's a utilitarian?  I'm so glad you asked.  Utilitarianism (besides being hard to type) consists of one and only one moral principle:  In ALL cases we ought to act so as to maximize total happiness.  It's the ends that matter most, not the means.

That's all there is to it.  A fairly simple statement and concept, but oh-boy does it have some serious problems in nailing down exactly what will 'maximize total happiness'.  Let's go back to the EMT and the six injured people.  By picking the five people you have increased the total happiness more than if you had picked the one person.  Thus, letting the extremely injured person die was the moral thing to do.  Strange, eh?  Cold?  Calculating?

Remember, in EVERY decision you make, to be moral you MUST pick whatever will maximize total happiness.  Can you imagine the problems with trying to figure this out?  How on earth are you to know whether one simple decision will maximize happiness or not?  Let's say that the five people you saved ended up becoming very bad people, spreading unhappiness wherever they went.  Thanks a lot, utilitarianism!  And if you had decided to choose the one person, that guy would have become a doctor and cured many people (at least six to make up for the five who died).  Way to go, utilitarianism!

This ethical theory is just too demanding for anybody to follow.  It's just impossible for anyone to have exhaustive foreknowledge of the future so they could know in advance what action will maximize happiness... unless, you have the knowledge of God (but of course this theory, like many others, is an attempt to get rid of God's rules).

Furthermore, how does one go about quantifying and measuring happiness?  I suppose you could keep one of these in your back pocket for any situation.

So if I come upon some people in pain I can ask the first guy, "Point to the face that shows how you feel... Oh, sorry.  You're arms are broken.  Okay, point to the face with your nose, then....  Ouch, you picked an eight.  Wow, that's pretty bad.  Now if I helped you how would you feel then? ... Ah, you'd feel a 2.  Okay, great.

I could then ask the next guy in pain, "So how are you feeling? ... You've got a splinter?  And can you point to the face that shows how you feel? ... Wow, that must be some splinter.  You picked a 10!"

First guy, "H-hey!  My arms are broken!  He's lying!"

"You already had your turn, sir.  Now I need to find out how much happiness I would bring if I helped this guy... I see, you would have no pain at all!  Great, let's get you to the hospital."

First guy, "But what about me?"

"Well, if I helped you, I would only maximize your happiness by a factor of six.  By helping this guy I maximize his happiness by a factor of ten.  Sorry!"


So using a pain-o-meter to make decisions is quite silly.  Or maybe it's just utilitarianism that's completely ridiculous.  With utilitarianism, theft can be justified if it maximizes total happiness.  Sending an innocent person to jail can be justified if it will maximize total happiness.  Harvesting poor people for their organs can be justified because it will end their unhappiness at being poor, maximize the happiness of those who need
organs, AND maximize the happiness of the United States of America by getting rid of poverty!

Umm... that's my liver you're damaging?

Most importantly, how does one define happiness?  If it is subjective in any way, shape, or form (be it subject to an individual, or a culture [a group of individuals]) when who is to say they're correct?  Maybe myself and a group of like-minded people have our own definition of happiness and it's diametrically opposed to yours?

 This group ensures maximum happiness.  Trust me.

In all seriousness, is there an objective standard of happiness?

Teach me, O LORD, to follow your decrees; then I will keep them to the end.

Give me understanding, and I will keep your law, and obey it with all my heart.

Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight.  (Psalm 119:33-35)

Yes, true happiness is found in God's Word.

Thanks for reading!

Social Contract Theory... or "Welcome to the Jungle"

We can thank Thomas Hobbes (by the way, Hobbes from Calvin & Hobbes was named after this guy) for this wondrous theory that I learned about today.  In 1651 he wrote a book called Leviathan which expounds upon his idea of morality.  This ethical theory is an easy one to grab a hold of if you can take the Golden Rule and turn it upside down.  In a nutshell it is "Don't do unto others so that they don't do unto you."


Hobbes speaks of something called the 'state of nature' in which man used to live.  There is, by nature, no good and evil, right and wrong, just and unjust.  We are creatures entirely without conscience, ruled solely by pleasure and pain, ravenous in our desires and ruthless in their pursuit.  Of course, most people would suffer, there would be continual fear and danger of violent death, and it is very likely that your live would be, in Hobbes' words, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Because conditions were so deplorable, someone got together a bunch of people and said, "Well, I want you guys to know that I do not want to die.  I can also appreciate that you don't want to die either.  So let's say that we make something up called a 'rule' in which we all agree to not kill one another.  How's that sound?"

