In Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality, author Wyndy Corbin Reuschling attempts to answer the question, "What specifically is Christian about Christian ethics?" (10)
In order to answer this question, she interacts with three classic theories of ethics: deontology, teleology, and virtue ethics. She summarizes the three theories:
Deontology is the study of duty or obligation. Teleology is typically understood as the ascertaining and achievement of moral outcomes or ends by considering the consequences of decisions, for the good they achieve or the harm they minimize. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the individual as shaped by and reflected in habits, dispositions, behavior, and decisions. (10)
As she interacts with each theory, she highlights the theory's strengths while also demonstrating how each theory falls short of a robust Christian ethic. Put simply, while each theory offers helpful guidance and provokes critical reflection, each theory must be filtered through a Christian worldview in order to fully ascertain its respective usefulness and shortcomings.
Deontology
Deontology asks, "What ought I to do?" The answer is, "I ought to obey the rules and prescriptions that tell me what I ought to do" (29). Deontology is appealing because its rules are universal and binding for everyone. This straightforward and simplistic morality is not subject to the messiness of complex situations.
Evangelicals find deontology appealing. It supports their view that the primary function of the Bible is to provide universal rules that are binding for all people. Problems arise, however, when we restrict
ethics to just following principles, rules, and commands, and the Bible to a mere instrument in helping me understand what ought I to do. Moral formation requires more than just the ability to follow principles and rules. We need the requisite discernment, practical wisdom, and virtues to know how these principles are to be lived out in a variety of diverse contexts. We need a moral character disposed to act in certain ways, and we need a moral vision around which to orient our lives. (69-70)
This also fails to place biblical commands in the appropriate context of a personal and gracious covenant with God: "the Decalogue's obligatory character arises out of the covenantal relationship and assumes the first table [the first four commandments] as a required starting point" (74-75).
Obedience alone is no virtue: "Obedience itself is not a virtue if by this I mean that obedience as obedience is inherently good" (82). Obedience is not an end in itself. Obedience to a misguided moral norm is dehumanizing and destructive. Obedience to a flawed moral norm would be a vice rather than a virtue - the coward's way out.
Christians do not obey for the sake of obedience, but in order to "develop virtues and fulfill obligations consonant with the moral vision of scripture around which our lives are oriented, which is to 'be imitators of God, therefore as dearly loved children' and 'to live a life of love, just as Christ loved us' (Eph. 5:1-2)" (81).
Teleology
Teleology asks, "What kinds of outcome will this decision produce, or what desired end will this achieve?" (29) According to John Stuart Mill, the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of pain are the universal ends we all pursue.
Teleology is appealing because it fits well with the American conviction that individuals are endued with personal rights to pursue happiness in any form they desire. It also "appeals to the pragmatic bent of much of American church life, which values what works, what is efficient, and what produces desired results" (50).
The problem with teleology is that the "means can be justified by the ends that they produce, even though the means themselves are morally questionable and dubious" (50). Put simply: It is easy to rationalize that the ends justify the means when a desired outcome is one's predominant consideration in moral reflection.
John Stuart Mill sought the "greatest good for the greatest number." This principle can become oppressive and cannot be wholeheartedly embraced by the Christian vision: "this emphasis on the greatest good for the greatest number and what serves their needs is in contrast to the scriptural obligations to care for the least of these, for the minority and for those on margins of social and political power" (93).
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics asks, "What kind of moral character is needed, and what kind of moral character will be shaped by my actions and behaviors?" (30) The "good life" is a life of well-being through virtuous living, seeking to conform our lives to what is excellent, good, and true.
Virtue ethics is appealing to those who assume spiritual formation - growing in the fruit of the Spirit, sanctification, godliness, etc. - consists of various virtues inculcated in one's character over the course of time.
Certainly, integrity and character matter. The challenge is to make sure virtue does not capitulate to the therapeutic. For too many,
self-fulfillment, self-discovery, and self-expression are the aims of an individual's life. Religion therefore becomes just one means by which an individual finds self-fulfillment and meaning, and can easily be changed or discarded if it fails to do so ... Whereas religion may once have provided the glue and coherence for moral commitments and a sense of community, religion is now that which is self-chosen for the benefits it provides to an individual seeking his or her own sense of well-being and wholeness, thereby fragmenting and disintegrating the moral frameworks that religious faith provides for adherents. (126)
Conclusion
This is a helpful overview of three major ethical systems. I couldn't help but wonder as I read this book if perhaps all three theories may be integrated together to provide a robust and complex foundation for ethics. Reducing ethics to one question seems to simplify the very nature of ethics.
What if deontology theory may best help in evaluating our social responsibilities toward one another, teleological theory in consideration of the future impact of our present actions, and virtue ethics in regard to our personal character formation? In other words, deontology is other-oriented, teleology is future-oriented, and virtue ethics is self-oriented. Obviously, each overlaps. But this overlap may be the very point in which a more robust ethical theory that takes into account all these theories may take form.
Regardless of my wild speculations, this was a very helpful book treating a very important topic. The formation of a distinctly Christian ethic is a great and exciting challenge to all Christians.
Quotes excerpted from Reviving Evangelical Ethics: The Promises and Pitfalls of Classic Models of Morality by Wyndy Corbin Reuschling
© Richard J. Vincent, 2008
Leave a comment