Rehabilitating objective moral reality. That’s the goal of a series of lectures my wife and I are attending at Augustine College in Ottawa this week. The series is led by Dr. John Patrick who is one of the founders of the college. My son Sam McLoughlin spent a year studying at Augustine. It had a profound affect on his life.
My initial reaction to the idea of ‘rehabilitating objective moral reality’ is skepticism. It seems to me that our culture has moved beyond modern constructs of Objectivity. All truth claims are somebody’s truth claims and thus somebody’s power grab. Claims to know that there is an objective moral reality and to know what that reality is so that we can have authority to force people to abide by that reality are power plays.
This is what the media and our postmodern culture will tell you. Yet, the statement that there are no moral absolutes must itself be an absolute if it is to work. Thus, while the postmodern mind is suspicious of truth claims, it has its own truth claim by which it is functioning (there are no absolutes). Post moderns cannot admit this else they are found to be as wanting as those they critique.
So what is objective moral reality, how is it to be rehabilitated and how can it help preserve a Christian’s integrity at work?
The answer to that question came from Professor Edward Tingley, who presented a lecture on Virtues and Values.
The Greeks understood that there was an end to everything. Thus one could judge something to be good or bad based upon that end. If you knew the end of the matter (the “is”) you could deduce an “ought” that would help guide you to that end. The Greeks described this as pursuing virtue.
Whereas, the philosopher David Hume believed that you could not get an “ought” from an “is”. Moral judgments cannot be deduced from facts since he believed there is no ultimate end to things. Judgments of right and wrong express the way we feel not what we think something ought to be.
Professor Tingley then explained that objective moral reality is found in the answer to two questions. What is the end of all things and what is the true nature of man? The Christian faith supplies answers to these questions.
In contrast, modern moral reasoning following after Hume, bases its ethical framework on the notion of “values”. (For background please read Iain Benson’s paper and Alasdair MacIntyre’s paper) The result is often a utilitarian approach to ethics that reasons the greatest good for the most people.
The problems arises when a Christian professional is placed in a situation where they are being asked to make a decision by either a patient, a partner, or some professional authority regarding a matter of conscience. Guided by the modern construct of values, the other party cannot comprehend why a Christian will object to following a course of action that is in accordance with these values. Simply put if it is a matter of values, who is the Christian to say that their values should carry the day?
Because most Christian professionals have not thought through their understanding of objective moral reality, they feel unable to answer appropriately in these situations. Entering into an argument about the values at stake only furthers the problem because the Christian is trying to debate the issue on secular terms.
As Professor Tingley puts it, “it does not make sense to pour good oil into a motor that has been improperly assembled.” The premises of rival arguments based upon utilitarianism do not share common moral ground. Thus there is no shared basis upon which to have an argument. The only approach for a Christian in this situation is to confront the premises which are at the basis of these arguments.
Alasdair Macintyre, in his book, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, states that to constitute a morality adequate to guide a human life we need a scheme of virtues which depend in part on the nature of man and the purpose of life, but about these matters cultures have various disagreements. So let it be explained that we have no rational method available to us upon which we can reach a conclusion to these matters, collectively that is.
We can reach a conclusion ourselves as Christians, but there is no rational method available that could bring everyone into consensus. No one has a reasoning that is publicly acceptable, The strongest universally intelligible response in a situation in which the various counter values are urged upon the Christian professional is integrity.
Professor Tingley’s advice for the Christian professional to preserve their integrity in these situations goes as follows.
1. Determine what you believe to be right based upon your own thinking as reasoned from your understanding of objective moral reality. For example, does this decision enhance or impede life? Think your way through to the right course of action.
2. What you think right, is what you must now say and do!
3. Now you must explain the decision you have reached and how you have reached it. The argument will not be binding on the other party because their premises are different. But you will be able to explain it to them so that it presents as a rational answer that responds to your beliefs about the purpose of life and the nature of man.
4. Your purpose is not to convince the other party. Reasoning in this situation is simply explanation not persuasion.
5. Then you will say “I must act on this decision. To be deterred by arguments of human life I do not accept would mean that I would loose my integrity. Do you wish to place yourself in the care of a professional with integrity or without integrity? Integrity you see is essential. It is a professional virtue. I am doing what I must do in the interest of everyone involved.”
This is the most considerate, all embracing answer to give when there is no major resolve in ethical disputes that stands open to us.
You simply are not going to make everyone happy. Integrity does not bring consensus but it may remove the obstacle that stands in the path of practice.
So how does the Christian respond to modern ethical challenges? By reasoning them from Christian premises in a forthright and unapologetic way and behaving with integrity.
Tags:
http://technorati.com/tag/axiology
http://technorati.com/tag/objectivity
http://technorati.com/tag/postmodern
http://technorati.com/tag/values