Affirmative grunts all around.

"Great, next item on the list is that if someone breaks the 'rule' they are now outside of the contract.  Therefore, we can beat that person to death with rocks.  Agreed?"

More grunts.

"Wonderful, wonderful.  We also need someone in authority to make sure that others don't break the 'rule'.  I nominate myself and immediately close nominations.  All in favor?"

Grunts all around.

"And finally if I do not protect your lives you have the duty to resist.  You could write, say, a document  and declare your independence from me or some such thing."

The end.



Okay, okay, so that may not have been 'exactly' how it happened, but this does illustrate the three  things that social contracts need.  The first is that rights do not exist before the contract, rather they are created by the contract.  Think about that, morals have been created by people.  I hope you can start to see the problem with that.  The contract does need someone in authority to enforce the rules because other people will more than likely break the contract.  And what happens if it is the authority that breaks the contract?  If your rights (usually life and liberty, but John Locke would include the pursuit of happiness) are violated by those in authority you are under no obligation to obey them anymore.

Problems
First and foremost, Thomas Hobbes was working on pure speculation when it came to the origins of society and especially morals.  He wrote this in 1651 and archaeology wasn't even invented yet.  All of his ideas about the 'state of nature' came from his imagination.  And even if it were true, then humanity would have self-destructed before it could even have begun!

Also if you are against senseless cruelty to animals, you might not be a social contract theorist.  Wait, what?  Think about it.  Animals have not signed any social contract with humans, so they lie outside of the contract.  Therefore, we are under no obligation to protect them!  But if you think that it is wrong to be senselessly cruel to animals then social contract theory isn't for you.

Let's say there is a guy who decides to live out in the middle of nowhere in an attempt to get out of any social contract with anybody else.  He's out in the woods and comes upon a hiker stuck under some rocks.  Should he help the hiker?  If you answer yes, he is morally obligated to help the trapped hiker, then social contract theory isn't for you.

And finally, supposing that social contract theory is true, do you remember signing it?  No of course not, you were born into this society!  You had no choice in the matter.  Strictly speaking, a social contract theorist cannot obligate future generations under the current contract.  There is no authority to do so.  The current contract is only good for those who sign it.  Now future generations may agree to to the contract, but the people alive now cannot obligate them to do so.


A Christian Response
Now what does the Christian make of all of this?  Let's say that you come upon a social contract theorist who tells you, "Oh, so I'm under some obligation to listen to God?  Well, I don't remember coming into an agreement with Him.  Nobody asked me.  I never agreed to be born into this world where God has set up the rules.  Why should I listen to him?"

Well, who are you to demand that God needs your approval?  God is God!  The sovereign Almighty-who-is-in-charge most certainly does not need to consult you on any matter whatsoever.  Job tried asking God for a justification of His behavior.  He said,

"I sign now my defense—let the Almighty answer me; let my accuser put his indictment in writing." (Job 31:35)

God answered Job, and oh boy, did He answer,

"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?  Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me.  Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?  Tell me, if you understand. (Job 38:2-4)

God basically gives Job a verbal beatdown for two whole chapters.  He enumerates item after item that show his majesty and power.  He ends it up with saying,

"Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?  Let him who accuses God answer him!" (Job 40:2)

Job answers the only way that a sane person can.

"I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?  I put my hand over my mouth.  I spoke once, but I have no answer — twice, but I will say no more." (Job 40:4-5)

Good job, Job.  You got it.  You understand that when confronted with God's authority, wisdom, and power the only proper behavior on our part is to (1) Shut up, and (2) Repeat rule number one.

So that is an answer to the critic of God, but not the only one.  Appealing to God's power and might is necessary, AND we can also appeal to His love for us.  It's not that all of a sudden we popped into existence with no forethought on God's part.  We didn't just come into being because of unknown forces at work.  Paul explained this to the Ephesians.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. (Ephesians 1:4-8)

God's love can't be topped so I'll just end this post here.

Thanks for reading!

Test results... or responding to responses!

So the test went very well (I got 100% on it).  It was mostly a short answer/essay test so I did have chances to give the book answer and have room left over for the real answers.  The portion of the test where it really came out was with the two questions about divine command and natural law theory.  The test question will be in bold, my written answer will be in italics, my teacher's response will be in red, and my response to my teacher's response will be in blue.

