This is a fantastic article Prof. Baggett. I think your reflections here are very good. As someone who finds abductive moral arguments (such as the one you offer) interesting and worthy of engagement, I'm often disappointed to see that the discourse on this subject is ruined by so many apologists who make bold claims about how objective morality is impossible on Atheism, or other such issues. I'm glad to see pushback on such rhetoric implicitly outlined your article.
Hi Ian (if I may), wonderful to hear from you. Thanks for your note. Regarding the distinction between morality and ethics, some folks do indeed distinguish between them. And doing so is fine as far as I'm concerned as long as it's made clear where the distinction resides. The one you mention is a possibility, for sure. As for myself, although I think the distinction you identify is important, I don't tend to use "morality" and "ethics" differently. I'd more likely just say the moral or ethical person wouldn't either endorse treachery or engage in it.
But as you point out, there is indeed a distinction between recognizing a moral (or ethical) truth and living according to it. Someone might recognize an action as wrong and still do it; as sinful creatures, we all do that from time to time. This is what the quote from NCIS is getting at. The show makes the point by invoking a distinction between what is moral, on the one hand, and what it ethical, on the other. To my thinking, the underlying distinction is what is most important; whether or not to make the distinction using the ethics/morality distinction is another question.
You then get at a similar but subtly different distinction by suggesting that ethics is a matter of interpreting morality in particular contexts, codifying the rules for particular jurisdictions. Morality, in contrast, is more universal.
Again, the underlying distinction is what strikes me as most important. There are some convictions people hold to be ethical (or moral) that fail to pass muster. Martin Luther King, Jr. would talk about "unjust laws," for example, by which he meant that the laws in question failed to conform to the higher moral law.
Just as individuals can get ethics wrong (by, say, becoming moral skeptics), so can whole groups or even nations (by, say, codifying segregation). So ultimately, we are all responsible for thinking hard about ethics/morality rather than simply following the lead of our culture or subculture. This is not to say morality is a wholly individual affair; there is wisdom in an abundance of counselors and we think issues through together in community. How to apply general principles to specific situations can be tricky. But we should not always take as sacrosanct some prevailing view about morality or ethics. Doing so can be a recipe for following the wrong crowd and end up trying to rationalize something morally corrupt. Or in the case of the Nazis, something more hideous than words can say. The ease with which as human beings we can try to rationalize truly horrific things should remind us all of the need to approach ethical questions with real care and soberness. Clay Jones warns we are all susceptible to this; we are all, as he puts it, "Auschwitz-enabled." (The good news of the gospel is that God's grace is available for us to be forgiven, changed, and ultimately, at the day of Christ Jesus, perfected.)
I suspect that God, via the natural law, has made at least general moral principles available to most everyone. C. S. Lewis discusses this at length in his book called The Abolition of Man. The Appendix of that book lists examples of moral or ethical truths that have been recognized the world over throughout history from a wide variety of cultural situations.
By pointing to the distinction between what might be accepted locally as a moral or ethical view, and what is actually morally or ethically true, you are indeed pointing to one of the important reasons to take such a thing as objective and authoritative morality seriously. You are right that many people nowadays dismiss the idea of universal morality, but that trend strikes me as a mistake. As it does to philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers; here's a short quote from her:
"Have we not learned a thing or two over the past several thousand years of civilization? To pretend we know nothing about basic decency, about human rights, about vice and virtue, is fatuous and disingenuous. Of course we know that gratuitous cruelty and political repression are wrong, that kindness and political freedom are right and good. Why should we be the first society in history that finds itself hamstrung in the vital task of passing along its moral tradition to the next generation?"
Thanks again for the marvelous note! i suspect God is using you mightily right where you are!
Mr. Baggett, your academic education would be a source of covetousness with me, except for the admonitions of scripture against such things. My career led me to become a construction tradesman instead, finding first apologetics and then the rudiments of philosophy as an informal search for the truth. I am not bitter as the career God led me to was filled with opportunities for great creativity, service to a poorly reached target of evangelism, and my expression of daily worship to God.
I would, however, like to tap into your educational well and draw up an answer to a question that I am presently working on. It is in the difference between Ethics and Morality. There are a couple of things I am trying to incorporate into this suite of ideas, namely the accusations in the Nuremberg Trials against Nazi moral actors and a quote from (of all places) a TV show.
