rahab’s exchange: moral absolutism

image courtesy of reverendmom

[This post a continuation from "rahab's exchange: the lie" and "rahab's exchange: ethical theories."  Rahab lied in order to save the lives of two Israelite spies.  Was she right to do so?  Is it ever right to lie?]

Yesterday we looked at three possible systems of ethics.  Deontological ethics is the system in which we assume there exists a moral law for all mankind — and it is our obligation or duty to act in accordance with this law. Those of us who adhere to this system of ethics are called Moral Absolutists, because we believe this moral law is absolute and binding for all people in all places; most Christians fall into this category.  Today I want to discuss three subsets of moral absolutism (and then cast my vote for one of them).  [For my purposes, I am writing as if we are all Christians.  What that means is we will assume the absolute moral laws come from God, and are contained in the Bible.]

1.  Unqualified Absolutism

Also known as “non-conflicting” absolutists, adherents to this system believe the absolute laws contained in the Bible are never in conflict with one another.  Any perceived conflict is due only to a lack of knowledge.  There never exists a moment in which the Christian must choose to be obedient to only one of two commands or select the lesser of two evils.  There is always a way for the individual to be obedient to every command in scripture.  Lying is always wrong, no matter the situation.

The unqualified absolutist would contend it that Rahab did not have to lie in her situation.  And she was sinful to have done so.  There was some better option for her.  But if she had she told the truth and the spies been killed, she would still have done what was right.

What I appreciate about unqualified absolutism is that it takes very seriously the word of God and obedience to him.  What I don’t like is that this all seems naive and just a bit ridiculous.  [Plus a lot of people claim to be unqualified absolutists, and really aren't -- see the "one last word" section at bottom of page.]  I worry, too, that it elevates these moral rules to a higher status than is deserved or needed.  I believe much of the reasoning for the unqualified absolutist’s stance is:

• to protect the nature of God. “All moral law originates in the nature and person of God.  If we suggest these laws are at times in conflict with one another, we are suggesting there is conflict in the nature of God itself.”
• to allow us to possess a simple and tidy faith where hard questions needn’t be asked. “Just read the Bible and do what it says.  It’s that simple.  Don’t start down one of them slippery slopes, you hear.”

I don’t believe the nature of God needs protecting.  And I’m not so sure (heresy alert?) there exists a huge problem with conflict within God’s nature — especially when that conflict may merely be perceived, and not actual.  So… we don’t understand completely how love and justice occupy the same place at the same time in the person of God?  I’m alright with that; chalk it up to me not being God.

As for possessing a tidy, little faith, good luck with that.  I just don’t think it works that way.  Faith is rarely well-groomed, and Christianity isn’t bullet points and name signed on the dotted line.

2. Conflicting Absolutism

This seems a little more honest and realistic to me.  The conflicting absolutist believes there are moral absolutes which all humanity is obliged to obey.  But sometimes these rules come in conflict with one another.  It is the duty of the believer, then, to choose the “lesser of two evils.” He should, based on his knowledge of God and scripture, be obedient to the greater of the two commands, breaking the lesser.  [Of course the Christian should then ask forgiveness for having sinned.]

The conflicting absolutist  would contend that, if Rahab had no choice but to lie (saving lives) or assist in murder (telling the truth), she was right to lie. She chose to be obedient to the greater command, and therefore did what was best — but still sinned.

I appreciate the conflicting absolutist’s realistic outlook on the world, but I do have a couple of problems with these ideas:

• Jesus was a human. If Jesus was fully human and tempted in every way that we are, then it would follow that he also experienced these moral dilemmas.  He necessarily would have sinned.  And if he didn’t face any of these conflicting moral scenarios, then he was not indeed tempted as we are.
• It seems odd that the best I can aim for is to commit a lesser sin.
• If repentance involves admission of guilt and changing my mind and life so that I turn and walk a different direction, then it is impossible to repent of these lesser sins I’ve committed.  Because I fully expect and intend (and would be right) to commit that very sin again if ever in that same situation.

