Minor Thoughts from me to you

Archives for Ethics (page 2 / 2)

Ethical Living

I've been listening to Ravi Zacharias's radio show, Just Thinking, for many months now. Several months ago, while discussing Ethics in the Workplace (part of his "Faith Under Fire" series), he laid out three rules for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate pleasures. I found them so thought-provoking and succinct that I wanted to share them:

  1. Anything that refreshes you without diminishing you, destroying you, or distracting you from your final goal is a legitimate pleasure.
  2. Any pleasure that jeopardizes the sacred right of another is an illegitimate pleasure.
  3. Any pleasure, no matter how good, if not kept in balance can distort reality or destroy appetite.

Before I can apply these rules, I have to ask myself a deceptively simple question: what is my final goal? After identifying my final goals, perhaps I should define several sub-goals that will help me meet my final goal. (For example: what can I do in 2006 / 2007 to help me move towards meeting my final goal?) Only after I've done that can I really identify whether a pleasure is legitimate or not.

This entry was tagged. Ethics Philosophy

Hezekiah: Royal Schmuck

What a schmuck:

At that time Marduk-Baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon sent Hezekiah letters and a gift, because he had heard of his illness and recovery. Hezekiah received the envoys gladly and showed them what was in his storehouses"”the silver, the gold, the spices, the fine olive oil"”his entire armory and everything found among his treasures. There was nothing in his palace or in all his kingdom that Hezekiah did not show them.

Then Isaiah the prophet went to King Hezekiah and asked, "What did those men say, and where did they come from?" "From a distant land," Hezekiah replied. "They came to me from Babylon." The prophet asked, "What did they see in your palace?" "They saw everything in my palace," Hezekiah said. "There is nothing among my treasures that I did not show them."

Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD Almighty: The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your predecessors have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."

"The word of the LORD you have spoken is good," Hezekiah replied. For he thought, "There will be peace and security in my lifetime."

Today's New International Version International Bible Society (C) Copyright 2001, 2005

If that last statement doesn't qualify him as one of the world's all-time schmucks, I don't know what would.

This entry was tagged. Ethics Philosophy

Bible Blogging: All God's Children

Compare this:

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" When Moses heard it, he fell on his face,

with this:

You arrogant jerks! How dare you go around accusing everyone of being sinners? Don't you know that most people are basically good and we're all God's children, every one us? Why do you try to make yourself better than everyone else?

That second one isn't (quite) a direct quote, but it is something that I heard a lot while in college. I'm not saying that this is likely to happen on a college campus anytime soon, but I did find the similarities in rhetoric to be interesting.

This entry was tagged. Ethics Philosophy

Concerning "Enough!"

Joe, you've declared your intention to make your dissatisfaction with your native Republican Party known by aiding the Democrats' election this year.

But why should dissatisfaction with a party result in your abetting another just as bad, or worse? Why help either of them? Isn't the practical result of such action ultimately destined to be the same as that of those we so often hear say "I don't like what my party is doing, but the other people are worse"?

(And just because the thought hits me: If the Libertarian Party were to somehow come to power in America, would it evolve (or devolve)-as Republican and Democrat parties have-over time into the same sort of animal? Is a march toward centralized statism inexorable, as has been suggested by many? Hard to say, since many capitalist cultures have been nipped in the bud. What might have occurred in Hong Kong had not the British government tossed their great city to Red China?)

(And just because another thought hits me: Is it a dilution of the title of the Christ, which we hold, to associate with political parties? Which makes a greater statement: "I am fighting the Republicans and the Democrats because I am a Christian", or "I am fighting the Republicans and the Democrats because I am a classic liberal"? We seem to refer to our supposed chief alignment far more rarely than our secondary alignments.)

