A Think Paper

As I begin to write down the ethical principles which guide my behavior, I am aware of several potential short-comings. I could easily enunciate precepts which I might be unwilling or unable to follow. I may neglect to mention or simply be unaware of some of the important beliefs or values which shape my personal ethics. I will surely fail to recognize and point out the multitude of cultural, familial, and personality influences which have affected what the reader will find on these pages. More than anything else this paper represents an attempt to articulate a combination of the unrecognized ethical system which has unconsciously governed my behavior to this point and the recently assimilated ideas of others which now form part of a somewhat more formal ethical system.

Before articulating the substance and functioning of my personal ethic, I shall briefly set forth its foundation. My personal ethic rests on the assumptions of Biblical theism. God, supremely just and loving, created mankind for His own glory and for fellowship. He set the standards for human behaviour in accordance with His attributes. Until the fall, man lived within those standards and enjoyed communion with his Maker as he fulfilled the Creator's purpose. However, through disobedience man fell from his privileged position of intimacy with God. Sin contaminated every area of man's being: physical, intellectual, emotional, social and spiritual.

Man has a problem. Because of his separation from God, he must attempt to get along in life depending on himself. But he is tainted by sin. His mind, feelings, and body betray him at every turn. He is spiritually dead. God has an answer. To facilitate man's efforts to live, God unfolds a series of self-revelations. Since man was made in the image of God, man not only learns about God through divine revelation but also about himself. Through nature, the written Word and the incarnate Word, God both teaches and enables man to live.

Since man is contaminated by sin, his own efforts continue to be untrustworthy and ultimately doomed to failure. However, since God is trustworthy, His self-revelations must also be trustworthy. Man now has two options. He can follow his own sin-tainted inclinations or he can refer to divine revelation to find out how to get on in the world. It is this writer's conviction that if the Bible's philosophical framework is trustworthy, then it behooves us to behave in accordance with it. Living in harmony with the biblical ethic will produce "good" and "right" because it based on the irreducible values of love and justice which are attributes of God Himself. Other ethical systems constructed on other philosophical bases are doomed to failure for two reasons. (1) Man's intellect is contaminated by sin and hence not trustworthy. (2) Man can only invent relativistic ethics which are either irrelevant or self-destruct.

Such bold assertions must be supported. Thus, before I attempt to describe the essence of the ethic itself, I shall explain by what reasons it was accepted and other ethical systems and methods rejected. There are a number of tests which I applied to various ethical systems in an attempt to find one that comes close to describing my own. Admittedly, these tests are rooted in my belief in order and meaning in the universe. One concept which is both a belief and a value is the freewill of mankind. I believe that human beings can affect their destiny (both temporal and eternal). Thus my framework of belief allows me to exercise my right to freely choose it. To those who would deny my right to choose what I believe, I would ask to what authority they appeal which gives them the right to choose to believe something else while refusing me that same right. I believe that my belief system is firmly anchored in reality as perceived both objectively and subjectively. Through divine revelation in the Scriptures and through life experience. Here are the questions I asked of each ethical system or method:

1. Would the ethic still work if it were universally adopted? That is, if everyone in the world adopted the ethic could society (societies) still function solely on the basis of the ethic?
   
2. Does the ethic apply to all specific circumstances? Could there ever be an ethical dilemma which lies outside of the possibilities of the ethic to respond and give moral guidance?
   
3. Does the ethic transcend individual situations? Can the ethic, while dealing with numerous individual cases, be generalized to provide guidance for similar cases?
   
4. Does the ethic conform to "Truth" or does (must) it ignore it? Does the ethic recognize any kind of truth outside of itself.
   
   

The next few paragraphs will deal with specific ethical systems and methods and explain why they had to be rejected. Situationism is rejected because even Fletcher (1966: 99) admits the need for civil law. This suggests that if situationism were universally adopted, abuses and conflicting loves would require judicial action to make judgements and protect victims. This need for the judiciary implies that there really does need to be some other absolutes or standards other than agape. So it appears that situationism, while containing good elements, like the emphasis on love, is not entirely adequate.

Utilitarianism is rejected because of the host of unanswerable questions. How is "good" measured? Can some preset standard of health, wealth, happiness, or some combination of the three be used? Do we concern ourselves only with the immediate good, or do we project into the future? Does a little good now effectively offset intense pain and suffering in the future? How much suffering should we endure in the present for the sake of future good? Whose standard should prevail? No, utilitarianism won't do because it is untranslatable into practice.