I understand that it is impossible for either me or my teacher to present complete defenses for our positions with little comments on a test.  My only intent is to not just think of my first response to someone's question, but also how to think of possible responses to my first responses.

Please characterize Divine command theory.

This is the idea that "God says it, therefore  it is."  Normally it is characterized by God having made an arbitrary choice about what is good and what is bad.  If that were the case, then it's possible that God could have made bad to be good and good to be bad.

However, I would argue that although God (the Christian God of the Bible) has made commands about what His people ought and ought not do, it was in no way an arbitrary choice.  His commands are based on His holy nature so no matter what He has commanded it is always true and correct.  His is the standard by which all morality and ethical theories are judged.

Would it have been true prior to His commandments?  If so, then it's not His commandments that make it true.  God says "It's wrong to murder" - if it's already wrong to murder, then it's wrong for some reason independent of His saying so.

No, it wouldn't have been true prior to His commandments because when it comes to God there was no 'prior'.  He has always existed and His nature has always been perfect and holy.  So whether or not He has verbally 'commanded' does not matter.  His perfect character has never changed.


Please characterize Natural law theory.

This is the idea that natural laws (lying is bad, nurturing infants is good) just exist and we are able to figure them out by being in the is world and experiencing it.  Thus, God is not necessary.

However, there are two problems with this.  If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. [I don't see this]  Objective moral values and duties do exist. [How do we know this?]  Therefore, God exists.  So rather than thinking that God is not needed, on the contrary, He most certainly is. [Even by your argument he is necessary only for the raw existence of moral values - the determination of these values may yet be done on His absence.]

1. Objective moral values and duties are those things that are right/wrong  independent of anyone thinking them to be right or wrong.  If God does not exist, why should I think there is a realm of universal and objective behavior when all anyone has experienced are particular and subjective events?

2. We know that objective moral values and duties do exist because God has written that knowledge in our hearts.  That knowledge is shown by the way we live.  We KNOW that it objectively GOOD to nurture children and it is BAD to torture them.  People who say, "morals are just whatever floats your boat" contradict themselves by their reactions to immoral behavior.  This contradiction needs to be brought to light.

3. C.S. Lewis said that if you're out on a boat in the middle of the ocean there are three things that you need to know.  One is why are you out there?  Two is how do you stay afloat?  And three is how do I keep from bumping into other boats?  The thing is that the last two questions to not matter unless you know WHY you are out there in the first place.

Because God has written his law onto our hearts, we know that we shouldn't bump into other people (boats).  The only reason why people would want to stop there would be to avoid the first question, WHY are you here in the first place?  True, you can live harmoniously with your fellow neighbors without acknowledging God's existence (Romans 2:14-15), but WHY should you pick moral virtues over moral vices?  That WHY is only supplied by God.

The other problem is that unless unless there is some authoritative source to confirm the idea that lying is wrong, how would you know for sure that lying is wrong?  Someone could have the idea that lying is wrong and another may say that lying is great.  They could ask a third party but he would be just expressing another opinion.  Unless there is some outside source of knowledge there can be none amongst people.  God is that source and furthermore He has written moral knowledge in our hearts and in His Word. [could that outside source be intersubjective(?) (agreement/assurement/?)]

I couldn't read those last words so I can't really comment on his comment!  Too bad.

So that's that.  Nothing too heavy, but again, it's good to be prepared.

Thanks for reading!

Ethical Egoism... or it's all about me. Hooray!

After a lovely spring break it's time for more ethics and, oh boy, was today's topic stupid.  In a nutshell, ethical egoism means that you always do what is best for yourself.  Now the word 'best' can be a little vague, but it certainly does not mean "just what I want right now at this moment".

As an example, let's say that a guy has decided that becoming a successful computer programmer is what is best for himself.  This means that will do things to help himself become a successful programmer.  However, one night he decides to go out to a show and hang out with his friends.  Now that time could have been spent studying or working on projects, but, alas, he did not.  It may seem like no big deal, but if ethical egoism is true, then by going out with his friends (not what is best for himself) instead of studying (what is best for himself) he was acting immorally.