Let me try to see if I can make any sense of what I'm thinking here, point-by-point. And for the record, these are beliefs in an embryonic stage, at best; these are not fully-formed convictions or anything. So:

(1) Much of the Torah is given over to the LORD separating His people from other peoples as holy. The political parties of America are unholy, man-made creations; they are not the practical expression of the Christ of God on this planet Earth, as is The Church. Does aligning with them not dilute God's very own "brand name", then-first in name-recognition ("What is Adam?" "Adam's a Republican", instead of "What is Adam?" "Adam is committed entirely to his God and the Church") then later in beliefs, as cohabitation of the Promised Land with the Caananites led to dilution of Jewish beliefs (as Republican-Christian syncretism is an easily-observed phenomenon)? To summarize: By working actively in political parties, are we less obviously Christian to the maximum number of people? And don't we risk infecting ourselves with these parties' unclean worldviews?

(2) As Christians, our primary purpose is to serve others and show them the LORD's love, regardless of whether they become Christian themselves. Do we not immediately make ourselves the enemies of half the nation by registering as Republicans and Democrats, by campaigning for them? Being a Republican makes it much more difficult to witness to a Democrat, doesn't it?

(3) Despite being super-capitalists, we seem to give in to the same "zero-sum" mentality of statists. We believe that we must protect God's real work-the service of others spiritually and materially-by defending it within the political system. That is, we wish to feed the Five Thousand, so we try to keep the government from stealing our five thousand loaves of bread. But if we are, as the Christ has promised us, possessed of the ability to accomplish even greater works than He performed in His time, then what matter if the government taxes our bread and leaves us with five hundred loaves, or fifty? If we devote our full attention, our full energies, to putting out those loaves, we have God's promise that He will see to the rest.

We as human beings do have a finite amount of strength within us, but to what is that strength better put: putting out fliers for Senator Whoever, or volunteering at a soup kitchen? Walking door-to-door to speak with people about their politics, or speaking privately with people one-on-one about their problems (as one of the few people truly qualified to give the antidote to those problems: not a psychiatrist, but a Christian)?

This I know: the world is designed by the Enemy to keep us from the Master's work. Political parties are institutions of this world (they're kingdoms, which rise and fall, trying to systemitize a solution the Poor, who we shall always have with us). I see dots and I think they may connect.

Did the poor of Jerusalem put their sick under Peter's shadow (Acts) in hopes that he would tell them how to vote?

Am I now the John Galt to your Henry Rearden, Joe?

This entry was tagged. Ethics Philosophy

Nonsense For Your Perusal

A little black comedy from the Associated Press to start your day off right, Lords and Ladies:

CHICAGO "” Nation of Islam officials on Tuesday said Jewish leaders who resigned from a state hate crimes commission rather than serve with one of their members should rejoin the panel or quit criticizing it.

Two former commission members said they had no intention of returning to the Governor's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes because Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad refused to repudiate the religious movement's leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.

In her first comments since four commissioners resigned last week, Muhammad said it was ridiculous that she has been condemned for Farrakhan's remarks.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Muhammad to the commission in August drew no public attention until she invited commissioners to attend a speech given by Farrakhan, who is known for his disparaging remarks about Jews, whites and gays.

Some commissioners began criticizing her presence on the panel after Farrakhan's speech Feb. 26 in Chicago that included references to "Hollywood Jews" promoting homosexuality and "other filth."

On Tuesday, Farrakhan's chief of staff, Brother Leonard Muhammad, said the Nation of Islam forgave the former commissioners because they "left out of confusion."

"You misunderstand what the commission is all about," Leonard Muhammad said on WVON-AM. "Come back to the commission and debate your point."

He later issued a stronger challenge for them to return.

"They need to come back or shut up," Leonard Muhammad said.

Claudette Muhammad urged her critics to leave her alone.

"For those who try to condemn me because of the honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan's remarks," she said, "it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."

Claudette Muhammad said she and her family have been victims of hate crimes and discrimination, and that she has Jewish family members, has traveled to Israel and has worshipped in synagogues.

"Please know I am not the victimizer here, OK, but instead I am the victim," she said. She refused to repudiate Farrakhan and recommended that people who disagree with him, speak with him.

"I have no intention of returning to the commission until it is cleansed of the stain and stench of bigotry caused by Sister Claudette's continued presence," said Hirschhaut, executive director of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center.

As a cherry on this little sunday, the governor has stated that he didn't actually have any idea that he hired a Nation of Islam follower for his commission, apparently thinking that this would make everyone feel better.