Emotivism is rejected because ethical statements do have meaning. The very fact that they can be discussed suggests that there is content beyond mere emotion. If, in fact, there were no meaning in ethical statements, a large part of the metaphysical side of man would have to be discarded. "Oughts" can be prescriptive and not just descriptive. Medical advice serves as an example: "Take three pills a day for ten days to clear up the infection." certainly doesn't describe what "is." Nor does it give us a window into the physician's emotion state. Emotivism also faces a logical problem. If it is true, it has no meaning. It can never call us to accept itself, for its proponents mean, "I like emotive ethics." when they say "Emotive ethics is true (right, good)."

Egoism is rejected because it sets the self up as an absolute: That which is best for me is good/right. If everyone adopted egoism the human race would self-destruct. There is good reason to argue that egoism is not in fact an ethic at all, but rather the absence of ethics. Some absolute outside of self is required to allow humans to function together in societies. Societies (as such) would continually fragment as the self-interest of each individual was served first with no outside standard to which to appeal. Something as simple as driving to work could become impossible.

Behaviorism is rejected because human society as we know it would self- destruct if it were universally accepted. If we are merely parts of the universal machine with no option of self-determination, then we can not be held accountable for our actions. Anarchy would prevail if there were no moral standard to which to appeal. Individual lawlessness would reduce us to behavior below that of the beasts.

Cultural Relativism is rejected because it simply does not hold together logically if applied universally. It leaves too many questions unanswered: What is a culture? With global immigration trends, cultural mixes are inevitable. Most major cultures are now made up of a multitude of subcultures. In many cases, individuals in society are members of more than one subculture. How could any kind of human advancement take place? All cultural advancement would cease, if every individual who challenged the culture were deal with summarily. Could we really accept Nazism, apartheid, slavery as good and right simply because the majority of societies' members accepted them? Could we ever effectively deal with clashes between cultures, if in fact each is right in its own context and doesn't have to refer to some higher standard?

In general then, I find all of the relativistic man-invented ethical systems seriously flawed or deficient in one way or another. Erwin Lutzer (1981) points out that in spite of man's exceptional intelligence, demonstrated by no end of scientific and technological marvels, our moral development has stagnated. We still dispute the same problems Plato faced 2,500 years ago. Where to, then?

The ethic which I espouse is rooted in classical Christianity. It hangs on the belief that God exists, has revealed Himself through Nature, the sacred Scriptures, and the person of his Son, Jesus the Christ. In revealing Himself, God has also revealed his purpose for mankind and his norms for human behavior. These standards of behavior are rooted in the very attributes of God's character. Man will forever fall short of the standards which God, in his perfection, has set. However, to the extent that imperfect man conforms to God's norms for his behavior, he will (though suffering, inconvenienced, and taken advantage of) be doing the right and good thing. Not merely something that is relatively more righteous or better, but something that is absolutely right and good. I also believe that man's decisions have eternal consequences. In the words of another, "There's a heaven to gain and a hell to shun."

Even without exploring the details of my ethic, detractors would already have a number of criticisms. Most would begin the attack by claiming that the assumptions are wrong; that they simply don't hold water in this scientific/ technological age. From there they would move on to specifics. From the atheist, comes the claim: "God does not exist." From the agnostic: "God may exist but (if He does) He doesn't care what man does." From the merely religious: "God exists and cares about what man does but His grace will ultimately overcome His justice and render man's efforts at righteousness inconsequential." From the existentially inclined: "There is no order or meaning in the universe. Life originated by chance and has no significance."

I admit that the question of the existence of God is a matter of faith. There exists no "proof" (in the scientific sense) for either the existence or non- existence of God. However, believing God does not exist is as much a matter of faith as believing that he does. It is a matter of choice. From the evidence available, I have chosen to accept the existence of God. Not only do I believe that He exists, I believe that God is a person. He in not merely an impersonal force but a self-conscious being with intellect, emotions, will and a desire to relate to his creatures in a meaningful way. God has continually revealed Himself to humanity, though this unique creation capable of God- consciousness largely ignores the revelations. God made man for fellowship with Himself and consequently is very interested in human behavior. His justice can never be abrogated. Though man's efforts will never gain him salvation, God clearly sets forth standards for human behavior. These serve man's benefit to the extent that he can reach them and point him to his need of salvation to the extent that he cannot.

Some might argue that the tests by which I evaluate ethical systems and methods are wrong or unnecessary. They would submit that ethics don't need to be universally adopted. One system needn't apply to all specific circumstances. Ethics needn't transcend individual situations and that truth is irrelevant to ethics because it is relative and mutable. I fear that if the questions are wrong, the discussion of ethics is irrelevant. Without at least one fixed point, all discussions of things relative lose significance. If there is no practical application, ethics theory is inconsequential.

