Theology 4 - On Morality and Ethics

Morality and Ethics

􀂄 Morality
• L. mores, habit, custom
• “moral” (moralität) the rightness of actions and decision,
“oughtness” and obligation
• Moral and amoral decisions

􀂄 Ethics
• G. eqoj “ethos”, habit, custom (cf. Luke 2:42)
• “ethics” (ziflichkeit), the goodness of behavior,
teleological, the pursuit of the “good”
• Summa bonum

􀂄 Morality is a subset of Ethics
􀂄 Descriptive and Normative Ethics


Levels of Thinking


Worldview: Anthropocentric or Theocentric

What is the nature of God, the world, and man?
What is “good”?
Sources of Authority
Nature, Reason (Philosophy/Science), Revelation,
Community/Tradition
Methods of Moral Reasoning
Deontology (rules), Teleological (outcomes), Existential
(attitudes, virtue)
Principles
Beneficence, Justice, Veracity, Autonomy
Rules
Policies, Laws, Codes
Decisions
Specific Issues

Worldviews & Ethics

􀂄 What is the nature of “God”?
• Theology
• Theistic, Deistic, Atheistic
􀂄 What is the nature of the Universe?
• Metaphysics/ontology
• Created by a Sovereign God, product of chance, naturalistic
􀂄 What is the nature of Man?
• Anthropology
• Image of God, rational animal, product of evolutionary chance
􀂄 How do we know what we know?
• Epistemology
• Revelation, authority, reason, empiricism, feeling
􀂄 What is our destiny?
• Teleology, Eschatology
• Eternal significance, entropic doom and nihilism

Worldview and Ethics
Logical Conclusions

Naturalistic Worldview
• No ultimate basis for meaning and
value
• Man not unique; no basis for
treating man differently from
animals
• No normative moral sanctions;
ethics reduced to individual or
collective sentiment; choices have
no ultimate significance
• Illness and death are part of
natural, meaningless order of
things; death simply a point in
amoral continuum, inimical only
for unfounded emotional reasons

Worldview and Ethics
Logical Conclusions

􀂄 Christian Worldview
• Meaning & value rooted in the
character of God
• Man unique, radically different
from animals, to be treated with
respect
• Ethics has a normative base;
ethical principles are binding;
choices have eternal
consequences
• Illness and death are abnormal
but not the final enemy; they are
used by God to accomplish His
purposes


Theology and Ethics

􀂄 Ethics is not a separate discipline from
theology; ethics is applied theology
The one thing I am here to say to you is this: that
it is worse than useless for Christians to talk about
the importance of Christian morality, unless they
are prepared to take their stand upon the
fundamentals of Christian theology. It is a lie to say
that dogma does not matter; it matters
enormously. It is fatal to let people suppose that
Christianity is only a mode of feeling; it is virtually
necessary to insist that it is first and foremost a
rational explanation of the universe. It is hopeless
to offer Christianity as a vaguely idealistic
aspiration of a simple and consoling kind; it is, on
the contrary, a hard tough, exacting and complex
doctrine, steeped in a drastic and uncompromising
realism.
-Dorothy Sayers, Creed or Chaos (1947)


Theology and Ethics

Any world-view which carries with it
important implications for our
understanding of man and his place in the
universe would yield its own distinctive
insights into the scope, character and
content of morality. To answer the further
question, “What is the distinctive Christian
ethic?”, is inevitable to be involved to
some extent in controversial questions of
Christian doctrine.”
–Basil Mitchell, How to Play Theological
Ping-Pong (1990)


Theology and Ethics

You would hardly find any theologian now who
supposes that Christian ethics can survive for half
a century in detachment from Christian doctrine
and this is the very last moment when the church
itself can come forward with outlines of Christian
ethics in the absence of the theological foundation
which alone makes them really tenable. Our
people have grown up on a generally Christian
atmosphere, and take it for granted that all people
who are not actually perverted hold what are
essentially Christian notions about human
conduct. But this is not true.
–Letter cited in F.A. Iremonger, William
Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury: Life and
Letters (1948)

