“[T]hink of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. . . . But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to…”-C.S. Lewis
Modern people feel pretty strongly about
morality. But based on the above analogy, we aren’t thinking very carefully
about this subject (despite our feelings) if we haven’t answered at least three
questions: (1) How must I live to avoid hurting others? (2) How must I live to
avoid hurting myself? And (3) what am I made for? Most people begin and
end with the first question. We often say it is okay to “do whatever you
want as long as you’re not hurting anyone.” But as Lewis goes on to
explain, the second question is equally important. How can you expect the
ships to steer carefully to avoid colliding with one another if each ship is in
such bad shape that it can barely be steered at all? In other words, how
can I avoid harming others if I don’t have any control over myself? So
some people will admit that you shouldn’t do things that are bad for you.
But is that enough? Is it okay to do
whatever you want unless you hurt yourself or someone else? Returning to
the ship analogy, we must first be able to explain why the ships are in the
water at all. Is there a destination? Is there a purpose? If
not, the first two questions have no ground to stand on. By neglecting to
think about question no. 3, we’ve left out something essential to our
ethics—the foundation! How can we say the ships shouldn’t collide with
each other if we don’t know why the ships are in the water to begin with?
Perhaps they’ve decided to destroy each other, like warships.
Perhaps they feel as if they were made to destroy each other. Or
worse—perhaps they feel that they were built to seek victory at all
costs. If you think I’m just exaggerating, consider the suicide bombers,
kamikaze pilots, or the 9/11 hijackers of our world. Could we condemn
their behavior? Could we condemn the
cut-throat mentality of corporate America? And how about people who set themselves on
fire for political reasons? What could you say to such a
person? “Your life has no purpose. So do whatever you want… but not
that!” The existentialist
philosophers have been unable
to provide any coherent answers.
As a Christian, I believe that morality
must be grounded in the creator. There is room for social and personal
ethics, but they will only take us so far. As 1 Corinthians 8:6 says, all
things exist for God. He is our foundation. Without him, morality
is subjective and arbitrary, and whoever has the most power wins, right or
wrong. But with God as our foundation, we will begin to find real, coherent
answers to our moral problems. Each one
of us will feel uncomfortable with this at some point. But if we are seeking a source of truth that
transcends each individual, isn’t that exactly what we should expect?
Posts
2 comments:
Why exactly is "I don't know" a bad answer? Should those "existentialist philosophers" just lie?
My answer: No.
We're talking about a book that upheld slavery. Stated that scapegoating is the greatest gift one can give. Stated that menstruating women are evil unless purified monthly and that all who touch her or go near her are 'unclean'.
I'll stick with "I don't know".
Cliff,
We can post on the topic of what the bible says about slavery at some point. No one can seriously doubt the crucial role of Christians in putting an end to slavery in many parts of the world. But the issue of slavery is a sensitive one that deserves more than a one line conclusion with no explanation or verse references.
For the purpose of this post, however, raising moral objections to slavery, "scapegoating," and Jewish laws seems to dodge the point. The strength of your objections depends on your ability to appeal to an objective point of reference for morality. But then you admit that you can't appeal to an objective point of reference, which leaves us with nothing but your personal feelings about morality. What would you say to someone who doesn't share your feelings?
Post a Comment