Weird, huh?  If ethical egoism is true then you are being immoral if you do not do things that are the best for yourself.  This theory locks you into what you have decided as the 'best'.  If our programmer friend decides to change what he believes is best for him, like becoming an artist, then the whole previous time of his life has now been wasted and thus immoral.

Believe it or not, some can think there are a few reasons why ethical egoism is appealing.  One is that it would explain why we would want to be moral.  After all, being moral means doing what is in your best interests!  Hooray!  Another reason could be that it respects and values the individual.  This means that what YOU think matters most.  You being who-you-are is important, otherwise a universal truth (such as lying is wrong) that applies to all people would reduce your individuality.  So by elevating yourself, you automatically become important.  Another hooray!

Maybe you can already see some problems with this weird theory.  Sometimes our own best interest is not served by ethical egoism!  Here's an example that my teacher used to illustrate that point.

Suppose that you are in a class with 40 people.  Each person is given a piece of paper with a red square and a green square.  The rules are (1) Everybody must check one square and hand it in. (2) If everybody checks red, each person gets $1.  (3) If one or more people pick green then they will split $10 and the people who picked red will get nothing.

Supposing that ethical egoism is true, what is in your best interests?  Remember you MUST act in YOUR best interests.  It took the class a little while to figure this out, but picking green would be in your best interest in every way possible.  If everybody picks red but you, you get $10.  If everybody picks red but you and someone else, you get $5.  The more people who pick green means the less money you get since all of the greens are splitting the $10.

Have you figured out that if EVERYBODY picks green, then all you would get is a measly twenty-five cents?  Wouldn't the common sense thing to do be to talk to all of the other classmates and all agree to pick red?  Then everybody would be sure to at least get $1.  Remember, though, if ethical egoism is true then you can't be concerned with other people and what's best for them.  If you pick green you are guaranteed some amount of money.  If you pick red then you aren't being an ethical egoist.

Also, if it really is in your best interests to all work together for a guaranteed dollar, then ethical egoism cancels itself out.  In the case of the green/red squares, ethical egoism's advice (always act in your best interests) would be to not follow ethical egoism's advice and work for the common good instead.

Another problem is that ethical egoism violates ideas about rights, justice, and dignity.  Something like theft could technically become moral if it is in someone's best interests.

So the concept of ethical egoism is rather silly.  True, it's not a bad thing to sometimes work in your best interests.  After all, it is in my best interest to eat food.  It is in my best interest to have a job so that I can have money to pay for food.

People can have many interests but who is to say which are 'best' in any given situation?  Here is something that Paul wrote to the Galatians.  Do you see any room for anything remotely similar to egoism in this list?

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control" (Galatians 5:22).

I didn't think so.  Furthermore, he contrasts the fruits of the spirit to those of the sinful nature.

"The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21)

Finally, and most importantly, how are we able to have the fruits of the spirit?  Certainly not of our own doing.

"Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other" (Galatians 5:24-26).

 Coming right out of the season of lent, we can see that Christ most certainly did NOT behave as an ethical egoist.  I'm pretty sure that means we shouldn't either.  :)

Thanks for reading!

Ding! ... or why didn't I think of this yesterday!

You know when you have one of those moments when the light bulb goes off?  Especially hours (or in this case days) after having a discussion with someone?  Well that just happened to me this morning.

Last Monday I spent about an hour talking with my teacher about God and whether or not He is needed for a discussion about ethics.  My teacher was of the opinion that no, you do not need to include God in such a discussion.  His reasoning was that if you follow the Natural Law theory (that there are existent moral laws and we can figure them out) then we can have a discussion about ethics without needing to reference God.

To put it another way, he said let's say that you have car that has the turn signal on the right hand side of the steering column.  Usually they're on the left, but in your car it's on the right.  Now, you could talk to the engineer who designed it and find out why he did it that way.  With a little bit of experimentation, however, you could figure out that it's just on the opposite side and not need to consult any engineer at all.  Likewise, if moral laws do exist, we can figure them out and talk about them without needing to reference God.

So this morning is when the light bulb went off.  True, because of man's natural knowledge of God and His law written upon our hearts, we can have discussions about ethics without reference to God.  People can determine between right and wrong.  Because of sin, this knowledge is not perfect but all people who have ever existed have this knowledge of right and wrong.