First ,the TV show. Dr. Mallard of NCIS (played by the stellar actor David McCallum) said in one episode, “An ethical man would agree that it is wrong to cheat on one’s wife. A moral man would not cheat on his wife.” I found this statement to bring clarity. I get that Ethics is a set of beliefs about right and wrong that is common to an “ethos.” Its relationship to Morality is as a subsidiary. It is an interpretation of Morality agreed upon by a particular group, in the case of a political jurisdiction, consisting of lists of laws and bylaws, though it has wider connotations. Morality is more universal. All people everywhere accept the fact that It is never a moral act if you are being a jerk to someone, though there may be no laws against “jerkiness.”
The second part is a new addition to my quest. If the above paragraph is true, then the actions of the nazis in the docket can be understood. They were “just obeying" the ethics of the nation. And it would be true also that their defence is dismissed because above all ethical considerations of all nations is a moral duty.
Is my reasoning a good apologetic for the universality of the Moral Order? I find many people dismiss any idea of universal Morality. I do not believe it to be a rational position.
Thank you, Chris for passing this along. I gotta learn this stuff from someone, or as Mr Baggett quotes from scripture, “There is safety in a multitude of counsellors.”
Thank you for this well-written article. The 'moral argument' bothered me as an atheist and helped in understanding my need for God's forgiveness through faith in the risen Christ.
Mark, thanks for that! Yes, I see one of the contributions of the moral argument to be helping us see the need for forgiveness, since we all fall short. And Christianity provides the ideal prescription. We have principled hope for forgiveness for sins, deliverance from shame, grace to be transformed, and even the glorious hope ultimately of being entirely conformed to the image of Christ. Blessings!
Thank you for your thoughtful and timely article. The questions are getting more complicated and the necessary answers are more nuanced. I also appreciate your distinction between the language of “proof” verses the language of "argument or evidence or reasons." This was always a strange idea for me as an attorney given differing standards of "proof" for different types of torts or crimes. Absent a clean argument and persuasive evidence, there can be no determination regarding proof, sufficient or not.
Thanks Kelley! Yes, apologists can often rest content with offering an evidential consideration or two. Some plant, others water, etc. Greg Koukl talks about putting a proverbial pebble in people's shoes. We rarely need to make the full case for the truth of Christianity. We can give a few reasons for the hope within, following the lead of God's Spirit, and trust that God will take our humble offerings, bless them, and multiply them. Blessings!
This is a fantastic article Prof. Baggett. I think your reflections here are very good. As someone who finds abductive moral arguments (such as the one you offer) interesting and worthy of engagement, I'm often disappointed to see that the discourse on this subject is ruined by so many apologists who make bold claims about how objective morality is impossible on Atheism, or other such issues. I'm glad to see pushback on such rhetoric implicitly outlined your article.
Hi Ian (if I may), wonderful to hear from you. Thanks for your note. Regarding the distinction between morality and ethics, some folks do indeed distinguish between them. And doing so is fine as far as I'm concerned as long as it's made clear where the distinction resides. The one you mention is a possibility, for sure. As for myself, although I think the distinction you identify is important, I don't tend to use "morality" and "ethics" differently. I'd more likely just say the moral or ethical person wouldn't either endorse treachery or engage in it.
But as you point out, there is indeed a distinction between recognizing a moral (or ethical) truth and living according to it. Someone might recognize an action as wrong and still do it; as sinful creatures, we all do that from time to time. This is what the quote from NCIS is getting at. The show makes the point by invoking a distinction between what is moral, on the one hand, and what it ethical, on the other. To my thinking, the underlying distinction is what is most important; whether or not to make the distinction using the ethics/morality distinction is another question.
You then get at a similar but subtly different distinction by suggesting that ethics is a matter of interpreting morality in particular contexts, codifying the rules for particular jurisdictions. Morality, in contrast, is more universal.
Again, the underlying distinction is what strikes me as most important. There are some convictions people hold to be ethical (or moral) that fail to pass muster. Martin Luther King, Jr. would talk about "unjust laws," for example, by which he meant that the laws in question failed to conform to the higher moral law.
Just as individuals can get ethics wrong (by, say, becoming moral skeptics), so can whole groups or even nations (by, say, codifying segregation). So ultimately, we are all responsible for thinking hard about ethics/morality rather than simply following the lead of our culture or subculture. This is not to say morality is a wholly individual affair; there is wisdom in an abundance of counselors and we think issues through together in community. How to apply general principles to specific situations can be tricky. But we should not always take as sacrosanct some prevailing view about morality or ethics. Doing so can be a recipe for following the wrong crowd and end up trying to rationalize something morally corrupt. Or in the case of the Nazis, something more hideous than words can say. The ease with which as human beings we can try to rationalize truly horrific things should remind us all of the need to approach ethical questions with real care and soberness. Clay Jones warns we are all susceptible to this; we are all, as he puts it, "Auschwitz-enabled." (The good news of the gospel is that God's grace is available for us to be forgiven, changed, and ultimately, at the day of Christ Jesus, perfected.)
