50 Ethical Questions

Biblical Wisdom for Confusing Times

J. Alan Branch

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781683595595
• eBook ISBN: 9781683595601
• Topic: Théologie et religion
• Subtopic: Théologie chrétienne

Part 1

Questions about Ethical Theory

1

Why can’t we base our moral judgments on the greatest good?

Mr. Spock: It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh …

Captain Kirk: … the needs of the few …

Mr. Spock: … or the one.

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan

Defining the Issue

Many people argue that we should make decisions that result in the most good for the greatest number of people. This is called utilitarianism, a system of ethics that attempts to build a moral framework based on the presence or absence of pain or happiness. Utilitarianism suggests one constant duty for everyone: Each person should anticipate the consequences of one’s moral action and make a choice that maximizes the aggregate happiness of humanity. Utilitarianism is appealing because all of us are concerned about the consequences of our actions. Maximizing happiness and minimizing pain seems noble. So, what’s wrong with basing our ethics on what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number?

Biblical Ethical Principles

While we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, the Bible provides rules, such as the Ten Commandments, to guide Christian conduct. Knowing God is equated with being obedient to his commands: “And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 John 2:3). Theologian and philosopher John Frame comments on this verse, “When Scripture describes the knowledge of God that comes by grace, that knowledge is always accompanied by obedience and holiness.”1 From a biblical perspective, our first obligation is not to search for the greatest good for the greatest number but to be obedient to God’s moral commands.

Happiness and the absence of pain is another name for pleasure, and pleasure is an insufficient starting point for ethics. Pursuing pleasure for its own sake does not result in greater happiness, but frustration.2 For example, Ecclesiastes 2:1–11 describes the pursuit of wine, accumulation of wealth, beautiful surroundings, and sexual encounters, only to conclude by saying, “And behold all was vanity and striving after the wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 2:11). The Bible also cautions us that happiness and pleasure can become idolatrous goals that lead us to sin. In the parable of the sower, Jesus warns about people who are “choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life” (Luke 8:14). When love is misdirected toward our own pleasure instead of God, our moral thinking becomes distorted.

Utilitarianism also wrongly assumes that fallen, finite humans can predict with accuracy the full consequences of our actions. In contrast, Isaiah 46:10 says God declares “the end from the beginning” and 1 John 3:20 says God knows all things. Humans are not omniscient and we will never know all the many consequences of our choices, thus limiting the viability of utilitarian moral calculus.

Obedience to God’s commands does not mean we overlook the consequences of our ethical choices. For example, the prophet Ezekiel stressed that God’s people had to bear the consequences for their moral rebellion (Ezekiel 23:35). Similarly, Paul appeals to the consequences of sexual immorality as a reason for the Corinthians to live in purity (1 Corinthians 6:12–20). But the consequences of our actions are always seen in light of God’s standards and are not evaluated on the basis of our own pleasures and desires.

Suggested Moral Stance

While Christians are certainly concerned about the consequences of our actions and should consider carefully how our choices affect others, utilitarianism as an ethical system should be rejected. Because we are not omniscient and can never fully predict the consequences of our choices, God has provided moral parameters for our good in the Bible. Christians should always define what is good in light of God’s word. Our default position should first be to search diligently for the biblical commands and principles most applicable to our moral questions.

Ernest Hemingway once said, “I only know that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after.”3 Hemingway’s attitude sums up the subjective and practical problems with utilitarianism as a system. Measuring pleasure and pain inevitably boils down to someone’s tastes, preferences, and experiences. But Scripture warns us that because of the fall our desires are broken, one of Paul’s main points in Romans 1:18–32. It is quite possible for fallen humans to feel very good after committing acts God says are sinful and deplorable.

Furthermore, utilitarianism fails its own test when historical examples are considered. Some of the most heinous acts in the last two centuries have been justified on utilitarian grounds. In the name of promoting the greater good for the greatest number, forced sterilization, euthanasia, abortion, and a host of other evils have resulted in the death of many innocent people. What happens to those who aren’t in the greatest number? Too often, they become expendable for the sake of the purported greater good of society.

Questions for Reflection

1.How might our own sinful nature skew our perception of what is good?

2.When considering the consequences of our actions, why is it important to begin with what God says about right and wrong?

2

Aren’t moral judgments just an expression of our feelings?

And we have seen that sentences which simply express moral judgements do not say anything. They are pure expressions of feeling and as such do not come under the category of truth and falsehood.