Let's go back to the turn signal scenario.  Yes, with experimentation a person could figure out that the turn signal is on the opposite side that it usually is.  BUT if there were NO ENGINEER then there could be NO TURN SIGNALS.  Likewise, if there is NO GOD then there can not be an ethical discussion.  It's sort of like the traditional moral argument:

(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
(2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Think about that.  If there is no God then why should we think there would be any morals at all?  If there is no objective moral law then we're back to simple subjectivism and all that it entails.  I can't believe that I didn't think of it last Monday but I'll be ready next time.

There's another side issue at stake as well.  Notice that my teacher said that we, through experimentation, could have figured out what was going on with the turn signal on the opposite side.  Yet, if there was no engineer to have invented turn signals, could we possibly have ever had experience with turn signals? And if we have never had any experience with turn signals and we suddenly came across a car with a turn signal on the steering column (whether it's on the left or right hand side is irrelevant, remember we've never seen one before) would we ever be able to figure out it's proper use?

We could certainly try.  Someone might say that it should be used to hold hair scrunchies.  Another might say that it should be broken off and thrown away.  Someone else might say that it is there for decoration.  Through some experimentation the group might realize that moving it up and down makes certain lights around the car blink intermittently.  What shall we make of this now?  Are the lights used to signal something or some other use?

Someone may get the idea that the purpose of this device could be used to make the car look pretty.  Others may notice that the tempo of the blinking light may fit with a certain song.  And someone also may say that it could be used to signal to other people when you're changing lanes.  Do any of these people have any chance of knowing for sure what the turn signal is for?  True, the last guy stumbled upon what it is used for but does he have any justification for his belief?  No, it was a shot in the dark like everyone else's and for all he knows it may be correct, but at the same time it certainly may not be correct.  We can recognize that that last guy knew it was the truth, but only because we are outside of the situation and we have knowledge.  We know its true purpose.

So it is with morals.  If there is no God, there is no way for us to know about morals because we can't get outside of our own point of view and see if it is correct.  Even though people have come up with words like 'good' and 'evil', if there is no God then we have no way of knowing whether or not our thinking on ethics is correct or incorrect.

Now we see the side issue.  My teacher took for granted that we could figure out the purpose of a turn signal without referencing the engineer, and even worse it was taken for granted that we can figure out ethics without reference to God.  All too often the powers of the human mind is taken for granted.  It is seen by many that the human mind is the final arbiter of what is and what is not.  It is the human mind that can judge and weigh any sort of evidence and come to a decsion.

Which is exactly what happened in the Garden of Eden.  Adam and Eve decided to weigh the options.  They decided to figure it out by themselves rather then go to the ultimate source of authority and knowledge.  Because Adam and Eve's sin was ethical in nature, this means that all subjects, knowledge, experimentation, and actions are at root ethical in nature.  They either fit with God's way of thinking or go against it.

So that was my 'light bulb' moment of the day.  Thanks for reading.

Day 6 - Does God have anything to do with ethics? ... or Bring It On!

Or maybe not.

I don't know.  Here I've been studying apologetics for a few years now and finally it was time for the rubber to meet the road.  I've been anticipating this class since last September and today was THE DAY where the class topic was God, religion, and ethics.

The teacher couldn't have given me a better opening.  He started with Euthyphro's dilemma which I know how to refute inside and out, upside-down, and backwards.  For those of you who don't know, Euthyphro's dilemma tries to show that depending on God for our morals/ethics makes you choose between two bad choices.  It is said that if you can understand the difference between the two answers to the dilemma then you have the makings of a philosopher.  I won't be giving this a complete treatment, but bear with me.

The setup goes like this:  Is something good because God says it?  Or does God say it because it is good?  Simple enough, eh?  If you answer yes to the first question then imagine if God said that rape is good.  Would you be okay with that?  Probably not, so then the other question must be the correct view, God says it is because it is good.  But if this was the case then 'goodness' is outside of God and therefore we don't need God anymore!  Then you end up stuck on the horns of a dilemma.  Neither choice is preferable.  My teacher did a masterful job of describing it.

The problem with the Euthyphro dilemma is that it's a false dichotomy, that is, it sets up the question assuming there are only two possible answers.  But for a dichotomy to be a true dichotomy there can only be TWO choices.  The choices in a true dichotomy must be actual opposites: A and not-A.  The Euthyphro dilemma gives us the choices A and B.  If the choices are A and B, well then what's wrong with adding a C?  Or a D?  Heck, even an E?  Even the mere possibility of there being a third choice makes the dilemma not a true dilemma anymore.

