# Morality and the Good



## Claudiu (Dec 5, 2011)

What is the relation between "morality" and "the good?"

(i) Does morality sometimes prohibit us from acting in ways that would be best on the whole? A consequentialist could say: There might be a tension between a moral rule (as seen by others) and the good. For example, not telling a lie is a moral law most would hold to, but in some cases not telling a lie could lead to human lives being killed. In cases like these, one is morally obligated (according to the consequentialist) to lie in order to save the human lives. 

(ii) Is there some special value inherent in a morally good will, as Kant apparently thought. Kant says that the moral worth of actions consists in the motivations behind them. [There are three motivations that Kant recognizes: 1. acting from duty (doing something because it’s the right thing to do - tied in with the categorical imperative), 2. acting from immediate inclination (something done for it’s own sake or because you enjoy doing it), and 3., from another inclination (usually as a means to some further end).] 

(iii) Is Scanlon right to suggest that morality makes possible a distinctively valuable form of relationship to our fellow human beings? Scanlon's contractualism is stated as follows: "An act is wrong if its performance under the circumstances would be disallowed by any set of principles for the general regulation of behaviour that no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced, general agreement" (Scanlon 1998, p. 153). (More on Scanlon's contractualism here: Contractualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)). 

So these are just three ways of looking at the relation between "morality" and "the good." What are some Christian responses to these three views? In my opinion, I think each theory has some grain of truth in it, but they each ultimately fail because they rely too much on one aspect of morality. By putting emphasis one area, they fail to give an account of other ethical considerations. For example, consequentialism leads to some rather justified horrendous acts (such as killing one person in order to save three, since the action will lead to a greater net balance of good). Kant's overemphasis of the "good will" leads to people who are not morally transformed, but act solely in accordance with the moral law. This seems like all we're doing is producing "moral robots." I think "sympathy" does have something to do with morality. Someone who is morally transformed will act out of sympathy (or we could say, act naturally) and whose action will also match with the moral law. Lastly, Scanlon's focus on the value of other human beings disregards much of the personal moral considerations one deals with. There are many actions, thoughts, and so on, that Christians would say are immoral, but under Scanlon's theory would not be immoral, or he could even they are amoral.


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 6, 2011)

Claudiu,
Before trying to unpack your question regarding Scanlon.

First of all your question would be more readily managed if you were coming from a Confessional Framework. For example the London Baptist Confession states:

*Chapter XV: Of Repentance unto Life and Salvation*

2. Whereas *there is none that doth good*, and sinneth not, and the best of men may through the power and deceitfulness of their corruptions dwelling in them, with the prevalency of temptation, fall into great sins and provocations; God hath in the covenant of grace mercifully provided, that believers so sinning and falling, be renewed through repentance unto salvation.

*Chapter XVI: Of Good Works*

1.	*Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word*, and *not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions.
*


----------



## jwright82 (Dec 6, 2011)

From an Apologetical perspective you seem to be giving unbeleiving thought too much credit. They are attempting to provide a basis for right or wrong from a non-christian basis. Study G. E. Moore's book on ethics where he admits that we cannot adequately define what "good" and "bad" is.


----------



## MW (Dec 6, 2011)

"There is none good but one, that is, God." On that basis it is impossible to define "good" without knowing "God."


----------



## Claudiu (Dec 6, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> "There is none good but one, that is, God." On that basis it is impossible to define "good" without knowing "God."



I thought that the Reformed apologetic method is that we ALL KNOW God:

Romans 1:19-20
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse


----------



## MW (Dec 6, 2011)

Claudiu said:


> I thought that the Reformed apologetic method is that we ALL KNOW God:
> 
> Romans 1:19-20
> 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
> 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse



We also all hold the knowledge of God in unrighteousness, verse 18, become fools, verses 21-22, and frame gods for ourselves, verses 23-25.


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 6, 2011)

Claudiu said:


> Is Scanlon right to suggest that morality makes possible a distinctively valuable form of relationship to our fellow human beings?



Matthew Winzer correctly pointed out that _"it is impossible to define "good" without knowing "God."_ Neither Scanlon nor any other philosopher can, apart from Divine Revelation, say what is _good_ or _moral_.



Claudiu said:


> So these are just three ways of looking at the relation between "morality" and "the good." What are some Christian responses to these three views?



The Christian response is that God has revealed what is *good* and that *morality* is that which corresponds to that good.



> Micah 6:8 He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?


----------

