The Tragic Moral Choice and Conflicting Ethical Norms.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brothers, Christians will never be in that dilemma of choosing a greater vs. lesser sin. God has promised us a way out. If you face such an apparent condition, then you need to evaluate the situation a little deeper. God is faithful.


1 Cor. 10
13No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
 
I've personally seen situations where people deliberately lie in order to bring out what they think is the truth. I think that this is more of an immediate situational concern than the ones that people raise as a moral dilemma for righteous (as opposed to 'self-righteous') people. They may leave out truths because these tend to mitigate or hide the facts that they want to bring out; or they may put more emphasis upon one thing than another for the sake of their purposes. These things are almost rampant in our justice systems. That is, situational ethics has been stretched way out of control for the sake short-term 'moral' agendas.

That's how we got abortion on demand. No one would ever have proposed the legitimizing of abortion on the basis of what is presently practiced, a way to be rid any unwanted baby like one throws away a used mop. If it had been proposed in that way, it would never have passed through the courts. Instead they put forward the desparate situations of the rapes of young daughters by their drunken fathers, and such like situations, to put the need for abortion into its best light. But the result is: that the young daughters believe that the payments of a car must come first, that the baby she is carrying comes at an inconvenient time, or that becoming pregnant does her career more damage than she can afford, or becoming pregnant because her attempts to avoid pregnancy failed, but she 'must' be allowed her promiscuous life-style if she is to have any social life at all, etc., etc., etc. Why are these moral dilemmas overlooked by the moral ethicists who place situations against each other? Why do such day-to-day practices in real life escape their attention?

From the point of view of a real ethicist, it doesn't matter whether one is putting forth such a 'moral dilemma' by the point of a gun or in a public debate. Either way, the intention is to undermine the Christian's resolve to trust and follow God's perfect law, to follow Christ Himself. And that, to me, is a more pertinent situational ethic.

Thanks for your insight, but I must disagree. Christ Himself points out a situation where there is a moral conflict and a moral dilemma (David and the shewbread of the Temple). Now that does not mean that when you have this conflict, and you follow the greater law of love, that you have sinned! No, you remain free from sin, because you've fulfilled the purpose of the law and have "not missed the mark"- ie the meaning of sin in Hebrew. Perhaps this adds further insight to the scripture "charity covers a multitude of sins".

As far as killing and aborting a human being so that another one can have a "social life" and go fornicate in order to produce children that they will kill and not care for in love and compassion is absurd. Likewise, it is clear that the psychological trauma that may be sustained by someone who considers aborting a baby because of a past rape, while painful for the one involved, is less burdensome and less severe than murdering an human being who has personally committed no crime against anyone. I think these situations are clear, and that those who deny they are clear are quite simply bad willed and selfish.

I might point out that the word for kill in "thou shalt not kill" of the Ten Commandments is a very specialized word that refers to "killing without cause", and is different from the normal Hebrew word for killing which simply means "to slay". This shows us what God refers to when he talks about the sin of killing- it is killing where the reason for killing does not outweigh the consequences (ie the cause to do it, the reason for doing it, is minimal or nonexistent). When Jael slayed the wicked King in Judges she did so as an act of love for the protection of God's people, and in the interests of serving God. There was a cause behind her action that rendered it sinless. The welfare to be gained by all of the people of Israel in this situation vastly outweighed the lack of compassion displayed in the death of one wicked man, and so therefore the greater love had to triumph over the lesser love in this situation (ie promoting the welfare of all of the members of society versus promoting mercy toward one single unrepentant man).

Everything can be defined according to the law of love and summarized by the first two commandments. Even when it comes to penal sanctions in society, the reason why we have them is because is because greater love is displayed in promoting the welfare of all members of society than showing mercy to those few members who regularly go about marauding and devouring others in various crimes. To destroy those small few who would seek to offend against society and God is not even when measured against the great gain and welfare to be gained by all of your good neighbors in society. IE, it was an actually an act of love, toward God and toward men during the time of Moses, to stone adulterers, criminals, and other immoral- because the members of society are esteemed by all other members of society to the point where, in order to protect their welfare, the few who would seek to act against their fellow men and God should be put to the sword, as the love and protection toward the innocent members of society would outweigh the destruction and lack of compassion that is displayed to those few who are criminals. Whatever course of action best promotes the welfare of God, and then as many of our neighbors as possible- should always be followed. Almost always, this means strictly adhering to the specific delineations of the commandments as preached under Moses and Christ, but there are times when these may have to be superceded by the first and greatest commandments.

The question we are called to ask ourselves, in everything we do, in order to obey the first and greatest commandments, is first- what course would best promote the welfare and Glory of God's name; and secondly- what course would best promote the welfare of all of my fellow men and neighbors.
 
Last edited:
Many dilemmas are merely apparent, and can be resolved by this important principle as formulated in the Larger Catechism:

That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.

We must distingush between negatives and positives in a deontological ethic. Abstaining from evil takes precedence over performing good. Those who try to debunk deontological ethics in favour of a teleological approach usually ignore this point.

Christ's example of David and the shewbread is of a different nature, because morals take precedence over rituals.
 
Many dilemmas are merely apparent, and can be resolved by this important principle as formulated in the Larger Catechism:

That what God forbids, is at no time to be done; what he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times.

We must distingush between negatives and positives in a deontological ethic. Abstaining from evil takes precedence over performing good. Those who try to debunk deontological ethics in favour of a teleological approach usually ignore this point.

Christ's example of David and the shewbread is of a different nature, because morals take precedence over rituals.

Pastor,

Thank you for this insight from the catechism. I would agree that most specific duties are not to be done at all times, such as the example of confessing our wrongs to one we have wronged (the Baxter quotation cited above by me). But I think loving God and secondly loving our neighbor is one duty that is to be done at all times, seeing it is the greatest commandment and all other commands are subsumed in it and subordinated to it by Christ such that they rely upon it as a house relies upon a foundation (i.e. "on these two hang all the law and prophets"). Could we ever imagine Christ declaring that there are times when we do not have a duty to love God? Certainly not.

Even Israel going to slay Canaan under Joshua was an act of love toward God and neighbor, first toward God (it wiped out the idolatry that was prevailing in the land), and secondly toward their fellow men (in that an incredibly wicked race was removed and the welfare of the greater portion of humanity further secured).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top