The situationists and others of their ilk would attack the very development of a moral system as wrong because it implies the enforcement of moral rules which require priority over people. People, they feel, come first. I would contend, that given a broad context, it is entirely possible that the rules express more love to more people (to borrow from utilitarianism for a moment) than having no rules at all (a la situationism, egoism, behaviorism, etc.). Anyone who posits that it is wrong to have rules has just made a rule which according to their own ethical system cannot (or should not) exist.

Now that we have looked at the foundation of this ethical system or model, we turn to the superstructure. The key approach to my personal ethic is "rule-agapism." As the name suggests it is a marriage of rules and agape. Professor Ronald Nash clarifies the term:

"There are two possible ways of formulating rule-agapism. (1) It may be understood as that position which holds that love is insufficient in itself to provide moral guidance for each and every moral act. Love requires the further specification of principles or rules which suggest the proper ways in which love should be manifested. Rule-agapism in this first sense means a love-ethic that recognizes love's need for guidance from divinely revealed moral truth. (2) Rule-agapism may also be understood in a second way. God has revealed moral principles which are to guide man in his moral decisions. The ultimate justification of each moral principle is love. In other words, the rule-agapists says, it is impossible to determine what we should do in each and every particular situation on the basis of love alone. We need principles and laws which find their ground in love" (1973: 30)

I have adopted the rule-agapism approach for two reasons. First, as a Christian with a high regard for the Scriptures, any acceptable ethical approach must take into account the preeminent place of love in the Bible in general and in the New Testament in particular. Rule agapism's emphasis on love as the ultimate justification for the application of ethics does that. Second, as a man painfully aware of the frailties of the flesh and the contamination of sin in every area of my being, any acceptable ethical approach must at least be guided by, if not based on, something outside of myself. Rule agapism's appeal to divinely revealed moral principles and injunctions takes care of that problem.

Nash's three pole ethical decision-making model contains the elements of:

1. the moral agent acting in love,
   
2. the moral law of God, and
   
3. the moral situation.
   

1. the demands of love,
   
2. the demands of biblical principles and imperatives, and
   
3. the demands of the situation.
   

It is of the utmost importance to balance these considerations carefully. It would be all too easy to place undue emphasis on one area and thus make a bad judgement. One might ask, "What, precisely is the right balance?" That question requires a careful response. The key to answering it well in the context of a given ethical dilemma is the degree of agreement that the three areas of demands finds in a common solution. The demands of one area must never completely over-ride the demands of another area.

Let's look at an illustration which is common in some parts of the world: bribing police officers. This is one of those situations which "everyone" decries on a moral basis, yet practices "because it's just the way the system works." The moral agent whose car is obviously parking illegally is approached by a police officer. The accepted practice is to hide a couple of bills (amounting to a dollar or so) under the license as it is handed to the official. He palms the money and hands back the license while giving a loud "warning" that the next time this happens a fine will be imposed.

Here are the demands of the situation:

• The moral agent does not want to pay the fine because it takes time at the police station.
  
• The moral agent wants to get on his way quickly.
  
• The moral agent does not want to pay the bribe because it will cost more than the fine would and it benefits the unjust police officer.
  
• The police officer wants the bribe to be paid because he feels society underpays him and he needs more money.
  
• Society is concerned that justice be done, though this is not necessarily a major issue for the either of the principal stakeholders.

These are the demands of love:

• Neither the moral agent nor the police officer acting in love for the other should contribute to the other's sin.
  
• Neither the moral agent nor the police officer acting in love for society should contribute to the degeneration of social order.
  
• Neither the moral agent nor the police officer acting in love for God should do that which offend Him.

The demands of the law are as follows:

• Civil law must be obeyed as long as it does not conflict directly with God's moral law.
  
• Justice must be done because God is just and demands it of men.
  
• Bribes must neither be offered or received because they pervert justice.

Within each area to be considered in making a moral decision, there are several questions to be asked.

In looking at the demands of the moral situation we ask:

What are the facts? - Find out as much as possible about the dilemma, what precipitated it, and its probable consequences.

Who are the stakeholders? - Not only do we need to look at the principal players, we need to think about everyone who may be touched by the decision. This would even include society in general which may find symbolic meaning in the solving of the dilemma.

What are the motives? - God does not judge man so much on the consequences of his acts as on the reasons behind them. We should also place considerable weight on the motives behind the acts that produced the dilemma.

