Modes of Moral Reasoning

The following categories and systems of thought reflect the manner in which different thinkers have attempted to resolve the problem of what to do when norms come into conflict. The first three options are non-Christian while the last three have been held by various orthodox believers. Students will note that I am borrowing from Norm Geislers Christian Ethics I. Antinomianism A. Antinomianism Defined Antinomianism literally means against-law. It is defined as the exclusion of all ethical norms whether general or universal. There simply are no binding moral absolutes and everything is relative. Therefore, one should not be concerned with conflicts of absolutes because there are no moral absolutes which can be in conflict! For Antinomianism, no objective foundation for moral norms exist. Advocates: Heraclitus (ca 535 - 475 BC): No man steps into the same river twice, for fresh waters are ever upon him. (Sort of another way of saying there is nothing permanent except change.) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) Jean-Paul Sarte (1905 - 1980)

B. Critique of Antinomianism Antinomianism is the inevitable end of the liberal position. Problems with the antinomian position include: 1. Subjective 2. Relativistic 3. Irrationalistic: Norm Geisler explains the irrational nature of antinomianism when he says, It makes no sense to say everything is right for people to do, even opposites. If love is right for one person, hate cannot be right for another person. . . . These are contradictory actions, and contradictories cannot both be true. It is irrational to contend that opposite moral duties can both be equally binding.1 4. Self-Refuting. The person who claims There are no moral absolutes has just stated an absolute! Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 41.
1

II. Generalism A. Generalism Defined This position says there are many ethical norms but they are not of a specific nature. Decisions should be made on a basis of the external usefulness of a decision. Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong. While there are moral principles, there are not moral absolutes. Norman Geisler places the Utilitarians Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in this category. B. Critiques of Generalism Problems with this position: 1. Universalism has no universal norms. Norm Geisler says, If one is in search of meaningful norms for conduct which he ought always to follow because they will guide him in performing acts which are always the right thing to do, then he will be disappointed in generalism. The best a generalist can offer is a set of general norms which neither cover all cases nor are non-conflicting and for which, in order for them to be effective, one must have some other means of applying them in specific and often crucial cases.2 2. Utilitarian acts have no intrinsic value. Geisler takes the generalist position to its logical conclusion and says, For example, the attempt to save a life is not an intrinsically valuable act. It has value only if the person is actually saved or if some other good comes from the futile attempt.3 III. Situationalism / Situation Ethics A. Situation Ethics Defined Situation Ethics is method of moral reasoning which was made popular by Episcopalian theologian Joseph Fletcher (1905 1991). He coined the term Situation Ethics in 1966 in his book by the same title, Situation Ethics. Fletcher said there are only three approaches one can follow when making moral decisions: 1. The legalistic approach. 2. The antinomian approach, which is the opposite extreme of the legalistic approach. 3. The Situational Ethics approach.

2 Ibid., 75-76. 3 Ibid., 76.

In this way, this view limits ones choices to only three options: legalism, antinomianism and situationalism. Situationalism or situation ethics says there is only one universal norm: Do the loving thing. Futhermore, there is only one law, the law of agape. Joseph Fletcher said, Christian situation ethics reduces law from a statutory system of rules to the love canon alone.4 Evangelical authors Grenz and Smith add the following commentary on situation ethics: Situation ethics is situational in that it assumes that the form that the principle of love will take in any particular circumstance cannot be determined by abstract reflection prior to or apart from the situation itself.5 Two terms are central for understanding Situation Ethics: Kairos Moment and Agape. 1. The kairos moment: A divine moment of decision-making. 2. Agape: The central principle for ethical decision making. However, Fletcher did not mean the same thing the Bible means by agape. Dr. Branch strongly urges students not to be confused into thinking that situation ethics is consistent with Biblical Christianity. Advocates of Situationalism: Joseph Fletcher (1905 - 1991). Key work was Situation Ethics: The New Morality, 1966. Fletcher served as the president of the Euthanasia Society of America from 1974 - 1976. John A. T. Robinson (1919-1983). Robinson was an Anglican Bishop. His key work was Honest to God, 1963. Robinson rejected the traditional orthodox understanding of God. B. Critique of Situation Ethics Problems with this view include: 1. 2. 3. 4. This view prospers because its advocates tell you what your choices are. Thus, it is wrong in its basic assumption. This view misunderstands agape and, in fact, fails to clarify what agape actually does require of moral agents. Uzzah thought he was doing the right thing! 2 Samuel 6:6-7 Situation Ethics has a defective view of human nature. People will often take what seems to be a good idea, in this case the principle of love at the heart of situation ethics, and twist the good idea into a rationale for justifying subjective opinions about morality. Teenagers have a strong propensity towards this type of moral reasoning! In fact, human sinfulness has an infinite capacity for selfdeception.

4 Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), 69. Though he selfidentified as a theologian, Fletcher also endorsed the Humanist Manifesto II. 5 Stanley Grenz and Jay T. Smith, s.v. Situation Ethics, in Pocket Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 109.

