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.