What are the ethical issues (contracts, loyalties)? - Sometimes a relatively simple ethical dilemma is compounded by a promise or contract. We need to decide what weight to assign these complicating factors in making an ethical decision.

In looking at the demands of the moral law of God we ask:

Which biblical imperatives apply? - Even in an age so different from those in which it was written, the Bible has some remarkably concrete instructions for our behavior. While I reject the keeping of the law in any formal or legalistic sense, I feel that Biblical imperatives are just that; cross-cultural and trans-temporal. They are, however, relatively few.

What biblical principles apply? - Far more significant are those Scriptural principles which lend themselves to a broad application. Some see the love principle simply as one among many. I see love as the foundation of these principles. Certainly the application of both principles and imperatives must be done in love and grace or we violate the spirit of the New Testament.

In looking at the demands of love, we ask:

How is love evidenced by my decision? - This is a difficult area because we are so prone to be self-serving. We must make every attempt to set our feelings and our self-interest to one side and decide on the basis of what is truly best for others.

Will love continue to be served by my decision? - Real love, God's love (agape) is eternal. Therefore any truly ethical decision must have validity over time. This is not a love based in comfort or convenience. Love must last and be seen to last for more than a moment.

Will this decision demonstrate both a love for God and his attributes as well as love for my neighbor? - It is not enough to love our neighbors. Important as that is, it is the second great commandment. The first and greatest is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all you soul and with all you mind."

What is the symbolic significance of the alternatives? - We must think carefully about the message we send out as we make a decision. Others are watching. They will attach meaning to our decisions and actions. We are responsible to love all of our neighbours, not just the ones involved in the situation upon which we are deliberating.

After having considered the demands of the situation, God's Word and love, we then consider the options. A frequent error in ethical decision- making is the lack of considering all of the alternatives. We often see only extremely polarized options and fail to consider the less radical possibilities which are open to us. Once we weigh the alternatives in the balance, we make the decision and take action. It would also be appropriate to pray the Lord to honor our decision as we have sought to honor Him by it. This brings us to the last set of questions, provoked by hindsight. They serve only for our education and edification, but it would be tragic to repeat ethical blunders and so cause more pain and confusion.

Looking in the rear-view mirror we ask:

Has this decision been valid over time? - We need to evaluate our performance after the consequences have taken place. Sometimes decisions need to be made quickly and only hindsight can give us a truly clear picture of what was at stake.

Has this decision been applicable in similar situations? - I think we need to look for applicability in our decisions and actions. Very few will be universal. However, at least some should reach beyond the confines of the specific circumstances.

Did the expected and actual consequences match up? - If we didn't achieve what we set out to we need to recognize it and ask "Why or why not?" This is not to bring utilitarianism to bear on the system. It merely recognizes that we do what we do for a reason. Was the reason served?

What did I learn from this ethical dilemma? - As we exercise our ethical abilities we will grow in both experience and wisdom. Let us learn from both our successes and our mistakes.

This approach and decision-making model is quite different from most of the other systems in that it considers three factors instead of the usual two (see the chart in Appendix A). Most ethical methods and systems consider the situation and its possible ethical solutions in the light of one other main factor. For the situationist, that is agape love. For the emotivist, it is his feelings. For the egoist, it is his own benefit, however he cares to define it. For the legalist, it is "the law" based on some sacred writing, tradition or prophetic saying. For the cultural relativist, it is the demands or best interests of the culture. For the utilitarian, it is "the greatest good" as defined by some standard of health, wealth or pleasure. The behaviorist contends that the situation itself will elicit the correct response based on genetic and environmental factors.

Rule-agapism does find some common ground with other systems. Ironically, it is a blend of two of the most sharply opposed ethical systems: situationism and legalism. Like situationism, it places high emphasis on agape love. Like legalism it has high regard for the moral law of God (as revealed in the Bible). Unlike situationism, rule-agapism contends that "love" is not sufficient in and of itself to guide ethical behavior. The moral law of God is required to ensure the correct application of love. Unlike the legalist, the rule-agapist wrestles with the demands of love in each situation. It is not enough to simply apply a rule. It must be applied with love. Without love there is no justification for the application of an law at all.

While rule-agapism's attempt to balance the demands of three factors complicates the decision-making process, I believe it also produces the best ethical result. It's strengths are several. It answers to the authority of God and His Word. Given my worldview and beliefs this is a high priority. It answers to the problem of man's contamination by sin by providing an external standard which is holy. While I admit that it will never be universally adopted, I believe that it would work if it were. It certainly applies to all situations since it takes the individual circumstances of each moral dilemma into account. Yet because of the application of love and moral law it transcends individual situations. Lastly, this adaptation of rule- agapism conforms to truth as revealed in Scripture.

