Ethics: 6. What should ethics in public life look like?

Posted on August 16, 2011
Filed Under Philosophy/Ethics | 4 Comments

“What should ethics in public life look like?” This is the last question in Chuck Colson’s “Doing the Right Thing” series. It is basically asking about ethics in the political arena.

Wow! Is this a loaded question or what?

There have to be a million jokes about politicians. I’m sorry to say that none of them are complimentary. That is sad, actually. Jokes are supposed to make me laugh.

These never do.

Why? Because it is a reflection of how far we have gotten away from the blueprints.

And, if we are going to talk about ethics in politics, then we have to go back to that original design.

It isn’t complex, by the way. Read more

Share on Facebook

I’m in Greece

Posted on August 10, 2011
Filed Under Personal | Leave a Comment

I’m in Greece with little internet access. Comments may not get posted until I get back. Blessings to you all!

Share on Facebook

Ethics: 5. What should ethics in the marketplace look like?

Posted on August 9, 2011
Filed Under Philosophy/Ethics | Leave a Comment

What should ethics in the marketplace look like? Well, we can’t answer this one very well without asking the “design” question first: “What should the marketplace look like?”

To a large extent, our understanding of “right” and “wrong” is aided immensely when we first get a handle on the true design. Without that, we could be guilty of polishing the fire truck before using it to pull a water skier. It might look great, but it doesn’t function very well.

However, questions about ethics or design require us to go back even further. The ultimate answer to any question or issue is best pursued by starting with the nature and character of the One who created it all.

So, let’s begin with the original Worker.

God worked and made an awesome sandbox filled with some amazing raw materials. He then created man, equipped him with gifts and talents, put him in the sandbox and gave him the privilege to be His creative steward. Man, therefore, has the incredible opportunity and responsibility to prosper God’s goods by using his gifting to fashion those raw materials into something greater.

This sounds quite grand, actually!

This is the workplace!

Ah, but enter now the villain and the picture gets a little twisted. Read more

Share on Facebook

Ethics: 4. What does it mean to be human?

Posted on August 2, 2011
Filed Under Philosophy/Ethics | 10 Comments

This, too, is a huge question that must be narrowed down to the issue of ethics. Let me reframe it this way: Is there something unique about the human being that demands ethical behavior–either from him or towards him?

To clarify this, let’s use an example.

If a bee possesses honey, is it ethically wrong to remove the honey from its hive? If a man possesses honey, is it ethically wrong to take it from his house? Do we consider it stealing if we milk a cow? What if we take it from the grocer?

If we kill a fish for supper is that any different from killing a man for his wallet? What about pulling a carrot up out of the ground or swatting a fly?

Should we weep eating beets? Read more

Share on Facebook

Ethics: 3. If we know what is right, can we do it?

Posted on July 31, 2011
Filed Under Philosophy/Ethics | 7 Comments

“If we know what is right, can we do it?”

This is the third topic in Chuck Colson’s DVD Series: Doing the Right Thing.

This question may seem tame, but it can actually lead us into some very deep theological discussions. Since we can’t do that here, I want to address only two of its issues, and try to do so with brevity.

For some, it will be way too deep and for others it will be pathetically light.

The question “can we do it” raises the issues of “ability” and “desire”: Do we have the ability to do what is right, and/or do we have the desire to do what is right.

The first is the trickiest, although it shouldn’t be. I know some people who state that man cannot do anything that is “good”. But if this were truly the case, then why try at all? Or why encourage others to do so? We could never encourage a child to do “good” or a mother or a father to do “good” or the king or our neighbor or even ourselves.

Sometimes we confuse the ability to “do” what is right with the ability to “save” ourselves.

This is a needless confusion. Read more

Share on Facebook

Response to My Dear Brother, Coby

Posted on July 19, 2011
Filed Under Personal, Philosophy/Ethics, Worldview | 21 Comments

Coby, I couldn’t fit my response to you in the comment area, so I have to make it a separate post. We are subject to the limitations of our means!

Also, the only way that I can do this is to highlight some of your statements and respond to them. I appreciate everything that you said, though, and the excellent attitude in how you express your differences of opinion. Sorry I can’t deal with everything. I encourage those who are interested to read Coby’s full comments to the previous post.

Okay…here we go.

“…I think your idea that there is one moral absolute is pretty lame. Yeah, there is a standard expressed in the Mosaic Law, but Paul says that the Law is weak and earthbound. There is a higher standard expressed in the Gospel. But Jesus does not give us answers. He only speaks in questions. You somehow missed that part.”

I’m sorry that it seems lame to you, but I do believe there is only One Moral Absolute and that is bound up in God’s nature. He does not change. The holiness of God stands firm for all eternity. Yes, Paul calls the Law weak, but it was weak in that it couldn’t save. He certainly wasn’t saying that the moral law expressed by God was now to be disregarded as invalid. Stealing is still stealing even though the command to not steal can’t make us holy.

“Jesus does not give us answers. He only speaks in questions.” Honestly, Coby, I don’t know where this comes from Read more

Share on Facebook

Ethics: 2. Is there truth and a moral law we can all know?

Posted on July 18, 2011
Filed Under Philosophy/Ethics, Worldview | 22 Comments

[continued from here and here]

This is essentially asking if there is a transcendent ethical standard that exists beyond the individual and if so, can we all know it.

Our culture is deeply divided over such a question, though we never really ask it out loud, for to do so would expose our deep relativism and the folly of such thinking.

Relativism supposes that there is no such thing as absolute truth and therefore no such thing as an absolute moral code. Theoretically, every individual’s ethical standards are valid and unassailable as long as they remain personal. From the outside, we view each other’s moral standards as “preferences” for they do not apply beyond the self, nor can they.

Now to the astute, the above description is immediately recognized as logically false for it expresses within itself an absolute ethical code. That is, it declares that it is “absolutely wrong” for you to impose your ethical standard on anyone outside of your own preferential boundary.

Not only is relativism self-refuting from the inside, but it is unworkable on the outside. Read more

Share on Facebook

Casey Anthony—Another View

Posted on July 7, 2011
Filed Under Personal | 49 Comments

“Every fact is to be confirmed by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” 2 Corinthians 13:1

One of the blessings or curses (depending upon your opinion) of living in the woods is that I am unable to get cable or satellite television. I think I’m one of the few Americans left that uses an old TV antennae. On some occasions, especially when it is windy, it is even hard to get the standard broadcast stations. But, I don’t watch much TV anyway. There’s hardly enough hours in a day as it is.

For that reason, I haven’t followed the Casey Anthony trial other than the occasional summations and now, of course, the verdict that was delivered Tuesday.

I have read the many outbursts of anger ov