IV. Non-Conflicting Absolutism A. Non-Conflicting Absolutism Defined Non- Conflicting Absolutism (also known as unqualified absolutism) may be defined as follows: There are many absolute norms governing areas of life and these never come into unavoidable conflict. All moral conflicts are only apparent; they are not real. Advocates of this view strongly insist that God, in is providence, will take care of the results. Advocates: John Murray (1898-1975). Murray taught at Westminster Theological Seminary. Key work: Principles of Conduct (1957). B. Critiques of Non-Conflicting Absolutism Problems: 1. This view ignores the reality of moral conflicts 2. Falling into sins of omission. Geisler says, So, in failing to show mercy to the innocent by withholding truth form the guilty, the unqualified absolutist falls into a sin of omission while attempting to avoid a sin of commission.6 V. A. Conflicting Absolutism Defined This view recognizes many absolute norms. When the norms conflict, it is wrong to disobey either of them. The evil conditions of life will force us to break one of the norms. The best we can do is the least evil possible and then confess it as sin. Advocates: Richard Land B. Critiques of Conflicting Absolutism Problems with Conflicting Absolutism: 1. A moral duty to sin is morally absurd. Geisler says, According to conflicting absolutism, in real moral conflicts we have a moral duty to do the lesser of the two evils. That is, one is morally obligated to do evil. But how can there ever be a moral obligation to do what is immoral? It seems a morally absurd claim.7 Conflicting Absolutism

6 Geisler, Christian Ethics, 95. 7 Ibid., 103.

2. Jesus lived in the same fallen world in which we currently live. This view could hypothetically result in a sinful Jesus. I should stress that no advocates of this view in Christian circles actually suggest that Jesus was a sinner. The objection is a hypothetical one. 3. Sometimes, the Conflicting Absolutist position seems to grant too much moral authority to an evil person. By this, I mean that a Gestapo agent bent killing innocent people does not have the same moral authority as an innocent Jewish neighbor asking for my assistance. VI. Graded Absolutism / Hierarchicalism A. Graded Absolutism Defined 1. Defined This view asserts that there are many ethical norms. The evil situation of our world at times forces us into real and genuine moral conflicts. In such cases, one is morally right to break a lower norm in order to keep a higher norm. When one does so, one has not sinned. Advocates: Paige Patterson W. D. Ross (1877 1971) Ross used the term Prima Facie Duty. John and Paul (deceased 2004) Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (1993)

2. Arguments for Graded Absolutism a. b. Unavoidable moral conflicts occur. Jesus told Pilate that Judas had committed the greater sin (John 19:11). Some sins carry more moral judgment than others. This view is not popular among many (most?) Evangelicals. Nonetheless, I contend that not all sins are the same. In response, many Christians say, Ah yes, but it only takes one sin to separate someone from God. This statement reflects a basic misunderstanding of the Fall and its continuing effects on humans. Basically, we are born fallen. All sins are the same in that every sin is an offense to God. At the same time, some sins are worse than others. As Norm Geisler says, The popular belief is wrong; all sins are not created equal, for there are clearly higher and lower moral laws.8 Acts 4:19: The Sanhedrin told Peter and John not to preach in Jesus name, but they chose to obey God rather than man. Exodus 1: The Hebrew midwives are praised for sparing the children.
8

c.

d.

Norman Geisler, Christian Ethics: Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 117.

e.

Rahab is praised for hiding the spies. Joshua 2

B. Critiques of Graded Absolutism Problems and Criticisms of Graded Absolutism Include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Some critics call Hierarchicalism a veneer of situationalism. There can be a prostitution of method so that Graded Absolutism becomes an excuse for subjective judgment. For those who do not accept the Biblical revelation, there is no objective standard. Some suggest that this is more accurately called casuistry (from the Latin casus, a case) in that Graded Absolutism, at times, involves subtle reasoning implying a multitude of doubtful distinctions and the use of these distinctions for selfserving purposes. It is this form of Graded Absolutism that is associated with Antonio Diana (1585-1683). His work Resolutiones Morales (1659) discusses around 20,000 cases. VII. Conclusion A. Practically, Non-Conflicting Absolutism is the Rule Most of us live our lives according to Non-Conflicting Absolutism on a daily basis. That is to say, norms generally do not come into conflict on a daily basis in an extreme way such as protecting Jews from Nazis. Instead, in the normal course of life moral conflict arises within a Christians heart when we are tempted to live according the flesh as opposed to living faithfully according to Gods word. Many times, we simply do not want to suffer for doing the right thing. Too often, supposed moral conflicts are presented in this light. For example, a business man may say, I am a Christian, but my company expects me to host potential customers at a nude dancing club. If I dont do this, then Ill lose my job. In reality, the only conflict here is one of trusting God and doing the right thing regardless of the consequences (Dont go to the club!). In this sense, the Non-Conflicting Absolutist position and its emphasis on Gods providence is absolutely correct. B. On rare occasions, genuine moral conflicts do exist. On the rare occasions when genuine moral conflicts do arise, such as protecting Jewish people from the Gestapo, it seems that either Conflicting Absolutism or Graded Absolutism is the correct approach. The basic difference between the two is that Conflicting Absolutism says one commits sin when he/she breaks a lower norm to keep a higher norm while Graded Absolutism says one has not sinned in such circumstances. If a student concludes Conflicting Absolutism is in fact the legitimate method for reconciling norms when they come into conflict, the student must be cautious and not baptize every temptation as a matter of moral conflict when the issue may simply be choosing between obedience as opposed to disobedience.