Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Judeo-Christian Morality in an Ethically Pluralistic Society
That headline is the subject of a symposium called by Evangelical Outpost for the second quarter of the year. Joe is posting the entires as they come in.
I have to be honest, the idea strikes me as a little odd. In my youth, many rejected faith because, "All religions are pretty much the same." By that, they generally meant that the ethical codes of all religions were pretty much the same, which is a true statement. Of course, it ignores all other aspects of religious faith than ethics, but ethics is the topic here.
Anyone who has had even an introductory course in Old Testament is generally wowed by the striking similarities of the Code of Hammurabi to the Torah. The idea of a significant "ethical pluralism" is a one that I do not think mankind has really struggled with since Old Testament times.
The reason is because of the one very unique innovation of Jewish thought -- MONOTHEISM. In polytheistic society, differing ethical codes could be held up as associated with the various gods, but it was monotheism that put the stamp on a specific ethic. In the western world, monotheism has been the predominant school of thought for many centuries, and thus the idea of ethical plurality has been somewhat foreign.
I argue that any ethical system needs some sort of religious impetus behind it to give it necessary authority, or else it will be little more than words. In the end governmental authority cannot enforce an ethical code without becoming entirely too oppressive. Ultimately, a populace will reject such governmental authority. Only religious authority, which seeks to motivate the populace from within rather than through oppression can result in the widespread acceptance of an ethical code.
This fact has been so well known that governments have usually tried to claim religious/ethical authority for themselves, from Pharoh (or the Chinese emperor) being a god to Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the state, to Henry VIII as head of the anglican church, those of government authority have usurped the authority of religion.
America is somewhat unique in its efforts to separate these two authorities. But here is where the rub begins to come. The Founding Fathers began the separation experiment on the assumption that society did indeed have a common ethic, regardless of which particular religion provided that ethic with its authority.
So why the history lesson? Simply to argue that I do not really think that the problem is a "Judeo-Christian" ethic, but an authoritative ethic of any sort. Anytime I have heard anybody offer some sort of secular ethical system, it has been such a slippery thing, that it was menaingless.
The issue as I see from a totally functional standpoint is can our nation survive without a common ethic? Given that the vast majority of people in the nation are either Christian or Jewish, which ethic should dominate is hardly a question.
I would argue that our nation cannot continue to enjoy the prosperity and dominance that it has without a common ethic. When people talk about the moral fall of the Roman Empire preceding its political fall, this is really what they are referring to; as the empire grew and did not aculturate those that it conquered, chaos ensued and the empire fell.
There is a difference between a society and a nation. A nation is defined by a border and by governmental institutions, but a society is defined by the common goals, aspirations, and values of those living in it. A nation functions, but a society lives.
In a state of ethical plurality, the nation may continue, but the society breaks down. This is the direction I think the United States is headed in if we cannot agree to a common ethic. I desire more than mere functionality for my personal life, and for the life of my society.
The best case in favor of a Judeo-Christian ethic that I have ever read is the one that Dennis Prager has been serially publishing at Townhall.com. At this point he has published ten such pieces. Here they are:
I have to be honest, the idea strikes me as a little odd. In my youth, many rejected faith because, "All religions are pretty much the same." By that, they generally meant that the ethical codes of all religions were pretty much the same, which is a true statement. Of course, it ignores all other aspects of religious faith than ethics, but ethics is the topic here.
Anyone who has had even an introductory course in Old Testament is generally wowed by the striking similarities of the Code of Hammurabi to the Torah. The idea of a significant "ethical pluralism" is a one that I do not think mankind has really struggled with since Old Testament times.
The reason is because of the one very unique innovation of Jewish thought -- MONOTHEISM. In polytheistic society, differing ethical codes could be held up as associated with the various gods, but it was monotheism that put the stamp on a specific ethic. In the western world, monotheism has been the predominant school of thought for many centuries, and thus the idea of ethical plurality has been somewhat foreign.
I argue that any ethical system needs some sort of religious impetus behind it to give it necessary authority, or else it will be little more than words. In the end governmental authority cannot enforce an ethical code without becoming entirely too oppressive. Ultimately, a populace will reject such governmental authority. Only religious authority, which seeks to motivate the populace from within rather than through oppression can result in the widespread acceptance of an ethical code.
This fact has been so well known that governments have usually tried to claim religious/ethical authority for themselves, from Pharoh (or the Chinese emperor) being a god to Constantine making Christianity the official religion of the state, to Henry VIII as head of the anglican church, those of government authority have usurped the authority of religion.
America is somewhat unique in its efforts to separate these two authorities. But here is where the rub begins to come. The Founding Fathers began the separation experiment on the assumption that society did indeed have a common ethic, regardless of which particular religion provided that ethic with its authority.
So why the history lesson? Simply to argue that I do not really think that the problem is a "Judeo-Christian" ethic, but an authoritative ethic of any sort. Anytime I have heard anybody offer some sort of secular ethical system, it has been such a slippery thing, that it was menaingless.
The issue as I see from a totally functional standpoint is can our nation survive without a common ethic? Given that the vast majority of people in the nation are either Christian or Jewish, which ethic should dominate is hardly a question.
I would argue that our nation cannot continue to enjoy the prosperity and dominance that it has without a common ethic. When people talk about the moral fall of the Roman Empire preceding its political fall, this is really what they are referring to; as the empire grew and did not aculturate those that it conquered, chaos ensued and the empire fell.
There is a difference between a society and a nation. A nation is defined by a border and by governmental institutions, but a society is defined by the common goals, aspirations, and values of those living in it. A nation functions, but a society lives.
In a state of ethical plurality, the nation may continue, but the society breaks down. This is the direction I think the United States is headed in if we cannot agree to a common ethic. I desire more than mere functionality for my personal life, and for the life of my society.
The best case in favor of a Judeo-Christian ethic that I have ever read is the one that Dennis Prager has been serially publishing at Townhall.com. At this point he has published ten such pieces. Here they are:
There is more at stake here than simply finding a "place" for a specific ethic in a pluralistic society. The society itself is at stake.
