What we need is a language of ethics that both the religious and the secular feel easy with. The ethical language of rules, which tells us that certain categories of behaviour (such as killing, lying, and adultery) are always wrong, is one that some Christians favour. But Jesus taught, and Paul consistently confirmed, that rules such as the Ten CommandÂments should point us towards developing character ”” becoming more gentle, trustworthy, and faithful people ”” rather than just keeping outward regulations. Rules certainly have no attraction for modern secular people.
The ethical language of conseÂquences ”” do whatever has the best outcome for the most people ”” similarly underestimates the richness of the Christian concept of love, and can easily slip into a sort of hedonism that is of little help in building common values.
The ethical language that seems best suited for pluralistic democracies is the language of rights. But, for people of faith, this sits uneasily with the idea of the need for detachment from self-centredness, which features promÂinently in the ethics of all the main world religions, and with the idea of a holy sovereign creator, which lies at the heart of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Oh, we need to be not only in the world but of the world. That way we can all agree. We need a new ethical language where words no longer have their original meaning but reflect pluralistic deomocracies. Notice that there is a holy sovereign creator but not of the creation of heaven and earth. The creation is Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This is indeed a new and stange religion.
I’m not sure what Pb means, but this is a pithy, well argued little piece. While pointing out the weaknesses of purely rights-based ethical discourse, the author also acknowledges its value. This is wise. The problem with ethical discourse in the West isn’t that it lacks richness — there’s an embarassment of riches. The problem is that our understandable reluctance to set aside the often hardwon benefits of utilitarianism, deontology, revealed morality, or abstract individual rights prevents us from developing ethical coherence.
Any proposed ethical vocabulary has to take into account that most people, short of a catastrophe, aren’t going to give up the demonstrable benefits of Western ethical pluralism in favor of an unproven new scheme. I can see how even ethical conservatives might favor, in light of the disastrous ethical experimentation of the last century, simply keeping things as they are.
But, if as the author writes “all that is helpful in the language of rules, consequences, and rights can be turned into the language of virtues”, this might be a good starting point. It is true that “there is considerable nostalgia for integrity, generosity, patience, faithfulness, gentleness, and humility.” However, absent some agreement about what constitutes a virtuous character — which is part of the problem to begin with –this project is doomed to become another worthy but limited ethical project that gets thrown into the mix.
Not sure we need a new language so much as we need people willing to practice, and thereby role model, truly ethical behavior.
#2 I was paraphrasing this piece to put it into plain words. Apparently these thoughts are easier to understand in the original form. It sounded a little Orwellian to me.
“But, if Christians could begin to see the distinctive ethics of the New Testament in terms of the ethics of virtues, they would find they have something to conÂtribute that is both compreÂhensible and atÂtractive to their fellow citizens.”
A distinctive ethics TRANSLATED into the terms of the ethics of virtue would be appropriate, but only so long as the distinctiveness is preserved.
[i]The ethical language of rules, which tells us that certain categories of behaviour (such as killing, lying, and adultery) are[/i] always [i]wrong, is one that some Christians favour [/i] —Claire Disbrey
Note how Disbrey uses “always” to set up a straw man she can easily knock down.
— Most orthodox Christians probably believe (as do I) that adultery is always wrong.
— But “killing”? Few orthodox Christians assert that “killing” is always wrong. Most accept killing animals for food. Most support having police use deadly force against snipers and terrorists. Few would espouse a rule like “never kill anyone or anything.” Most would agree that we should “never commit murder.” That’s a rule-based statement, but one that incorporates many wise and well-established qualifications into the definition of murder.
— “Lying” presents a more difficult case. Unlike murder, lying has no authoritative legal definition with broad social acceptance; we need to define what we mean by lying. But few orthodox Christians would say “making false statements is always wrong.” Poetry is OK, as are irony and hyperbole. So is the deception entailed in faking out an opposing sports team or throwing a surprise party for a friend. So is keeping certain solemn confidences (e.g., not letting on what you heard in the confessional). There are more difficult cases (e.g., making false statements to protect yourself from a criminal or the secret police). But few if any orthodox Christians would condemn all false statements under all circumstances.
Watch out for combining “always” with deceptively simplistic “rules.”
Christians can’t escape the competing approaches to ethics (none of them “new”): virtue ethics, deontological, utilitarian, rights…
As Christians we have a biblical approach to Ethics. We are to recognize and respect the God-established boundaries between life and death, male and female, God and man, holy and un-holy. When we fail to recognize the boundaries we trespass against God and other. St. Paul says in Romans 1:20 that all are without excuse because God has shown us those boundaries in the order of creation.