And this was my chance.  The whole time I had been waiting and waiting for this moment.  I was nervous, my heart was pounding, I'll even admit I was pitting out a little bit (but not too bad, thanks to this fine product).  Finally, here was my chance to stand up for what I believe.  And in front of +20 people who (presumably) don't believe as I do.  Although I'm no David and my teacher is certainly no Goliath, I was ready to stand up and fight, slay the Philistines, and anyone else.  I was Daniel-san ready to take on the whole Cobra-kai.  I was ready to 'Bring It On' with or without jazz hands.

Foreshadowing, anyone?

It seemed that the teacher was finishing his presentation.  I raised my hand and said, "While Socrates' question is a sharp one, it presents a false dilemma."

Teacher: "So what's the third choice?"

Me: "I would say that morality and ethics are grounded in God's character."  See, this choice neatly avoids the problem with Euthyphro's dilemma.  Now it's not preferable BECAUSE it avoids the dilemma, it's preferable because it's true.  The morality we experience is a reflection of God's character.  His holiness is the standard by which all actions are judged.  We know when we are acting correctly when our thoughts/attitudes/actions match God's.

I'm not exactly sure what happened next, but my teacher took my answer to mean that I was in favor of something called "Natural Law Theory".  Simply stated, natural law theory means that moral laws do exist and that we are able to understand and know them.  Sounds good so far, but the teacher went on to say that if we can understand and know them without knowing God, why should God come into play in an ethical discussion?  Therefore an ethical discussion can still be independent and free of God!

Wait, huh?  So although I knew my Euthyphro dilemma very well, all of a sudden I became in favor of natural law theory?  How did that happen?  So during the discussion that ensued I was trying to figure out exactly how to answer natural law theory and figure out how that related to everything else I had reading and studying in apologetics.

See, I've practiced a lot on answering the questions to which I already know the answers.  I spend hours thinking about it, sometimes I even wake up at night and find myself wrestling with these topics trying to figure out how I would answer such-and-such a question and how I would defend this argument and that argument.  This is how much I love apologetics and finally it was my turn to bat it seems like I... I don't know, hit a single?

The teacher ended the class about an hour early and so I stuck around and another student and I spent more time talking about it with the teacher.  I even brought up the whole "assigning ourselves extra credit" idea from a previous post.  He (the teacher) seemed genuinely surprised at some of my views (like all of science depending on God's existence, or people assuming that there are objective moral laws are really standing on Christian ground), but he was still thinking that I was a proponent of natural law theory and it was tough for me to defend my position and work my way out of that.  I just didn't seem to make any head way.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT WAS THE PROBLEM.  I wanted to make headway, when in hindsight that's not MY job.  My only job is to present the truth, and point out the errors.  What happens after that is not up to me, thankfully it's up to God.

Meanwhile, I need to get more prepared.

Thanks for reading.

Day 5 - Justice... or Let's just assign ourselves extra credit.

Today was another pretty boring class, all we did was talk about justice, nothing too heavy.  But I did ask one question and received an answer from the teacher that will be worth remembering in the future.

So class was started and the teacher the teacher asked us if anybody has the right to extra credit?  We answered, no.  He then divided the classroom down the middle into two groups: East and West.  We were to write down our names on a piece of paper (for our respective groups) and he said that he will give five points of extra credit for rhyming words.  East's task was to find five words that rhyme with cat, West's job was to find five words that rhyme with dog.

Well both groups did the task.  He had East read their words, he wrote them down on the board and then wrote "+5 extra credit" underneath their list.  Our group (West) read our words, he wrote them down on the board, and then proceeded to start with class.

Now you could tell that it was OBVIOUS to everyone that my group didn't get any extra credit.  My former-teacher radar could tell that this was a little experiment to get the class thinking about fairness and stuff.  So we had a little discussion about what happened, how expectations were not met, etc. and this led into the topic of the day.  Justice.

But while we were still discussing the situation and the West group realized that we weren't getting any extra credit I asked the teacher, "Can we assign ourselves extra credit?"

He responded, "Sure, it won't make it into my book, but go ahead."  This response got me thinking.

