Lux Lucet

Throughout this series on Christian philosophy, it has been my argument that Christianity is a system of ideas thought out together. Christianity is not the only system of thought, it is not the only worldview. Marxism, for example, is a systematic attempt to provide a comprehensive worldview. On the other hand, Christianity is unique in that it is God’s revealed system of thought. it is truth itself. Paul’s statement, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, not have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love him” (I Corinthians 2:9), is a denial that man can discover truth on his own.

Throughout the course of history, men, brilliant men such as Plato and Aristotle, have argued that man can too discover truth by his own efforts. Secular epistemology – epistemology is logically the first discipline of philosophy, it is the theory of knowledge answering the question “How do you know?” – comes in one of two forms. Rationalism (Plato) tells us that men can know truth from ideas they come up with in their own minds. Empiricism (Aristotle) argues that man can know truth by observing things. Our senses, say the empiricists, furnish us with knowledge. Christianity, on the other hand, argues that truth, all truth, is graciously revealed by God to men, that men do not discover truth on their own, that the so-called wisdom men claim to have found by their own efforts is, in reality, foolishness.

One’s view of metaphysics – metaphysics is the theory of reality – depends upon his epistemology. Since we live in an age in which empirical epistemology is dominant, it is not surprising that people believe that matter, physical stuff, is the ultimate reality. Carl Sagan gave voice to this idea when he wrote, “The cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.” But as John Robbins wrote in his tract What is Christian Philosophy?, Christian metaphysics, which is based upon a Christian theory of knowledge, speaks in this way, “in God, not matter, we live and move and have our being.” The universe is not eternal, but created Not independent, but upheld by God. Not evolving to perfection, but advancing in its decay.

Ethics

After epistemology and metaphysics, ethics is the third major discipline in philosophy. It is the theory of conduct and answers the question, “What ought we to do?” As one may imagine, secular philosophers have given many answers to this question. In recent times it is common for philosophers to base their ethics on either natural law or utilitarianism. As with metaphysics, Christian ethics rests on the foundation of Christian epistemology. Peter provided us with a helpful summary of Christian ethics when replying to the Sanhedrin he made the point, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Below I would like to consider first two non-Christian ethical systems and then review what the Bible has to say on the topic.

Hume’s Gap – The End of Natural Law

The fundamental problem with any system of ethics based on natural law is that “oughts” – ethics is the

Scottish philosopher David Hume, 1711 -1776.

theory of conduct, it is all about what we ought to do – can never be derived from “ises.” From a logical standpoint, we cannot, on the one hand, say that such and such a thing is, and conclude, therefore, that something else ought to be. The most famous statement of this principle was made by Scottish philosopher David Hume who penned the following words,

I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, ’tis necessary that it shoul’d be observ’d and explain’d; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou’d subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceive’d by reason. (A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III, Part I, Section I).

John Robbins explains the gap between is and ought thus,

All attempts to base ethics on some foundation other than the Bible fail. Natural law is a failure, because “oughts” cannot be derived from “ises.” In more formal language, the conclusion of an argument can contain no terms that are not found in its premises. Natural lawyers, who begin their arguments with statements in the indicative mood, cannot end their arguments with statements in the imperative mood. (What is Christian Philosophy?)

As a further example, consider the following classic logic text book argument,

Major Premise:     All men are mortal.

Minor Premise:     Socrates is a man.

Conclusion:        Socrates is mortal.    

This is a valid argument. All the terms found in the conclusion – “Socrates,” “mortal,” and the copula “is” – appear in the premises of the argument. If an argument has terms in the conclusion that are not found in the premises, it cannot be valid. The following is an example of this.

Major Premise:     All men are mortal

Minor Premise:    Socrates is a man.

Conclusion:        Socrates is the leading candidate for National League Most Valuable Player.

This argument is invalid, for the term “the leading candidate for National League Most Valuable Players” is found nowhere in either of the two premises. It comes, to use a baseball metaphor, out of left field.

The same problem exists with any ethical system based on natural law. One can make observations that describe, or at least purport to describe, what is. These are descriptive statements. But descriptive statements are not normative. One cannot logically make the leap from saying because something is, therefore another thing ought to be. The infinite chasm that exists between what is and what ought to be is sometimes known as Hume’s Gap.