Theology and Ethics

The “borrowed capital”
of the Christian tradition
in Western Society
-Alasdair MacIntyre,
After Virtue (1981)
Theology and the Nature of “the Good”
􀂄 What is “good” and why do we seek it?
􀂄 Socrates
• Is the “good” good because the gods approve
it, or do the gods approve it because it is
good? (Plato, Euthyphro)
􀂄 Plato
• Good as the highest, all-embracing, dominant
idea or form, that which preserves and
supports (Republic)
􀂄 Aristotle
• The goal of all human relations and actions
(Nichomachean Ethics)
􀂄 Matthew 19:16-18 (The Rich Young Ruler)
• avgaqo.n poih,sw (agathon poieso); good
work
• Ouvdei.j avgaqo,j( eiv mh. ei-j( o` qeo,jÅ
(oudeis agathos, ei me eis ho theos); no
one is good, except God


Theology and the Nature of “the Good”

􀂄 Implications
• All “good” comes from God;
God’s character defines what is
“good”
• One can only be “good” in the
derivative sense as reflecting the
character of God and being in
relation (through faith) with God
• The “good” we seek in “ethics” is
God Himself and His glory
• Autonomy in ethics (seeking the
“good” apart from God) is the
nature of sin and death

Theology and the Nature of “the Good”

􀂄 Onto-Theology 􀂄 Biblical Theology
BEING
Man God
“GOOD”
Man God
YHWH
Independent, Essential, BEING
Man
Dependent, Created, being
YHWH’s character as the
definition of the “GOOD”
Man’s character as “good”
only as it reflects and
is in relation to God
Arthur A. Leff, “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural
Law” Duke Law Journal (1979) 6:1229-1249
All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we
have. Given what we know about ourselves and
each other, this is an extraordinarily unappetizing
prospect; looking around the world, it appears
that if all men are brothers, the ruling model is
Cain and Abel. Neither reason, nor love, nor even
terror, seems to have worked to make us ‘good’.
And worse than that, there is no reason why
anything should. Only if ethics were something
unspeakable by us, could law be unnatural, and
therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand,
everything is up for grabs.
Arthur A. Leff, “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural
Law” Duke Law Journal (1979) 6:1229-1249
We are never going to get anywhere
(assuming for the moment that there is
somewhere to get) in ethical or legal
theory unless we finally face the fact that,
in the Psalmist’s words, there is no one
like unto the Lord. If He does not exist,
there is no metaphoric equivalent, no
person, no combination of people, no
document, however hallowed by time, no
process, no premise, nothing is equivalent
to an actual God in this central function as
the un-examinable examiner of good and
evil.


Reflecting the Character of God
The Imago Dei

􀂄 Only three Biblical texts
• Gen 1:26-28 (after the
creation of man)
• Gen 5:1-12 (after man sins)
• Gen 9:6-7 (after the flood)
􀂄 Fundamental importance of
what it means to be human
• cpn “nephesh”; embodied
soul, also of animals
• Defining ourselves in terms of
God, in His image (slx
“tselem”) and likeness (twmd
“demut” )
• Defining ourselves in terms of
ourselves is prideful and sinful

What is the Imago Dei?

􀂄 Physical properties, mind
(nous), rationality, imagination
(image), soul
• Irenaeus: image/likeness;
nature/supernature, reason/faith,
superadditum bonum
• Boethius: rationalis naturae
individua substantia (undivided
substance of a rational nature)
􀂄 Focus on some sort of property
􀂄 This is never addressed in
Scripture. Why?
􀂄 Wrong question
10
What does it mean to be made in
the Imago Dei?
􀂄 Focus on relationship
and role
􀂄 ANE use of sovereign
“image”
􀂄 Our relationship to God
• To reflect His character
• To do His will
• To rule His kingdom
􀂄 Exodus 20:4-5 (Deut
5:8-9)