While once talking to someone about the authority of God, I likened it to a classroom situation (now all analogies never have a complete one-to-one relationship but bear with me).  Let's say that the teacher is the god of the classroom.  In many ways this is true.  The teacher has authority inherent in his position, the teacher can tell the students what to do and what no to do.  The teacher decides what the expectations of the homework assignment are and how it will be graded.  The teacher can even choose to give or withhold extra credit.  Let's say that a student says to the teacher, "I believe that I deserve extra credit for being awesome."

If I heard this back in the day, I would probably have chuckled and kept on with my work.  But let's say that the student persists and asks, "So you're not going to give me extra credit for being awesome?"

"Nope," would be my reply.

"Well, then I'll just give extra credit to myself."

I can tell you that I would reply the exact same way as my ethics teacher did.  He is perfectly capable of assigning himeslf extra credit, but it certainly will not make it on the report card.  What the student chose to be his reality did not matter at all.  The only reality that ever mattered was the teacher's.

But let's say that there is no teacher.  If the student decided to give himself extra credit, is there any objective reality where the student will actually get some extra credit?  To whom is he speaking?  The other students?  Does all the students getting together and deciding upon the standards of extra credit and then applying it to themselves mean they actually have this extra credit now?  It's possible that the students may divide themselves into two camps with opposite standards of extra credit.  How then would they decide which standard is the correct standard?

Let's get out of the analogy and pretend that God does not exist.  If God does not exist, why isn't it the case that any human 'right' (like in Monday's discussion) or justice is not just humans assigning themselves extra credit?  Sure we can SAY that we have human rights and people ought to be treated in a just manner but does that objectively mean that human rights and justice exist?  Does all of us human beings getting together and deciding upon the standards of human rights and then applying it to ourselves mean we actually have human rights now?

The teacher ended the class with a story from Second Samuel where the prophet Nathan tells David that he did something wrong by having Uriah killed and taking Bathsheba (If you need a reminder of the story, click here).  The teacher used this example to explain that if you're in a situation it's tough to see if your own behavior was just or not (which is probably why people are not their own judges in a courtroom case).  According to my teacher, Nathan was there to tell David that he did something wrong and David was able to see this because Nathan was an 'outside voice' and saw the situation from a different point of view.

I should have brought this up, but why should David have listened to Nathan?  If all of the Hebrews were mistaken and there is no God, then all Nathan was telling David was that he doesn't get any extra credit for killing Uriah.  In fact, David got negative extra credit.  He got so much negative extra credit that David's report card was showing a big fat F in the class called Life 101.

Unless Nathan had some sort of authority then David could just have responded with, "Nu-huh!" stuck out his tongue, and ran away.  But Nathan did have authority.  Not inherent in himself, but his authority came from God.  David was cut to the heart and admitted that he sinned against the LORD.  It is God that is the standard of our behavior.  It is God who is perfectly just in all His actions.  He is the object in which human rights and justice rest.  Though we, like David, sin against Him every day, God tells us, like Nathan told David, that the LORD has taken away our sin.

So while I didn't talk about the topic of justice and its definitions and whatever, I'm just going to assign myself extra credit anyway.  :)

Small group discussion... or Rule number one: You don't talk about group discussion.

Rule number two: You don't talk about group discussion.

Anyway, was it just me or do most teachers have insanely high hopes for group discussions?  They dream for this:

But instead get this:

or this:

So I've signed up for the small group discussion part of the class this upcoming Friday and these will be the topics that we'll be discussing.  What I would like from you is your ideas, perhaps some Bible passages that come to mind about the topic.  The topics are in italics and my first impressions about them are after.

1.  The head of marketing thinks one of his subordinates spends too much  time surfing the Internet. He asks you to monitor the employee's e-mail, URL  stops and Web downloads, and wants the logs on his desk in a week.  He asks that  you not inform the employee of your monitoring, and that you not discuss your  activities with anybody else in the company. 

I don't have a problem with this, but the requirement to not discuss the activities with anyone else might be suspect.  If you're at work, your time is not your own, you should be working.  I would probably think of the 7th commandment in this situation.  You are stealing from your employer if you get paid for not doing the work that you are getting paid to do.

2.  Frank is a software designer who has been assigned to work with an  employment agency, building a database for their job applicants.  The client (the  employment agency) explains that when displaying a list of equally qualified  applicants for a position, male applicants are to be listed ahead of female  applicants, and white applicants are to be listed ahead of non-white applicants.