Utilitarianism – The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

Given its classic statement by Englishman Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism is the other ethical system common to our day. Utilitarianism argues that men ought to do that which promotes their pleasure and avoid that which causes them pain. Writes Bentham,

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do… By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. I say of every action whatsoever, and therefore not only of every action of a private individual, but of every measure of government. (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation).

But men ought to act not just with a view to their own pleasure and pain, they must also take into account that experienced by others. They must make what Bentham called the hedonic calculation, which takes into account the pleasure and pain suffered by all who are affected by their actions. What ought to be done, according to Bentham, is that action which produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Commenting on utilitarianism, John Robbins makes the following point,

Unfortunately, utilitarianism is also a failure, for it not only commits the naturalistic fallacy of the natural lawyers[the fallacy of deriving an “ought” from an “is”; even if one somehow could calculate what action would produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people, it does not follow that one ought to take that action], it requires a calculation that cannot be executed as well (What is Christian Philosophy?)

A further problem with utilitarianism is that it can easily be used to justify the worst sort of totalitarianism. One could argue that the pain suffered by the Jews in WWII was outweighed by the pleasure the Nazis took in their suffering. After all, the Jews were relatively few in number compared to the 90 million or so Germans. As such, utilitarian would be hard pressed to condemn the holocaust. He would have to show that the suffering of the concentration camp victims was so great that it exceeded the pleasure of derived by Hitler and his followers from their pain. How one would do this is a mystery. More recently the world has been treated to YouTube videos of ISIS beheadings. From a utilitarian perspective, it just may be that that the pleasure redounding to the many islamists from these acts of violence was so great that it outweighed the suffering of their relatively few victims. If so, then ISIS was in the right to do what it did, and no one has any basis to raise an objection. One would like to think that utilitarians may still object to the holocaust or to the actions of ISIS, but they would be hard pressed to do so on their own ethical principles.

Utilitarianism was given a more recent statement by Joseph Fletcher in his 1966 book Situation Ethics. Rather than identifying maximum pleasure as basis for ethical decisions, Fletcher used love.

Justice is Christian love using its head, calculating its duties, obligations, opportunities, resources. Sometimes it is hard to decide, but the dilemmas, trilemmas, and multilemmas of conscience are as baffling for legalists as for situationists. Justice is love coping with situations where distribution is called for. On this basis it becomes plain that as the love ethic searches seriously for a social policy it must form a coalition with utilitarianism. It takes over from Bentham and Mill the strategic principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number” (Fletcher, Situation Ethics, 95).

If calculating the greatest good for the greatest number poses insuperable problems for utilitarianism, much more is this an issue for Fletcher and his love ethic. As Gordon Clark points out,

Now the proposal to seek pleasure for one’s self and to give other people pleasure is intelligible. It is as intelligible as my inviting you to have a dish of ice cream with me. But while I understand how to increase your pleasure, I am at a loss as to how to increase your love (The Puritans and Situation Ethics).

Christian Ethics – The Ten Commandments

Secular attempts to establish ethical principles are complete failures. In the words of Scripture, they are broken cisterns that can hold no water. How should we then live? Or as the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks, What is the duty which God requires of man? The answer is simple. The duty God requires of man is obedience to his revealed will, the moral law, summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments. John Robbins put it this way,

The only logical basis for ethics is the revealed commands of God. They furnish us not only with the basic distinction between right and wrong, but with detailed instructions and practical examples of right and wrong. They actually assist us in living our daily lives. Secular attempts to provide an ethical system fail on both counts (What is Christian Philosophy?)

The only reason any action is right or any action is wrong, is because God has declared it so. Christians oppose abortion, suicide and homosexual rights not on the basis of natural law – natural law could easily be used justify all three – not on the basis of utilitarianism – no one could possibly make the calculations needed, and even if they could, no ethical norms could be drawn from them – but because God has declared them in his Word, the 66 books of the Bible, to be sinful. Christian epistemology – Scripture alone furnishes us with knowledge – is the basis for Christian ethics.