Wisdom Ethics part 1: Introduction to the problem

http://www.growthpop.com/wp-content/uploads/wisdom.jpg

This is the kind of thing that happens when you cram three seminary graduates into a car for a road trip: at some point, we'll probably end up talking about ethics.  There's nothing like a late-night drive and some sleep deprivation to fire up the mind (or so it has been my experience).  I was recently in Indiana for the ordination of a close friend of mine, and at some point on the drive from Indiana back to Chicago O'Hare to fly home, we ended up talking about Christian ethics.

We often get into a conversation about what mode of ethics is most directly utilized in the Bible: results, rules or virtue ethics? (Consequentialism, deontology or areteology?)  For a very long time, virtue ethics was the main school used in Christendom, adapted from Aristotle by Thomas Aquinas (I'm being really general here).  Around the time referred to as the Enlightenment in Europe, results-based ethics and rules-based ethics also emerged and for a while displaced virtue ethics, which has recently been making a comeback.

If none of these are familiar terms, I recommend a little reading, but here is a one-sentence definition of each.

Results ethics: What makes an action right or wrong is what impact it can be expected to have - whatever is best for the most people is best.  Example: God warns the Hebrews during the Judges period that asking for a king will have dire consequences.

Rules ethics: What makes an action right or wrong is whether it conforms to rules or principles that should guide every action.  Example: Jesus says that we should render to no one evil for evil.

Virtue ethics: The focus is less on particular actions but on the kind of person one should seek to become, and action should be taken with the goal of becoming more virtuous.  Example: Fruits of the spirit, when listed in the NT, are often virtues - humility, gentleness, discernment, etc.

These are only brief examples, but you will find that each of these modes of ethical thought can be found throughout the Bible.  I think that the rules ethics are the most obvious and approachable for many readers of the Bible.  There are the famous Ten Commandments and all of the rules of Leviticus, for example, as well as the sayings of Jesus.  The main decision here is when to apply which rule.  For example, it is stated that whoever kills a human being should themselves be killed.  It also says that we should turn the other cheek to those who strike us, and we have the grand example of Jesus Christ being wrongly executed and not retaliating in any way, even to defend himself.  We also have rules about food purity right next to sexual purity, and some completely ignore one while demanding the other become law (even though shellfish and sex with temple prostitutes are both described as "abominations").

Results-based ethics can also be found throughout the Bible, and is actually often a reason that God acts in history.  Adam and Eve are driven out of Eden and the Tower of Babel is torn down both because of God's consequentialist analysis - these things which could be perceived as wrongs are done to prevent greater wrongs from God's point of view.  There are also consequences built into the Ten Commandments or into accepting suffering and persecution in the letters of Paul - so that one might live long in the land and so that one will grow in holiness, respectively.

Virtue ethics, lastly, are found throughout Scripture.  Jesus and Paul spend a great deal of time talking about the kinds of people we should be, and recommending actions for us to become more like God in thought and deed.  Jesus could be taken as the prime example of the fully virtuous human being, an ideal which is very helpful in virtue ethics because virtues are perfected in an ideal person.  In many of the Prophetic writings, vice is connected to the rejection of relationship with God.  It is pointed out how those who reject God become more vicious over time, leading to their own destruction.

The problem that I see in much of ethical thought is that one is encouraged to draw primarily from one of these three sources, as if each presented a complete ethical system in and of themselves.  If this were true, however, it would stand to reason that the Bible would only utilize one mode, or at least primarily one mode, but this does not seem to be the case either.

What I am left with, and what I was talking about in that car-ride a few days ago, is that it seems that these disparate modes should be taken together, somehow.  But how can that be done coherently, in a way that is actually useful in everyday life?

In part 2, I'll talk about my answer to that question.