This one is a bit obvious here, but maybe it's an employment agency for actors and when a script calls for a white dude the agency needs a program that can sift through all of the actors and find the white dudes quickly!  Or maybe the employment agency is run by a bunch of sexist bigots?  Who knows?  Passages anyone?

3.  Irene is a software designer who has been assigned to work for a foreign client, building a database to help schedule on-going medical treatments.  She is  asked by the client to build the database so that members of ethnic group A are  always given priority over members of ethnic group B, even if that priority  endangers the life of the latter.  Such a priority is not illegal in the country where the client is located;  indeed, it is culturally expected.

I don't think I would want to work on this project, though I would want more information about the whole thing.  In the end, I would tell them to find someone else to do it.  Even though this is similar to number 2, does anybody have some passages that might apply?

Thanks!

Day 4 - Rights...or You Got It (The Right Stuff)?

Oh, oh, oh, oh oh oh...

Today's class was pretty boring and I'll admit that I didn't spend that time thinking about the New Kids on the Block.  Especially Donnie (he's so street!)  All we talked about was human rights and what some of them may be.  Here is a definition of rights!

"Activity or opportunity we expect to have protected against the actions of others."

So human rights are rights that humans have (duh?) simply by virtue of being a human.  We then began to make some sort of a list of rights that humans could possibly have such as life, free speech, love, liberty, association, discovery, humane treatment, family, blah, blah, blah.  We went through some examples where we discussed a situation where people's rights could possibly be involved and more blah, blah, blah, blah.  But then the teacher posed a question that piqued my interest.  It was:

"Where do rights come from?"

The teacher said that this is a hard question and an answer to it can help to distinguish between different ethical theories.  There are three main answers to this question.  One is that all rights are legal rights, the next is rights are religiously based, and finally that our rights are based in human nature.

I especially liked that rights are religiously based (specifically based in the Christian God of the Bible) but we didn't go into any of the three choices very deeply.  That's probably going to be another class period (I can't wait).  But since class was boring my mind was wandering over the topic of God and rights and as this is my blog here are my thoughts on rights and how they relate to God.

I believe my teacher said that all three of the answers to the "Where do rights come from?" question have some deficiencies.  Now I naturally disagree with this (concerning answer number two) but the teacher said that all people must decide for themselves which way they're going to answer  the "Where do rights come from?" question.  However, this is a philosophy that, as C.S. Lewis said, puts God in the dock.  Here is the full quote:

"The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge.  For the modern man the roles are reversed.  He is the judge: God is in the dock....  The trial may even end in God's acquittal.  But the important thing is that Man is on the bench and God in the dock."

The philosophy that my teacher espouses puts man's reasoning and authority over God's reasoning and authority.  Let's say that God does not exist (or He is not as He says He is) then what right do we have to decide that we have intrinsic worth?  Would we get worth just because WE say so?  What justification could there be to hold this attitude?  I suppose that we could just choose to have this attitude, but would it necessarily be true?  Just because someone arbitrarily says, "Humans have intrinsic value by virtue of being a human" what about someone else saying, "No, humans do not have intrinsic value by virtue of being a human being."  If one can be arbitrary about the whole situation why shouldn't another person be just as arbitrary?

No, human rights are not just arbitrary choices made by people some time ago, rather humans have value because God has given us value.  David wrote:

 ³ When I consider your heavens,
       the work of your fingers,
       the moon and the stars,
       which you have set in place,

 ⁴ what is man that you are mindful of him,
       the son of man that you care for him?

 ⁵ You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
       and crowned him with glory and honor.

 ⁶ You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
       you put everything under his feet:

 ⁷ all flocks and herds,
       and the beasts of the field,

 ⁸ the birds of the air,
       and the fish of the sea,
       all that swim the paths of the seas.

 ⁹ O LORD, our Lord,
       how majestic is your name in all the earth! (Psalm 8:3-9)

In all of God's creation the the only reason that we have any value at all is because God has given us value, not ourselves.  God holds us in such with such a high value that He sent His Son to die for us and continues to forgive us even though we sin daily!    God has revealed His attitude to us in His word and in our hearts so we are to mirror this attitude in how we treat others.  So the 'rights' that my class came up with (life, association, humane treatment, discovery) can only be properly understood in the context of Christianity.

Wednesday's class is about justice.  Another Christian concept, huh?