A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic

Defining the Issue

Emotivism is a theory that claims that any ethical statement merely expresses how the person speaking feels about an issue. When someone says, “Murder is wrong,” that person is just telling you how he or she feels about murder. It is no different from saying, “I don’t like sushi.” Or, when someone says, “Pornography is evil,” they are just saying, “I find pornography unpleasant.” For these reasons, emotivism is often called “boo/hooray” ethics. When someone says, “Abortion is wrong,” the person is merely saying, “Boo abortion.” When someone says, “Fidelity in marriage is good,” he or she is only saying, “Hooray fidelity!”

Is this true? Are the things we say about morality no different from cheering for our favorite athletic team?

Biblical Ethical Principles

The Bible teaches that knowledge of right and wrong can be derived from God who has revealed himself in Scripture. Deuteronomy 32:4 says, “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.” The God of truth and justice has given us his word to guide us to correct moral judgments. Psalm 19:8 adds, “The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.” Healthy emotions flow from knowledge of objective truth: God’s word makes the heart glad and makes the eyes light up.

For emotivism, moral statements can never be objectively true or false; moral statements express only a person’s feelings. In this way, emotivism contributes to making debates about important issues in our day more vitriolic. For example, if a Christian opposes any identity across the LGBTQ spectrum, the emotivist claims the Christian is doing so because of a subjective dislike of these identities and not because of objective reasons grounded in truth. Thus, “I disagree with identifying oneself as transgender” is understood to mean, “I find transgender people distasteful.” If all arguments are merely emotional statements, then they must be refuted by even stronger emotional statements, and this is what we see all too often in our moral discourse.

Emotivism is based on the premise that there is no God. If God does exist and if he has spoken truth about right and wrong, the entire theory of emotivism falls apart.

Suggested Moral Stance

Emotivism is an incorrect depiction of moral discussions. When God says, “You shall not murder,” he is not expressing an opinion, but an objective moral fact. Psalm 119:160 (NIV) says of God, “All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal.” Some people find emotivism convincing because moral debates on sensitive topics often bring out fierce emotions. But the mere fact that people sometimes express tremendous emotion about an ethical topic does not mean there is no absolute standard by which to evaluate right and wrong.

Emotivism is convincing to some people because Christians often lack substantive, organized arguments for our moral stances on highly controversial issues. Also, Christians often have a profound misunderstanding of why non-Christians hold to competing opinions. In such circumstances, some Christians, sadly, have retreated into angry name-calling and tirades. When there is no substance to our arguments, it is easy to see why someone might think emotivism is actually a good description of moral debate. Thus, a cure to emotivism’s appeal is for Christians to study God’s word, pray, and work hard to develop cogent arguments for our moral stances.

Finally, if someone is consistent in using emotivism, the person can never truly be an emotivist. Why? Because if emotivism is true, then every person is always correct when making ethical judgments and no opinion is better than any other. To understand this objection, keep in mind that emotivism is not merely saying there are some issues on which people of good will disagree or about which there may be some ambiguity. Instead, emotivism insists there is no moral certitude available on any ethical question whatsoever. Since advocates of emotivism generally tend toward the ideological left, I will use an example of a moral issue commonly supported by such individuals. Imagine a self-proclaimed emotivist who is also pro-abortion saying, “Abortion on demand is a moral good.” If emotivism is true, our hypothetical pro-abortion emotivist is only saying, “Hooray for abortion on demand!” But no abortion advocate actually thinks this; they think it is objectively right to be pro-abortion and the pro-life stance is wrong. Anyone who believes that another person who holds a conflicting moral opinion is objectively wrong cannot consistently be an ethical emotivist.1 The entire system is unworkable and does not reflect reality.

Questions for Reflection

1.Why do you think emotivism is appealing to some people?

2.How does the emotional nature of some moral debates contribute to the idea that emotivism is true?

3

How can we say one moral code is better than another?

Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best.

Herodotus, The Histories (440 BC)

Defining the Issue

Moral relativism is an ethical theory...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Introduction
• Thinking Ethically as a Christian
• Part 1: Questions about Ethical Theory
• Part 2: Questions Related to Bioethics
• Part 3: Questions Related to Sexual Ethics, Marriage, and Divorce
• Part 4: Questions Related to Homosexuality, Intersex, and Transgender
• Part 5: Questions Related to Christian Living
• Scripture Index
• Old Testament