A Mission Statement from Aquinas

A quote I think could very well summarize what the methodology of any follower of the LORD should be:

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

This entry was tagged. Ethics

Words from Pastor Bob Roberts, Jr.

Read the first two chapters of Pastor Bob Roberts, Jr.'s new book Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World today. I received an advance copy of it free of charge at the Glocal Conference in Rome back in January, due to my being so blessed as to be a pastoral intern who gets free goodies like this, but it didn't come off my shelf 'til now (which I grant you kinda defeats the purpose of having an advance copy).

Anyway, it's out now and it's very good, so I thought I'd share a few quotes from the first chapters with you here. Away we go:

"When people say the name of your church and the church you attend or in which you serve, what do they think?" (p.24)

"Being centered on Christ isn't just part of our statement of faith, but a recognized practice of that fact to which the world and community of nonbelievers can attest." (p.25)

"Someone is 'called of God' not because of the way the person lives but because of the way the person speaks!... In the Western church, few are remarking about our current leadership style, 'If only I could know Jesus as he or she does.' Neither have I heard... the performers say like Paul, 'Imitate me.' We talk about the qualifications for ministry in terms of education, ordination, rules and regulations. However, isn't the main qualification for ministry the ability for a person to say, 'Imitate me'?" (p.26-27)

Do you realize Gandhi spent an average of two hours per day meditating on the Gospels? By his own admission, Jesus's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount became the basis for a large portion of everything he did... Something is tragically amiss when a man without Christ can change a nation and Christians who possess the Holy Spirit can't." (p.33)

If the church in a local community were gone, who besides its adherents would miss it?" (p. 36)

"The kingdom means that we are committed to being salt and light whether the people we serve all become Christians or not. Today's notion of 'us against them' Christianity would be foreign to the early church." (p.36)

"During my seminary days, planting a church actually meant you couldn't land a position with a 'real' church, so you had to go start one." (p.39)

If you are sufficiently enticed, go thumb through a copy at your local bookstore and maybe plop it down on the checkout counter.

This entry was tagged. Ethics

David snipes Goliath

Fun fact: For about a year now, I've heavily suspected Goliath never had a chance against David, even from an atheistic perspective.

S'like this: Back in the Olden Days, killing people with a sling was actually a highly-refined art. I admittedly got this second-hand from historical novelist Michael Curtis Ford (good writer), but I'm told that we know from the Spartan mercenary Xenophon's autobiography _The Anabasis _ that a slinger could kill a sheep at 200 yards with just a rock he found lying about on the ground, 300 yards if he had one of his specially-made lead bullets handy.

Christian apologists have often spoken excitedly of the fact that modern giants' foreheads have soft spots. Personally, I don't see the reason; if David had-as he quite obviously did-skill with the slingshot, then he might as well have pulled out a .22 Magnum and capped his giant adversary. The fight wouldn't have been much more lop-sided.

So, this begs the question, of course: What's the point of the story if David just ran out onto the field and smote a hapless foe?

A few thoughts on the subject:

(1) Tactics aside, no member of the army of Israel nor the army's king challenged the blaspheming Philistine, and David did. That David then proceeded to shoot Goliath doesn't take away from the fact that he was the only person with enough conviction to do something about the problem.

(2) The one-on-one duel for the fate of Israel was the Philistines' idea, not the LORD's; indeed, the LORD never suggests such a method of solving Israel's war problems in the Old Testament, and no attempt to do so ever works out. God is not interested in having terms dictated to Him. Why should He respect the honor code devised by a bunch of pagans? From this perspective, David's response was absolutely perfect: come out onto the field for the "honor duel" and then gun down their prize fighter, sending a loud and clear message that he wasn't interested in playing the game.

(3) One of the reasons I think the Jews have throughout history held a reputation among Western peoples as "dishonest" is because Westerners had (and have) a different sense of honesty than the Bible seems to. From what I'm reading in 1st Samuel, no rule save that one warrior should face another was instituted for the battle; David simply worked creatively within that framework. To the outwitted, of course, this is always "cheating"; to those of us who prize wit and do not hold others accountable for rules that never existed, it is clever and perfectly fair. David's smarts may thus be on display here.

