Under consideration is the question: what is the best premise upon which to build well, what to term it is that with which we shall begin.
This article follows the outline of my opening statement from when I debated an Atheist in 2010.
Two key technical definitions:
Morals/morality refers to the mores which merely describes whatever it just so happens that people are doing. Thus, morality is subjective, tentative, situational, intrinsic, relative, etc.
Ethics refers to the ethos which prescribe that which people should/ought to do. Thus, ethics are objective, absolute, universal, extrinsic, etc.
Now, this is not just about semantics since some term what I defined as ethics/ethos as absolute or universal or objective morality. What this is about is discerning the distinctions between morals vs. ethics: even if you call them 1 vs. 2 or A vs. B or any other terminology.
An example of the distinction is the recent downing of statues. Why was a statue of person X erected in the first place? Because person X was viewed as heroic by a certain segment of the populace. Why was the statue downed? Because person X was viewed as villainous by a certain segment of the populace.
This denotes disagreement on the level of morality.
Yet, do you discern the ethical agreement which manifests even in the face of moral disagreement?
Both sides agree that heroism is to be praised but villainy is to be condemned.
The disagreement is on who is heroic and who is villainous.
Thus, a technical consideration of moral and ethical issues deals with ontology (the origins of such), epistemology (our discernment of such), and imperatives (the issue of prescribed actions). My reference to premise above denotes dealing with ontology hereinafter.
Human history denotes disagreement on the moral level but agreement on the ethical level.
In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates proposes a dilemma that calls into question the premise of theistic ethics (paraphrasing it in common parlance):
1. Is something good because God proclaims it?
2. Or, does God proclaim it because it is good?
The points of the dilemma are:
1. Is something good merely because God proclaims it? In which case, goodness is arbitrary and God could interchange good and evil at a whim.
2. Is there something separate from God to which God adheres; does God have to act according to an ethical standard which is outside of Himself? In which case, God is not all sufficient and obeys a higher standard.
Let us survey our options and see which concept best provides an ethos.
Nature:
All claims to naturally evolving ethics can be logically disregarded since—as commonsensical or true as they may be—while there may be actions which help to ensure survival, since nature is not an ethical agent there is no natural ethical imperative.
We could feed the poor or eat them.
Also, note that if survival is the goal, it is one based on personal preference or rather, an inward drive actually based on an accident of evolution since the desire to drive is as accidental as life itself and the universe itself—and there is no imperatives to adhere to accidents.
Semantic Morality:
Ethics can be immediately grounded in human dictates but not ultimately. Humans can make epistemic statements about morality but not provide an ontological premise since—as this view presupposes the above under “Nature”—there is no objective, extrinsic ethical imperative. Thus, humans can, without recourse to God, declare certain actions ethical or unethical, even claiming that these are absolutes, but these are ultimately ungrounded assertions; it is merely semantic, intonated morality.
We concoct useful and survival assisting concepts but these do not amount to ethical imperatives. Also, this ethic is impotent, being established by humans who can only deal out justice if the evildoer is caught—its justice is restricted. On this view, ethics are based on majority rule; the fittest as it were. Justice in Nazi Germany differed from the Allied Forces’.
An aside: let us grant that the above (“Nature” and “Semantic Morality”) are valid and let us call these, for the sake of economy of words, “the naturalistic view.” Let us now pose the Aeuthyphro Dilemma:
1. Is something good because a naturalist proclaims it to be good?
2. Or, does a naturalist proclaim something to be good because it is good?
Does a naturalist determine what is good? In that case, what was unethical yesterday, is ethical today and may again be unethical tomorrow and thus, this is arbitrary and robs us of the ability to condemn anything since the moment we condemn one action and declare another virtuous they may be shifting like so much quicksand.
What, pray tell, happens when the moral zeitgeist turns into a poltergeist?
Or, are naturalists adhering to something outside themselves? They are, and this implies an ethical imperative which implies an ethical law, which implies an ethical law giver, administrator and adjudicator.
Now, to theologies:
Dualism:
Generally, two coeternal gods (two separate and distinct beings) consisting of a “good” god and an “evil” god. This is truly arbitrary as the subjective goodness of the one is measured against the subjective evil of the other and visa versa. In fact, both can claim to be good and that the other one is evil and there would be no way to determine who is whom.
Strict Monotheism:
Envisaged is one single eternal being, one person, perfectly united, not in the least bit divided. Perhaps such a God lacked companionship/relationship and had to create someone with whom to enjoy that which it lacked.
Being alone in eternity, relationship is not a part of its nature, character or being. Thus, when this god creates beings it does not seek personal relations with them and thus, arbitrarily concocts ethics for them. Such a god is capricious as it is not bound by relationship and since ethics is not intrinsic to its nature, ethical actions by this god are not guaranteed.
Pantheons, Polytheism and Henotheism:
These groups of gods are generally conceived of as having been created by one or two previously existing gods. Whether the many gods are eternal or created by others, they enjoyed relationships with each other. Yet, being distinct beings and persons, they are not famous for conducting ethical relationships with each other but are infamous for quarreling.
In the view of many gods who were created by other gods; the ancient gods somehow established an ethical law which is then external to the subsequent gods and is a law to which these gods are subservient.
Since they could enjoy relationships with other paranormal beings they were not generally interested in relationships with humans. They considered humans to be play things—they manipulate our fates or take human form to fornicate with us but there is little, if anything, in the way of ethical relationships.
Pantheism, Panentheism:
Essentially, this view postulates that god is the creator and creation. Thus, on this view god’s creations are, in reality, extensions of god. Therefore, on pantheism or panentheism ethics amounts to god dictating to god how god should treat god. God is the director, the actor and audience—and the critic.
Trinitarianism:
In the Bible we are dealing with Trinitarian monotheism, a triune being: one God, one being, and yet, three “persons” (a being who exhibits characteristics of personhood) each is God, each is eternal, each is distinct and yet, each is the one God. One coeternal, coexisting, coequal being consisting of three “persons.”
This God is not alone in eternity, is not in relation to separate eternal beings and is in relationship to separate persons. Since each member of the Trinity is eternal, each has enjoyed eternal relationships. This God is not lacking in relationship. God enjoys a relationship that is both unified in purpose and diverse amongst the persons.
Resolving the Euthyphro Dilemma:
Ethics are based upon the Triune God’s nature. God’s nature is relational and benevolent, eternal and free from conflict. God enjoys relationships and encourages His creation to enjoy likewise relationships. Life consists of enjoying relationships with humans grounded upon the enjoyment of an eternal relationship with God.
The relationship among the Godhead is truly dynamic as it is enjoyed by three persons and also conflict free since God is one.
Thus, the Triune God neither adhere to external, nor constructs arbitrary, ethics since they are an aspect of His very nature and has been such eternally.
This is the ultimate ontology of the ethos.
Epistemologically, the ethos is inwardly discerned as it is administered by our consciousness (when properly functioning) as well as being revealed in God’s Word, the Bible.
In terms of imperatives, reality is not an accident, truth is not accidental, truth personified in the person of Jesus and so we are called to adhere to the ethos—and forgiveness is offered through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection for when we fail.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.