I suspect that God, via the natural law, has made at least general moral principles available to most everyone. C. S. Lewis discusses this at length in his book called The Abolition of Man. The Appendix of that book lists examples of moral or ethical truths that have been recognized the world over throughout history from a wide variety of cultural situations.
By pointing to the distinction between what might be accepted locally as a moral or ethical view, and what is actually morally or ethically true, you are indeed pointing to one of the important reasons to take such a thing as objective and authoritative morality seriously. You are right that many people nowadays dismiss the idea of universal morality, but that trend strikes me as a mistake. As it does to philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers; here's a short quote from her:
"Have we not learned a thing or two over the past several thousand years of civilization? To pretend we know nothing about basic decency, about human rights, about vice and virtue, is fatuous and disingenuous. Of course we know that gratuitous cruelty and political repression are wrong, that kindness and political freedom are right and good. Why should we be the first society in history that finds itself hamstrung in the vital task of passing along its moral tradition to the next generation?"
Thanks again for the marvelous note! i suspect God is using you mightily right where you are!
Thank you David for your response. There is much to chew on included in your post for me. It is something I will read more than once.
Mr. Baggett, your academic education would be a source of covetousness with me, except for the admonitions of scripture against such things. My career led me to become a construction tradesman instead, finding first apologetics and then the rudiments of philosophy as an informal search for the truth. I am not bitter as the career God led me to was filled with opportunities for great creativity, service to a poorly reached target of evangelism, and my expression of daily worship to God.
I would, however, like to tap into your educational well and draw up an answer to a question that I am presently working on. It is in the difference between Ethics and Morality. There are a couple of things I am trying to incorporate into this suite of ideas, namely the accusations in the Nuremberg Trials against Nazi moral actors and a quote from (of all places) a TV show.
First ,the TV show. Dr. Mallard of NCIS (played by the stellar actor David McCallum) said in one episode, “An ethical man would agree that it is wrong to cheat on one’s wife. A moral man would not cheat on his wife.” I found this statement to bring clarity. I get that Ethics is a set of beliefs about right and wrong that is common to an “ethos.” Its relationship to Morality is as a subsidiary. It is an interpretation of Morality agreed upon by a particular group, in the case of a political jurisdiction, consisting of lists of laws and bylaws, though it has wider connotations. Morality is more universal. All people everywhere accept the fact that It is never a moral act if you are being a jerk to someone, though there may be no laws against “jerkiness.”
The second part is a new addition to my quest. If the above paragraph is true, then the actions of the nazis in the docket can be understood. They were “just obeying" the ethics of the nation. And it would be true also that their defence is dismissed because above all ethical considerations of all nations is a moral duty.
Is my reasoning a good apologetic for the universality of the Moral Order? I find many people dismiss any idea of universal Morality. I do not believe it to be a rational position.
Hi Ian, please see Dave's reply to your question above. Thanks!
Thank you, Chris for passing this along. I gotta learn this stuff from someone, or as Mr Baggett quotes from scripture, “There is safety in a multitude of counsellors.”
Thank you for this well-written article. The 'moral argument' bothered me as an atheist and helped in understanding my need for God's forgiveness through faith in the risen Christ.
Mark, thanks for that! Yes, I see one of the contributions of the moral argument to be helping us see the need for forgiveness, since we all fall short. And Christianity provides the ideal prescription. We have principled hope for forgiveness for sins, deliverance from shame, grace to be transformed, and even the glorious hope ultimately of being entirely conformed to the image of Christ. Blessings!
Thank you for your thoughtful and timely article. The questions are getting more complicated and the necessary answers are more nuanced. I also appreciate your distinction between the language of “proof” verses the language of "argument or evidence or reasons." This was always a strange idea for me as an attorney given differing standards of "proof" for different types of torts or crimes. Absent a clean argument and persuasive evidence, there can be no determination regarding proof, sufficient or not.
Thanks Kelley! Yes, apologists can often rest content with offering an evidential consideration or two. Some plant, others water, etc. Greg Koukl talks about putting a proverbial pebble in people's shoes. We rarely need to make the full case for the truth of Christianity. We can give a few reasons for the hope within, following the lead of God's Spirit, and trust that God will take our humble offerings, bless them, and multiply them. Blessings!