Something to consider. Lata.

This entry was tagged. Ethics

Sex Week!

Thank goodness for modern news media or we followers of the Christ would not be aware of this sort of thing: it's Sex Week, everybody!

At least, it is at Yale University, where students have coordinated one heck of an "educational event": a sex-themed week including stripping classes and a lingerie show in order to-and I quote Dain Lewis, its director here-"reconcile these issues in their own lives".

"I can justify to my mom every decision that's been made [about Sex Week]," Lewis says in his defense (Justify it to mine, Dain...).

Believe it or not, the FOXNews.com's Fox & Friends video clip on this story is absolutely worth watching. Even the panel of reporters assigned to interview Mr. Lewis can't take this guy seriously and start breaking out laughing about halfway through Lewis's speech. It's a wonderfully refreshing reaction to this kind of "Ivy League" (heh) caca, sure to put a smile on your face.

OK; I'm going back to studying now.

UPDATE (from Joe): I dug up a direct link to the video itself.

This entry was tagged. Ethics

A Discussion of Abortion "” Part Five: When Does a Fetus Resemble a Baby?

When Does a Fetus Resemble a Baby?:

We left off last night asking: when does a fetus begin to command moral respect, such that we should view it as something other than a mere clump of cells appended to a woman's body?

I have repeatedly noted AMac's comment:

Sometime in the 2 to 4 month time frame, an embryo becomes recognizable as a pre-human, sharing many of the features that a human exhibits as a born baby.

I have argued why many Americans may reasonably decide that the moment of conception is too early to treat an embryo as a full human, and why the moment of viability is too late to treat a fetus as a mere clump of cells. I think most people can understand these arguments.

Patterico then goes on to discuss how most people, viewing pictures of fetuses, can generally determine a specific point at which a fetus begins to resemble a baby. I'd advise you to click through and read the whole entry. He then concludes with:

So let's do it. Let's look at actual pictures of babies in different phases of fetal development. They are in the extended entry. Then answer these questions:

  1. When do you think a fetus begins to resemble a baby?
  2. Do you think the answer to Question #1 is morally important?

Here are my answers. I looked at the pictures Patterico provided. I think a fetus resembles a baby at the 6-week mark. However, I don't think that answer is morally important. A fetus is a baby, no matter what it resembles. At the time my little sister was born, she looked quite different from my grandmother. Both, however, were human females. Appearance is not important in determining identity. A 1-week fetus contains the same DNA as a 10-year old child or 100-year old adult.

From a moral point of view, it is not permissible to abort a fetus simply because it does not look like a baby. Frankly, that argument is one of the more morally reprehensible I have ever heard. Genetically, a fetus is a baby. The fetus requires only the passage of time to look like a baby. Killing the fetus before it can begin to look like a baby is a cheap way of assuaging one's conscience.

A Discussion of Abortion "” Part Three: How Flexible Is Your Position?

Patterico has posted part three of his continuing series. Again, I follow suit with my answers.

Position #1 "” Life begins at conception: Yesterday I asked these people questions designed to see how firm their stance is, such whether they would oppose abortion even for rape, and whether they support birth control. As to rape, Dana responded:

Abortion after rape is no different from abortion following consensual intercourse: a human life is destroyed. Yes, rape is a terrible thing, but it is less than murder; we ought not to murder a living human being because someone else is suffering.

As to contraception, Dana responded:

Oral contraceptives normally prevent the ovaries from releasing an unfertilized egg, which is unobjectionable. But oral contraceptives also prevent implantation of a human zygote if an egg was released and fertilized; that I do find objectionable. Thus, were I emperor, they would be outlawed.

Do other "life begins at conception" people agree with these statements? And if you do, do you recognize that most Americans don't? Would you be in a favor of a compromise that recognized most Americans' belief that women should not be forced to have a baby if raped? Can you live with the fact that most Americans believe women should have access to the morning after pill?

I agree with the statement about abortion after rape. As I mentioned yesterday, 75-85% of women who are raped opt not to have an abortion. Now, the national rape rate is not that high: an average of .56 rapes per 100,000 people over the past five years (from the DOJ). Out of that group of people, only 32,000 women per year actually end up pregnant (from the CDC). If we assume that the study holds true, there is possibly only 8,000 rape related abortions per year.