Others, no doubt, object to the very things which I consider to be strengths. These objections are mostly predicated on other worldviews and belief systems. Some would say that God does not exist and, hence, represents no viable authority. Some would take offense at the idea of sin explicit in the moral law of God. They contend that the concept of sin is a human invention and that humanity would be well served to be freed from its repressive ideas of "wrongness" and consequent "punishment." Situationists and some others are convinced that only specific situations count and that any attempt to make an ethic universal is inappropriate. For them, no ethical method or system should be expected to apply across the board to all (or even any different) situations. Many, even among those who would call themselves "Christians" are convinced that truth is relative and as such has little or no bearing on ethical matters. It is important to restate that these objections have less to do with rule-agapism itself as an ethic than with opposing worldviews, beliefs and values.

The rule-agapism approach serves the system in two specific and important ways. First it accepts the foundational assumptions and builds logically on them. Secondly, it is able to deal with each problem specifically without losing sight of the system's broader ethical principles. Rule-agapism may be the only approach which successfully attempts to consider the demands of the moral law of God, of agape love and of each specific situation.

The decision-making model serves the system in a number of ways. It deals with specific circumstances of individual situations, so as not to lapse into legalism. It applies biblical principles and directives to give guidance to the application of agape love. It seeks to look at "all" of the alternatives. While we may be unable to discover every possible option, at least the attempt is made to find other alternatives to the most obvious polarized ones. It considers the significance of the alternatives both in terms of possible consequences and the significance that both stakeholders and society might place on them. It seeks to uphold both justice and love in practical ways. It does not resort to semantic tricks or convoluted theoretical justifications of its actions to "prove" them loving and just. Finally, it provides for learning from each experience and attempts to generate a pool of ethical wisdom from which the moral agent can draw guidance for treating future dilemmas.

Fletcher, Joseph [1966] Situation ethics: The new morality. Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press.

Lutzer, Erwin [1981] The necessity of ethical absolutes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House

Nash, Ronald [1973] "Love and Duty" in The scientist and ethical decision. (Hatfield, Charles: editor) Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

The Holy Bible, New International Version [1973] Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House

During the conception and writing of this personal ethics position paper I read the following books and articles. There is no doubt that many of them played a role in the development of the paper.

Areen, Judith [1987], "The legal status of consent obtained from families of adult patients to withhold or withdraw treatment." in the Journal of the American Medical Association. vol. 258, pp 229-235,

Block, Peter [1991] The empowered manager. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich [1949] Ethics. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing

Campbell, David N. [1974] "On Being Number one: Competition in education" in Phi Delta Kappan October 1974 pp. 143-146

Corey M. & Corey, G. [1992] Groups: Process and practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole

Ellison, Vera J. [1983] "Competition: A cultural imperative?" in The Personnel and Guidance Journal. December 1983 pp. 195-197

Fortosis, S. [1990] "A model for understanding cross-cultural morality" in Missiology: An international review. Vol. XVIII, No. 2, April 1990 pp. 163-175

Hunsaker, P. and Alessandra, A. [1980] The art of managing people. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. pp. 217-222

Kendall, George A. [1989] "Living wills should not be used." in Euthanasia: Opposing viewpoints. [Bender, D; Leone, B; Bernards, N: editors] San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press pp. 180-184

Koestenbaum, Peter [1991] Leadership: The inner side of greatness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass pp. 159-185

Kraft, Charles [1978] Christianity in culture. : Paternoster Press

Laczniak, Gene R. and Murphy, Patrick E. [1992] "International marketing ethics" in Bridges. Vol. 2 (3/4) pp. 155-175

Lieberman, David [1992] "Fake news" in TV Guide. February 22,1992 pp. 10-16,26

Rosner, Fred [1987], "Food and water must always be provided." in Euthanasia: Opposing viewpoints. [Bender, D; Leone, B; Bernards, N: editors] San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press pp. 77-82

Stob, Henry [1973], "Christian ethics and scientific control" in The Scientist and ethical decision. [C. Hatfield: editor] Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press pp. 3-24

Wilson, Jonathan [1990], "Living faithfully in a fragmented world: Four lessons for the Church from MacIntyre's 'After Virtue.'" in Crux. Vol. XXVI, No. 4 pp. 38-42