Ethics and Value

A famous scientist – Richard Dawkins – has made a reputation opposing any ethical system that even remotely takes the time to consider theistic arguments as providing grounds for belief. He has been quoted as saying "There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. … We are machines for propagating DNA. … It is every living object's sole reason for being."

If we understand Dawkins correctly, he believes there is only one reason for living: to pass along DNA to the next generation. Essentially, we are merely here to pass along DNA to the next generation so they can be merely here to pass it along to the next generation, and so on, and so on, and so on.

It is obvious that Dawkins, and a whole host of naturalistic scientists and philosophers believe that reducing all reality to that which is natural rather than supernatural offers the very best explanation of reality as well as the very best foundation for determining how we should live. But herein lies a massive problem.

The whole study of ethics – the recognition of best practices when it comes to living as a human being – is based on the idea of value. In some sense ethics are the way we preserve the value of life by recognizing the mutually beneficial patterns of living that not only preserve it, but improve it for all concerned. Laws come into being in order to protect life and property; rules help maintain an orderly society; personal ethics such as courtesy, honesty, sacrifice and perseverance all have as their goal the preservation of something considered valuable.

But, if we reduce human existence to the level of sperm and egg donation, we had better understand that such reductionism will, necessarily, subvert our ethical foundations. Where value is lost, ethics erode. As humanity is minimized down from being the pinnacle of creation so also the ethical standards understood as protecting and preserving humanity’s honor will erode and finally dissolve into a puddle of pragmatic selfishness that favors the strong and wealthy. At this point, do we really believe that the survival of the fittest, in terms of physical power, should determine the way ahead for civilized society?

We are already seeing this erosion and its consequences. Under the banner of reproductive rights, women are funding a largely male-dominated abortion industry despite the fact that it was often unrestrained male sexual desire that brought on the pregnancy in the first place. The pragmatic and selfish motives behind abortion have overruled the idea that conceived human life is both honorable and of great value, and the result is the national horror of 55 million abortions since 1973.

But, if the only purpose life is to pass on DNA, then abortion shouldn’t really bother us. After all, there are certainly enough sperm and egg donors left. But it should leave the naturalistic community wondering if they have selfishly done away with some of the better opportunities for society to progress. Can anyone really justify throwing out 55 million chances for another Einstein, Bach, Marshall, or any of number of world-changing human lives?

The fact is, while many may verbally subscribe to the idea of naturalism, and the belief that we are here only to give life to the next generation, no one really lives that way. We still honor heroes, still want to “make a difference”, and still pray our children will find purpose and honor in their lives. We still want our neighbors to live honestly, justly, and ethically, following norms that are found in every society.

As a theist who believes that every human being is endowed by the Creator with an inalienable right to life from the moment of conception, I contend that our need is for a more honorable view of humanity, not one that is being eroded. If, as the Bible declares, every human bears the image of God, and is capable of displaying his communicable attributes, then the ethics of a society will only be as strong as that society’s appreciation of the value and honor of every beating heart. A society’s ethical commitment will, of necessity, mirror their collective appreciation of the unique nature of human life.  

Ethical standards will only be as high as the honor afforded to human life by society.

Hope this helps,

David 

Are You Better Off?

You can tell that we are in the throes of the election season when everywhere you go you hear the same question being thrown at us by the politicos and their surrogates. Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

It seems to me that this question is grounded on several erroneous presuppositions. First, it begins from the position that someone other than myself is responsible for either my progress or failure to progress over the past few years. It treats me as a ball that has either been kicked into the goal, or out of bounds. Either way, it is the boot that is responsible, not the ball. If I am better today than I was, I am therefore supposed to appreciate the boot. If not, then I should go looking for a different boot. But in either case, I am not responsible. The truth is my being better off has much more to do with the choices I have made and the perseverance I have demonstrated than anything some elected boot has done.

The second problem with the question is that it assumes a homogeneous answer among the masses. It suggests that most people will answer in the way that pleases those asking the question. But let’s take a closer look. Suppose for a moment that two men with the same job, same pay, same station in life, are asked the question. It is possible that they will answer differently based on other criteria in their lives. It is also possible that someone who today is making less money than four years ago still believes she is “better off” simply because now she is doing something she enjoys through which she believes she is making a significant impact in her community. The idea that the question can be answered definitively, the same way, and for the same reasons, by a majority of the population is simply naïve.

And that brings us to the third and most important problem with this question. It presupposes that the only criteria people will use to measure their progress over the past four years is economic. Of course, we’ve all heard that elections are supposed to be about the economy. And certainly the amount of money in our pockets is important. But this also underlies the basic decay of our society which this question seeks to exploit. The question of whether or not we are better off now than four years ago presupposes that our economic situation is the only important measurement of our quality of life. It cynically demands that we consider money to be what most makes life worthwhile.

Someone has said that money doesn’t buy happiness, but it does let you look for it in more places. The trouble here is, if you have to go looking for happiness, you probably don’t have a proper definition of it. Happiness, or better yet, a personal sense of well-being, must never be dependent upon money. The stories of multi-millionaires whose lives are horribly sad tell us that. A casual reading of the entertainment pages confirms that many, if not most, of those we so admire for their fame and corresponding wealth lead lives largely devoid of true, long-term happiness.

Despite my disdain for the question about being better now than before, I do think it is a question everyone should answer for themselves, and honestly. I also believe that the criteria must not be purely economic. Think about your relationships, your character, your ethics. Are your relationships with the important people in your life – your family and close friends – stronger, more satisfying now than before? Have you improved in areas of character weakness, and grown in areas that used to cause you trouble? Are you more courageous in your beliefs, more winsome in times of conflict, and more a person of virtue and value? And are you more involved in serving your family and those in your community? Money can’t buy happiness, and money doesn’t make your life better.

And what about the most important measurement: Are you more in love with Christ, more delighted in the Word, and more diligent in your pursuit of holiness? I greatly fear that too many Christ-followers are engaged in the political cat chase that is all about economics and ideology, considering that this election is uberimportant when the reality is that America's problems are not political, they are theological and anthropological. The only hope for real change is the Gospel.

The best things in life aren’t things, and the best things are still free. Invest in your soul, and in the lives around you, and then you’ll find that elected officials don’t create happiness. That’s our job as individual, responsible citizens, and that’s what has always been the real strength of America.

Hope this helps,

David