connected to ethics paul chamberlain ph d trinity western university n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Connected to Ethics Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D. Trinity Western University PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Connected to Ethics Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D. Trinity Western University

Connected to Ethics Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D. Trinity Western University

3 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Connected to Ethics Paul Chamberlain, Ph.D. Trinity Western University

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Connected to EthicsPaul Chamberlain, Ph.D. Trinity Western University

  2. General Moral Principles Specific Moral Questions Correct Moral Action

  3. Complex moral & social dilemmas Ethical Questions: • More of them • Increasinglycomplex • Technology

  4. Cultural Moral Messages • Personal • Private • Neither right or wrong • Opinion • Cannot impose

  5. Loss of Moral Principles  Loss of a Moral Compass

  6. How should we think about God’s moral teaching? • Directions for the Human Machine • A Friend

  7. Is the moral landscape changing? • Traditional moral values are questioned/ set aside

  8. Her baby was born with spina bifida If the mother had known, she wouldn’t have had him. Now she is suing her family doctor for...

  9. Is the moral landscape changing? • Sanctity of life ethic • versus • Quality of life ethic

  10. What’s going on here? I don’t understand! Why does our Society seem so morally confused?

  11. Contradictory moral views held by the same people

  12. Isn’t morality relative? • Definition: no objectively true moral • values

  13. Subjective Truth • Depends upon the attitude or opinion of • the person • Is created/determined by the subject Objective Truth • Does not depend upon anyone’s attitude • or opinion • Is there to be recognized/discovered

  14. Baseball Umpires: “I call’m as I see’m” “No, I call’m as they are” “They ain’t nothing til I call’m”

  15. Analysis of Moral Relativism: 1) No act could be condemned 2) No act could be commended 3) Blue Folders 4) “A victim of injustice always knows an injustice is being done” 5) A genuine injustice means that some objective standard of justice is being violated.

  16. Morality & Social Responsibility: How we Grow itPaul Chamberlain

  17. Give young people a biblically informed way of understanding God’s moral teaching • Directions for the Human Machine • A Friend

  18. “Can I live out my morals without others thinking I’m intolerant?” The Tolerance Question

  19. The Assumption: Intolerance is always bad & Tolerance is always good

  20. ) Why is tolerance so important in our culture? • Truth is relative • Truth is the enemy • Goal : - get rid of truth - pursue tolerance

  21. Result: • Becomes Truth versus Tolerance • Tolerance wins • Objective truth is rejected

  22. Truth is downplayed & Tolerance is elevated

  23. ) What is true tolerance? • Tolerance entails disagreement • ) Should Christians be tolerant? • Yes • But not toward everything

  24. What should we do? • Speak truth in love: Eph. 4:15 • Respect other’s rights to do the same • Protect what we hold dear by legitimate intolerance

  25. “Is it wrong for me to impose my moral values on others?

  26. KEEP OUT!! Public Policy Marginalized Morality

  27. A Response * Call for Consistency * Ask: Can my view really be written off as a “religious” view? * Define “Impose”

  28. A Conversation onResponding to a Few Objections What follows is a fictional, yet realistic, conversation between Michael who considers himself a free thinker and his friend Isaac. Michael objects to the way Isaac expresses his moral convictions to others.

  29. Michael - “You’re imposing your moral/religious values on me. You can’t do that. Keep them to yourself. They’re your values.” Isaac - “Don’t you believe in individual liberty?” Michael - “Yes. Which is why I want to stop people like you from imposing their values on the rest of us. It limits our rights and freedoms.”

  30. Isaac - “Don’t you express your views on moral issues? Don’t you try to influence public policy in a way you believe to be good?” Michael - “Yes, but I’m not religious. You are; and you’re trying to impose your religious morals on the rest of us who are not religious.” Isaac - “Does everyone agree with your moral values?” Michael - “No, I guess not.”

  31. Isaac -“So we both have values which not everyone agrees with.” Michael - “True.” Isaac - “And when you argue that certain laws should be enacted, aren’t you doing the same thing you were accusing me of doing, imposing your moral values on others who do not necessarily agree with you?” Michael - “I don’t like the word ‘impose.’” Isaac - “Neither do I, but since you used it, could we talk about it for a moment?”

  32. Michael - “Why not?” Isaac - “Is it imposing one’s moral values on to others to get involved in the democratic process to lobby and campaign, and to try to influence public policy in a way that you believe is good? Doesn’t democracy even invite us to do this? Is that imposing?” (At this point, Michael could answer either “yes” or “no.” Suppose the answer is . . .) Michael - “No.”