3. Graded Absolutism

[Also called "hierarchicalism.]  The graded absolutists, of which I am one, believe these moral laws can and do at times conflict with one another.  But these are not situations in which the Christian chooses the “lesser evil” and sins.  Rather, the believer has chosen what was good and right. Like the conflicting absolutist, though, the graded absolutist must discern which command is the weightier of the two.

The graded absolutist would contend that Rahab may have had no other option when confronted by the king’s men but to lie or to allow the spies to be killed.*  If so, and she chose to preserve life as it seemed to her to be the more important of the two rules, Rahab was right in doing so and therefore did not sin.

Let me give a short list of reasons I believe graded absolutism to be correct:

• It argues for moral laws that are binding to all mankind — and these rules originate in the nature of God.
• It is realistic and acknowledges that, in this fallen world, these laws do conflict with one another at times.
• Jesus was tempted in every way as us and remained sinless.
• It is demonstrated in scripture on a number of occasions.  (This will have to be another post — the next one in this series, I think…)

One Last Word

One pet peeve of mine is that nearly all unqualified absolutists practice the conflicting or graded approach but claim otherwise.  Two questions to think about:

• If I am to obey my parents, who command me to denounce God, what should I do?
• If I am to obey the rulers and authorities of my nation’s government, and live in a country that doesn’t allow me to be a Christian, what should I do?

In both of these scenarios (and hundreds of others), the majority of Christians (non-conflicting absolutists as well) will say you should worship God and no longer be obedient  to — at least concerning these specific rules — your parents or government.  But isn’t that a conflict in these moral laws?  And won’t any Christian admit as much?

The conflicting absolutist says we commit a small sin by ignoring our parents’ regulations.  The graded absolutist says we’ve done what is right.  The unqualified absolutist has to agree with one of these other groups in this situation…  OR try to rephrase the scenario in such a way that there is no longer a conflict.  And they may try.  But (in my opinion) unqualified absolutism only works on paper — and even then not very well.

**********

In my next post, I intend to answer some of what I assume would be common questions asked of the above ideas.  I’ve got a short list, but if you want to add to it, feel free to post your thoughts in the comments below.  That way, too, one of the other readers can likely offer you greater wisdom and a better answer than me.

* I suppose this could have been due either to the circumstances or even Rahab’s level of intelligence.  I’m not suggesting Rahab wasn’t an honor student; rather I’m merely stating that if I’m unable to ascertain another way to save lives than by lying, perhaps lying is the right thing to do.

one thing i’ve learned… (1)

In Tanzania, it is apparently illegal
to talk on the phone while driving.

**********

I had been all day in the blistering sun of Dar es Salaam, attempting to gain possession of our new truck.  This was not the first day I’d done so.  But on this (did I say it was hot?) day I did procure the vehicle, and was slowly making my way north to the SIL guesthouse in 6:00 pm traffic. I was moving along at a speed of at least 2.5 miles per hour, and called Christie to share with her the good and the bad news:

• Good = I was coming with our truck… at long last.
• Bad = A few of the truck’s parts were stolen while our warranty was being issued at Toyota of Tanzania.  And it would be AT LEAST an hour before traffic would allow me to reach the guesthouse.

That’s when the police officer waved me over to the side of the road. Thinking he was pulling me over for not yet having registration and insurance posted in my windshield, I began retrieving the papers from my bag.  But he didn’t mention the registration; rather he asked why I was using my phone while driving.  I explained that I would be late to pick up my wife and daughter, and was informing them of that fact.  He kindly offered that I should have parked my truck on the shoulder of the road to make the phone call.  I didn’t argue that the shoulder was already in use by all of the many cars using it in attempts to pass those of us waiting patiently in traffic.

