SCRIPTURE AS GOD’S PRECEDENT FOR CHOOSING THE GREATER GOOD WHEN FACED WITH CONFLICTING ABSOLUTES. BY Sarah Renee 2 INTRODUCTION There are scores of stories from World War II about underground operations that worked solely to hide Jews and young men being forced into the draft, but not many as famous as Corrie Ten Boom’s Dutch underground network. When one reads her autobiography, The Hiding Place, and realizes that Corrie and her family were Christian, inevitably the age-old question of moral dilemma comes to mind. As a Christian, is it permissible to lie, as Corrie did, when the Gestapo came looking for the Jews she was hiding?1 Or does one tell the truth in all cases, because lying would be a sin, as St. Augustine purports one should do no matter what the consequences are?2 This dilemma is what is known as Conflicting Absolutes. When a Christian, or Absolutist, is faced with two choices that invariably conflict, what is the right course of action? In the following paper, the author will make the case that there is indeed a specific course for Christians to take and that it has been laid out for us in Scripture all along. ABSOLUTISM Absolute morality is considered a prescriptive duty, meaning that it is what one ought to do in an ethical dilemma. Absolutes are objective, eternal, and universal, “binding on all persons at all times in all places.”3 This belief is consistent with the theistic worldview, because for absolutes to be universal, they must have come from some universal source. Apologists Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler write, “It is impossible to arrive at an objective, universal, and 1 Ten Boom, Corrie. The Hiding Place. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Chosen Books, 2006. (Kindle 2 Edition). Chapter 7, Paragraph 11. 2 Geisler, Norman L. Christian Ethics, Options and Issues. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1989. (Kindle 2 Edition).Chapter 5, Paragraph 6. 3 Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999, p. 501. 3 constant standard of truth and morality without bringing God onto the stage. If an objective standard of truth and morality exists, it cannot be the product of the human mind (or it will not be objective); it must be the product of another mind.”4 In his book, The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis gives a comprehensive list of laws that are similar across a large number of people groups. In another book, Mere Christianity, he calls this phenomena “The Law of Human Nature” because it is a list of impulses that come natural to humans.5 If there is a universal moral law, then it follows that there must be a universal moral law Giver. Alternatives to a universal moral law Giver There are many different approaches man takes to determine what is moral, but absolutism is the only avenue that is logical and not self-defeating. For example, in Atheism, evolutionary theory states that self-preservation is man’s automatic first response. This would be the opposite of morality because morals require one to do the right thing in a given situation. If the right thing goes against one’s personal desires, why should one do it? In this worldview man gets excused from doing the right thing based on subjective feelings. If an Atheist was hiding Jews and was told by the Gestapo that he will be rewarded instead of punished for revealing them, in order to be consistent with his beliefs, he would have to give up the Jews, but most people know this is not the right, or moral, course of action. Ethics simply cannot exist in an evolutionary worldview without stealing from Theism/absolutism. Another view is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The right thing to do in an ethical dilemma, according to Kant, is what you could will everyone to do under the same circumstance. It has to be able to be universalized. For example, no one should lie because if 4 Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler. Right from Wrong, Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1994, p. 81 5 Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing, 1943, p.18. 4 lying was universal, there would be no more truth to lie about, and then lying would become impossible, (the same goes for killing). If an action would not work universally, Kant would determine it the wrong one. However, the theory of the categorical imperative is subjective because the reasoning of the human being is the deciding factor on whether or not a specific action should be universalized and every human comes to an ethical dilemma with differing backgrounds. Lastly, there is moral relativism to consider. Moral relativism is self-defeating because it denies absolutism. Esteemed authors and apologists Dr. Norman Geisler and Josh McDowell write, “There is no way to deny absolutes without utilizing an absolute… When someone insists that no absolutes exist, he or she unwittingly admits to at least one. In reality, there is no way to avoid absolutes.”6 If any one person holds a view on morality that they expect to be carried out by others, then they hold an absolute view of morality, regardless of what they title it. C.S. Lewis writes that people say things like “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?” and “Come on, you promised” everyday. He observes that “the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about.”7 This shows that absolutism is the most logical and natural of the moral worldviews that exist in the world today. CONFLICTING ABSOLUTISM However, once a person adheres to the view of moral absolutism, what happens when two of those absolutes conflict in the same situation? What course of action should one take? The 6 Geisler and McDowell, Love is Always Right, Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996, p. 21 7 Lewis, p. 17 5 dilemma of conflicting absolutes has been floating through philosophical circles for thousands of years. First, it is helpful to examine the arguments against absolutism based on moral conflict so as to give the reader a broader scope of the issue. The first critique is unqualified absolutism. This theory was first offered by St. Augustine. Its basic premise is as follows: “all moral conflicts are only apparent, they are not real. Sin is always avoidable. There are moral absolutes that admit of no exceptions and these never actually come into conflict with one another… [Should one] ever lie to save a life? … No!”8 Augustine purports that even if one does not lie to save a life, one will be not be held responsible if a death should result at the hands of another. Thomas Aquinas also believed in unqualified absolutism, but he had a bit of a different view. Aquinas believed that like Augustine, lying is never okay, but not just because lying itself was a sin. He stated that the apparent moral dilemma resulted from a lack of knowledge of a third alternative on the part of the person in the decision role9. However, a third alternative is not guaranteed to be available. Geisler states, “it is both unrealistic and unbiblical to assume that moral obligations never conflict,” and goes on to give the example of a tubal pregnancy where there are only two options: terminate the pregnancy or let the mother and the baby die.10 To this some Christians will challenge that a third alternative will eventually present itself by saying, “Why do anything yet? Just hope for a miracle!” However, we cannot just sit back and hope God intervenes or count on a miracle. It is not that God cannot perform the miracle it just may not be in His perfect will to do so. Also, we are never to test God, (Matt. 4:7). There may be a reason or a purpose behind the dilemma and God gives his children the needed faculties to make a decision when necessary. 8 Geisler, Christian Ethics. Chapter 5, Paragraph 3. 9 Reference Needed. 10 Geisler, Christian Ethics. Chapter 5, Paragraph 70. 6 Now that is has been shown that moral absolutes do indeed exist, conflict, and are most times unavoidable, one must look under the umbrella of conflicting moral absolutes and see the two views offered there. The Lesser Evil View Conflicting absolutes can be viewed in two different ways. The first, the “lesser evil” view, states that, like Augustine and Aquinas’ unqualified absolutism, both courses of action are evil. However, it is better to do the lesser of the two evils and trust that God’s forgiveness is there after having completed it. No matter which decision one chooses, they will have sinned and will be held accountable for that sin until they ask for forgiveness. This view has one major problem, as Dr. Geisler points out, “Would an all-wise, all-loving God judge someone guilty for doing what was unavoidable? If our best choice is the lesser of two evils, is it right for God to blame us for doing the best we could do? Hardly. It seems inconsistent with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture to set up absolute but conflicting commands and then pronounce us guilty for choosing one of them, even if it is the best choice. A person is guilty only if the action is avoidable.”11 The author presents the following dilemma to those holding the lesser evil view: What about missionaries who smuggle Bibles into countries where they are illegal? There is a deception taking place, yet they are following Jesus’ commandment to go and make disciples of all nations.12 Can one really say that it is wrong to attempt to bring the gospel, and in turn eternal life, simply because there is a matter of subterfuge involved? Proverbs 3:27 even states, “When it 11 Geisler and McDowell, Love is Always Right, Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1996, p.