  33. Isaac - “Good. Then we agree that as long as we are doing this, neither of us is imposing our moral values on others.” (But suppose He answers . . .) Michael - “Yes, it is imposing.” Isaac - “Then we’re both guilty. So is everyone who tries to influence public policy this way. Right? Let’s get serious. We both know that imposing is the wrong word to describe what we’re doing here.”

  34. (Note: This is usually applied only to certain worldviews, i.e., religious ones, but this is inconsistent. The same activity is carried out by many people of different views, but the negative term “impose” is reserved for those views which some disagree with.)

  35. (Suppose this further objection is raised) Michael - “But there is a difference between what you are doing and what I am doing.” Isaac - “And what is that?” Michael - “You are restricting people from doing something they want to do. We are not. If people want an abortion, or euthanasia, I say go ahead. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to. But you are trying to enact laws to stop people from doing these things because you think they are wrong. That is imposing.”

  36. Isaac - “And you don’t do this?” Michael - “No way! Not a chance! I impose nothing on anyone!” Isaac - “How do you feel about child pornography?” Michael - “It’s disgusting. It harms children.” Isaac - “Should it be illegal?” Michael - “Of course it should be illegal!”

  37. Isaac - “What about rape, murder, speeding, tax evasion, and driving on any side of the road you please? Should these be illegal too?” Michael - “Obviously. Stupid question.”(somewhat irritated) Isaac - “Even though some people want to do these things?” Michael - “Yes! And your point is . . .?” Isaac - “That you do it, too.” Michael - “Do what?”

  38. Isaac - “You impose your values onto others who do not agree with you or want to live by your values. Every legal restriction is a restriction on someone’s choice and you just said you’re in favour of legal restrictions.” Michael - “Sure, to prevent someone from harming another person.” Isaac - “Let me get this straight. You believe it is legitimate to argue for laws which you believe are necessary to protect people even though some others may disagree with you?” Michael - “Yes, and that’s the only reason!”

  39. Isaac - “Exactly.” Michael - “What?” Isaac - “I said ‘Exactly.’ Because that is why I think abortion should be restricted by law.” Michael - “Who is being harmed in abortion?” Isaac - “The unborn, which I believe to be fully human in embryonic form.” Michael - “But I don’t believe the fetus is human.”

  40. Isaac - “Yes, I know. We disagree about who or what is being harmed in an abortion. Since I believe the fetus is human, I believe an abortion harms, in fact kills, a human and didn’t you just say it is legitimate to argue for a law you believe is necessary to protect people even though others may disagree?” Michael - “Yes.” Isaac - “So you don’t really have a problem with what I’m doing do you? You just called it ‘legitimate.’” (Pause)

  41. Michael - “But aren’t you forgetting something?” Isaac - “Probably. What?” Michael - “Those abortion protesters. Surely you admit they are imposing their morality onto others. They’re trying to stop people from having abortions.” Isaac - “Yes, they’re just as bad as those logging protesters, and those seal hunt protesters, not to mention Martin Luther King and his civil rights protests. Do you condemn these, too?”

  42. (Michael may answer either way. Suppose he answer . . .) Michael - “No.” Isaac - “Why not? They’re engaging in civil disobedience too, and trying to stop people from doing something they want to do. This is inconsistent.” (But suppose He answers . . .) Michael - “Yes, I do.”

  43. Isaac - “Then what you’re really disagreeing with is civil disobedience in all forms, not just abortion protesters. You may be right. This is debatable, but let’s not be too quick here.” Michael - “Why not?” Isaac - “Are they really so different from the rest of us who lobby for new laws to restrict certain activities? In both cases we’re trying to stop people from doing things they want to do. In civil disobedience, the people themselves, try to stop the activities. In the other, we get the government and police to stop them for us.”

  44. Michael - “But this is different. These people are breaking the law.” Isaac - “True. That is the difference. In one case we use legal means to stop people. In the other case, they have given up on these and have turned to other means.” Michael - “Which are illegal.”

  45. Isaac - “Yes. I think that although this should be a last resort, history has shown that governments are sometimes like big ships, slow to change course to bring about justice.”

  46. Sometimes it is individual people who recognize the injustice of a particular law or public policy and who are willing to put themselves at risk to force the issue, to appeal to people’s sense of justice and end an injustice. I’m thinking of slavery and the underground highway, M. L. King, the Ten Booms, Gandhi, the Hebrew midwives in Exodus, the followers of Jesus in Acts 5.”

  47. But couldn’t social consensus be the basis of morality? • Might makes right • Any social consensus is morally right • Power • Susan Smith • A Few Good Men • Nuremburg Trials