I did, however, answer that I didn’t know it was illegal to use a phone while driving in Tanzania.  He was shocked and asked where I was from — as if all decent countries have laws against mobile phone use while in an automobile.  [I remember when mobile phones could ONLY be used while in your vehicle.  And never mind that I wasn't technically "operating" the vehicle, but was rather inching forward at slower than walking pace....]  I told him I was from the U.S., and he was shocked as if I should have then assumed it was illegal to talk and drive.  He must have thought I was lying when I explained that, to my knowledge, it is indeed legal in the U.S. to converse while at the steering wheel (but not to text?).

I told him that, while I didn’t know at the time I was breaking a law, I would still be happy to pay the appropriate fine because I was indeed a transgressor.  So he got in the car to make the trip with me to the police station (where you must go to have your ticket written — if you pay a “ticket” on the spot in Dar, you have not in fact paid a fine, but rather you’ve bribed an officer).  He directed me to drive on the wrong side of the street, ignore stop signs, make illegal turns, run down elderly women crossing the road with their groceries, and break sundry other rules of the road, all en route to the police station.

On the way to the station — amidst his blatant disregard for all laws of traffic — Mr. Officer explained that I would be required to appear in court the next morning to pay a 250,000 shilling fine (almost $200 USD).  That price tag seemed not only high, but impossible.  [A typical traffic ticket here is 20,000 shillings.]  I was being set up for a bribe.

In good corrupt police officer form, our man began to fret about how in the world he might be able to help me.  After all, he wanted to spare me the extreme hassle and embarrassment of appearing in court and paying such a hefty fine.  He thought this way and that, while declaring his respect for my time and announcing his concern for the welfare of my bank account. He paused awkwardly, waiting for me to respond with an offer as we sat parked just outside the police station.

Instead of offering a small token of my gratitude (10-20,000 shillings), I responded with: So I guess we need to go inside to write this ticket and make arrangements for my court hearing.  I realize I’ve broken the law, and it’s best that I take responsibility for my actions and pay the appropriate fines.  I am ready.

Officer: Well… I suppose I could forgive you just this one time, provided you not let me catch you talking on your cell phone while driving ever again.

Me: Wow.  I’d really appreciate that, but I understand if I need to receive my ticket.

Officer: No, I want to forgive you. [Awkward pause.]  But now there’s just the question of how I’ll return to my post…  I suppose I could take one of those taxis? [Another awkward pause.]

Me: No problem.  I can give you a ride back to your post.  It’s the least I can do.

Officer: But I wouldn’t want you to be an inconvenience by asking you to sit through all that traffic again; you’ll be late to meet your family.  There are lots of taxis right here.  [Awkward pause.]  I just need to figure out how to pay for one of them…. [Very long awkward pause -- as the officer was surely reflecting on how he might possibly afford a taxi.]

Me: Yeah, but taxis are so expensive. [Starting my truck.] I understand if you prefer to go with one of those guys, but I really don’t mind at all giving you a lift. [I start to pull away.]

Seemingly surprised at my unwillingness to donate to his cab fund, the policeman gets in the truck and I drop him off right where I picked him up, shorter on time but not on cash… or on integrity.

**********

I still don’t know whether or not it’s illegal to speak on the phone while driving in Tanzania.

6 laws for a safer tomorrow: protect our children

image courtesy of sinden.org

This is a dangerous world in which we live.  And I’m all for freedom and the pursuit of life and liberty — but we’ve desperately got to make some rules.  Kids are getting hurt out there.  Out of my deep love for humanity, I’d like to suggest we pass the following laws to safeguard American children. And if you have any allegiance to this great country, or any concern at all for our youth, you’ll sign my petition in support of said regulations:

Mandatory Knee and Elbow Pads for Everyone Under 16

image courtesy of urbanlime.com

Children’s bodies are still growing, and protecting their joints is a burden we must together bear.  This law will make sure Americans’ arms and legs are bending properly, and in the right places, for a long time to come.  And we’re not talking about during sporting events only — no, knee and elbow pads will be required from the time children wake up until they go to bed (at our new mandatory and nation-wide 7:00pm curfew).  We are calling on American Eagle, Gap, and Abercrombie to quickly get to work producing trendy and fashionable pads for the youth of this great nation.  If skinny jeans can become popular, we’re convinced elbow pads can, too.