Given the low number of rape related abortions, I would be willing to compromise and leave abortion legal for victims of rape and incest. However, my previous opinion from yesterday stands as well. I would want to see rape victims get counseling that counsels against an immediate abortion. I would want rape victims to hear and understand that having an abortion may make them feel worse not better. It is my opinion that giving such counseling would reduce rape-related abortions even further.

Now, on to the subject of contraceptives. Here I am definitely willing to compromise. If leaving oral contraceptives legal is the price of restricting the availability of abortions, I am willing to do so. I am not entirely convinced that oral contraceptives are true abortifacients. Until, and unless, I am convinced of that, I would not support banning them.

This entry was tagged. Ethics Philosophy

A Discussion of Abortion, Part 2

Patterico has posted A Discussion of Abortion "” Part Two: Follow-Up Questions. I'll follow suit by posting more answers. While the question was asked as one paragraph, I think it makes sense to break it down into three questions:

  1. How do you define "conception"? As the union of sperm and egg? As implantation of the zygote in the uterine wall? I define conception as the union of the sperm and the egg. Here is my reasoning. The instant that sperm meets egg, the egg undergoes a biochemical change so that no other sperm can penetrate it. The chromosomes of the sperm and egg combine to form completely unique DNA for that new organism. The cells immediately begin to grow and divide. This "collection of cells" is a new organism that reacts to outside stimuli. While the new cells need to attach to the uterine wall in order to finish their development, this is a matter of nutrition not of fundamental nature.
  2. Do you oppose the birth control pill? Which one? Plan B causes the uterine wall to be shed, thus depriving the new cells of nutrition. I would consider this to be equivalent to an abortion, albeit one at a very early stage of pregnancy. Oral contraceptives, on the other hand, prevent the hormonal spikes that lead to eggs being released in the first place. Because egg and sperm never meet, no new life is created and no abortion takes place. (It is possible that an egg could be released while using oral contraceptives. These contraceptives also serve to thin the lining of the uterus. Thus, it is possible that an egg could be fertilized and subsequently fail to implant itself in the uterus. On the other hand, this can also occur naturally, without the involvement of oral contraceptives. Thus, I wouldn't consider it to be a true abortifacient.)
  3. How do you feel about abortion after a rape? I don't like it. I think it's a deceptively easy choice. Victims of major trauma are often not in the best position to make important decisions. I think there is a great danger that the mother will, in the end, feel great guilt over ending a life -- especially one conceived in violence. Indeed, according to an older study, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75-85% of rape victims chose not to have an abortion. For this reason, I think it would be wise to counsel against abortions in these situations, especially if the decision comes quickly on the heels of the rape itself. While I do not have citations close at hand, I have also heard many stories indicating that the children conceived in rape later became a great comfort and source of healing to the women involved.

Setting the Stage for a Discussion of Abortion

Patterico published A Discussion of Abortion "” Part One: Setting the Stage yesterday evening. He invited his readers to answer two questions, as part of a multiple day discussion of abortion. I chose to answer his questions here rather than just answering in a comment on his blog. Here goes.

  1. For you, is abortion in any sense a moral question, or is it purely a question of individual rights? I believe abortion is a moral question. The decision to abort leads directly to the loss of a human life. In that context, property rights (over a woman's own body) must take a back seat to life itself.
  2. What, for you, defines when a fetus is entitled to moral respect? A fetus is entitled to moral respect at the moment that the sperm unites with the egg. I have heard the argument that all living cells (regardless of type or function) should be treated with respect because cloning will one day allow us to create life from any cells. I don't think that argument is germane here, however. Even at the earliest moments, a fetus is a collection of cells that is on a direct collision course to becoming a recognizable homo sapien. That is the natural result of the development of those cells, unless the process is interfered with in some way. I don't think it's possible to look at the development of those cells and mark one specific point when it ceases to be a collection of cells and begins to be a human being. In my opinion those cells are always a human being -- just one at various stages of development.