Compulsory Waiting Periods (and Training Regimens) for Purchase of Video Games

We all know it’s not good for kids to sit on their bums playing Xbox all day.  This law requires that, before purchasing a game, a family must complete a two-month fitness program which includes (but is not limited to) running, weightlifting, yoga, daily stretching, and quick reflex training.  At the end of this two-month period each family member shall complete a race of no less than 10k, at which time the family will be given a voucher enabling them to purchase one (nonviolent) video game.  Additional vouchers will be given for exceptional performances and, especially, state records.  [Any individual able to, while wearing ankle weights, catch a flaming arrow fired from a professional archer's bow will qualify his/her family for a special exemption in which they can buy three video games while eating non-nonfat yoghurt and drinking butter.]

Changes in Police Arms and Conduct

As the defenders and protectors of the public, law enforcement personnel are role models to our children.  Much has been said about the impact of movie violence on our youth, but little attention has been paid to the influence these stalwarts of society affect on our children… with their weapons of mass destruction and potty mouth language.  From this point on, police-persons will not carry firearms and live rounds, but instead water guns.  And we all know if you’ve got nothing good to say, you shouldn’t say anything at all.  Therefore we will no longer permit language like this: “Alright scumbag, drop your weapon and come out with your hands up.”  Officers will instead speak to those good qualities possessed by evildoers:  ”Wow, you sure do know how to handle a piece; and you disarmed that alarm with great speed and efficiency.  Now, if you’ll kindly and gently place that gun on the ground and take two scissor-steps forward, Mother May-I would really appreciate it.”  And instead of reading criminals their rights, the officer and the criminal shall sit on the ground (criss-cross applesauce) and discuss how good boys and girls are supposed to treat one another.

New Regulations on Car Seats

image courtesy of comparestoreprices.co.uk

In many states we’re already providing a great service to our children by keeping them in car seats until they reach a weight of 120 pounds and the age of 14. Let’s make this the standard across the board.  And because we all know car seats provide a 250% increase in safety for our children, we will now require the use of car seats inside other car seats.  That’s right, double car seats.  Our children (and young teens) will be 500% safer in their Russian nesting seats, and we can all rest easier knowing it’s safer than ever for us to text and drive.

Counting to Ten

Children’s minds aren’t yet fully developed, so it’s sometimes difficult for them to grasp the very adult concepts of threat and punishment.  With the passing of this legislation, all parents will be required to count to “9 31/32″s before reaching “10″ and sending a child to his/her room.  It is absolutely crucial that we provide children ample time to understand our intentions before we go off half-cocked like crazy people — putting children in timeout after only counting to 3, and having used whole numbers.

No More Toys in Happy Meals

Fast food meals are incredibly unhealthy, and obesity is a tremendous problem in our nation among both adults and children.  With the toys that accompany their meals, McDonald’s and other restaurant chains are luring our children into their horrid dens of evil and clogging their arteries, all in order to make a quick buck.  This new law* will “allow toys to be given away with kids’ meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar” only.**  And while we’re at it, we should weigh the adults upon entry and departure, so a bouncer can give them three flaming Indian Sunburns for every ounce of death food they ate.  And if they drank soda instead of water, a nice punch to the groin is probably appropriate.

**********

So, who’s with me?  Sign the petition below and include any appropriate comments.  Please feel free to suggest your own rules for the betterment of our nation and the safety of our children.  I’m convinced that, together, we can make the United States a safer place.  Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to envelop my daughter in bubble wrap before she goes out to play.

* This is an actual law being enacted in San Francisco — hence the quotation marks.  See this article:  Law Curbs McDonald’s Happy Meal Toys.  It was indeed the inspiration for this post.

** We’re going to call it the Sad Meal.  And I’m no expert on nutrition, but how many beverages have excessive fat?!  Are they serving french fry-flavored shakes?