Ethics Class Student Submitted Questions

Course Wrap-Up and the Final Project

4 .30 so it is that time. Time for us to begin the end. This is our final class in our introduction to Christian ethics and tonight's class is what we call students choice which means that each of you have the opportunity to send in a ethical question for me to teach on and I have in front of me seven specific questions that were provided.

Some of you provided them, some of the online students provided them. If you did not get your question to me or if I don't if it's not on my list here and you sent it in I want to begin by saying I apologize.

People sent them in different ways some emailed them some messaged me so I kind of got this sort of hodgepodge of having to drag out and look and even you like we talked the other day you gave it to me in person and I typed it into my phone.

It's in here though your questions in here so next time I do this I want to I'll make it more standardized but I did the best I could. So I have seven specific questions if we did not include if you're in person and we did not include your question I'll try to save some time at the end to go over that as well and once we take our break after we take our break we're going to come back and talk about the final exam which is the final project which is I have a hand or printed copy here you still have to do it digitally you have to do it online but you can have a handwritten or a printed copy if you if you want to take it home and and and use that to practice with before you take the actual digital test.

So let's begin with a word of prayer. Father we do thank you for now for the opportunity to be here in this class. We thank you for loving us and giving us your word by which we can measure all things and come to ethical determinations and decisions.

I pray Oh God for clarity. I pray that this class will have benefited us and how we search the scriptures to find truth and Lord that where those areas are where there are difficulties in finding the right answer help us to not let us come to the conclusion that you don't know what the answer is but Lord that we might seek your heart and mind knowing that you always know what is right.

We pray and ask that you be with us now as we study in Jesus name Amen. Over the past seven weeks we have looked at a variety of ethical issues. In week one we asked the question why do we study ethics?

We said it was to help us conform our understanding to the perfect standard of God. We asked the question what is goodness or virtue? We said good is ultimately God. God is the standard of all goodness and therefore when we seek to determine what is virtuous it is against him and him being the standard.

We talked about in the second week biblical law and different perspectives on biblical law. We talked about the Torah observant groups, the tripartite groups, the the Theonomic groups and and New Covenant priority.

We talked about those who would argue that grace is an excuse for sin and we talked about Romans 14 and how sometimes there are cases where certain things are subjective meaning ultimately up to the individual where he has to not violate his own conscience.

In week three we looked at life ethics which included abortion, reproduction and genetics. In week four we looked at death ethics which included suicide, euthanasia and capital punishment. In week five we looked at war ethics which included pacifism, just war theory, personal protection and defense.

Week six we looked at sex ethics. A little slip of the tongue there. We looked at marriage and divorce, fornication, adultery, polyamory and what's sometimes referred to as alternative lifestyle issues.

And then last week we looked at money ethics. We looked at poverty as a virtue which some people claim that poverty is a virtue. Economic systems and then work and vocation. So that leads us up to tonight.

We've covered a lot of ground in only the past two months and I hope that you have not only listened to the lectures in class but I hope that you've also been doing the reading because the reading should be helping you fill in some of the gaps.

We only have an hour and a half in class so reading helps you fill in the gaps and I would I would wonder you know what you thought of the textbook and I'll give you an opportunity if anybody wants to share what what were your any thoughts that you've drawn from the textbook readings?

Did you thought it was helpful? Okay. Anything specific? It certainly presents you with a lot of different thoughts on these different subjects and different things you have to do. Yeah. Was there any areas you disagreed with the book maybe?

That's a good question. Anybody come did you read anything where you said yeah I don't know if I would go there or maybe found something that was disagreeable? Okay. Well if you're online listening and you did please leave it leave a message for that.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. I you know when I'm reading through the textbooks for these classes and everything I'm often kind of kind of looking for areas that I might disagree so that I can give warnings you know well on page this or whatever this is where I may differ with the teacher and sometimes I do.

Yes. Yes. Genetic engineering for sure. Sure. Sure. And some of those questions and I agree with you I would I would have strong opinions on some of them though you know are so new in the sense that these questions are have only been around for a few years in the sense that you know I mean even one of the questions we're going to deal with tonight which is one of one of the questions that was submitted by a student deals with in vitro fertilization.

I mean this is only really something that the our generation and the generation before us have had to deal with for that's not something that our ancestors had to ask because things that those types of technologies didn't exist and as technologies grow there's going to be more questions and wondering about are we playing God are we are we diving it are we going to an area that we shouldn't go and so yes absolutely and yeah just went dove right in.

Yeah well before we get to the seven questions and if no one has anything else from the book I see AJ's looking at and if you had a thought yeah as I said the book is short but I think it makes some good points and introduces some good concepts and like like you mentioned Bert there is a larger textbook that is certainly includes a lot more information.

Sure. So as we begin tonight to look at the seven questions we're going to address and by the way if we go through these too quickly which I don't suspect we will I also brought the questions from the last class remember I taught this class two years ago and they gave me seven questions.

No nine questions that I have to add to our seven so if we get if we run through the seven questions and we just get it snappy then we'll have nine more we can tackle but I don't think we're going to I'm I'll be surprised if we actually make it through the seven that we're going to look at.

Yes you don't have to this is it tonight's a free open discussion none of this will be on the test. This is for us to have a conversation and try to apply there's like a practice this is almost like a when you take a science class this is like a lab.

Right. We're doing the work tonight working out our thoughts. And with that being said we have said from the beginning that the foundation for ethics is the character of God Christian ethics the character of God.

And there are two if you will subdivisions of this that we need to consider and that is the idea of principles and virtues. I'm sorry I did that wrong. It should be virtues virtues to be on the left. So excuse me virtues and principles virtues and principles virtues would be that which is that which we see as a good.

A virtue is something that is a good and a principle is a an ethical maxim based upon that goodness. So these are the maxims that result from the virtues. So the way this works and we've talked about this in previous classes but just to remind you so for instance on a very simple basis if we say that life is good I hope we would all agree that life is good from a biblical perspective we certainly know from God because we're saying this is Christian ethics therefore character of God.

God created life. Life is good. Therefore murder is wrong. All right. So that's why you start with the virtue life is good. Murder is is is a violation of God's character. It's a violation of that which is good.

So another virtue would be something like private property. We discussed this last week when we were discussing capitalism socialism and communism we said one of the one of my biggest issues with socialism and communism particularly communism is the is the removal of the concept of private property that everything's owned by the state or everything's owned by the community rather than being owned by the individual and having private ownership.

And so if private property is a good thing what would be the the principle. Now that's actually pretty funny. No what's that. What's the actual end up. Stealing is bad stealing. And we could do this all day.

We could talk about different virtues. You know truth is good therefore lying is bad. You know you just make yourself down the list. Well this is the way that we're going to examine these seven questions.

We're going to say okay this question asked a question about some virtue. We're going to seek to discover what the virtue is and come to a consensus. Okay what's what's at stake here. And maybe it might be more than one thing.

The first question actually I think has more than one virtue at stake. And then you have the question. Okay so what's the what's the principle that we draw from that what law is does God give regarding this.

And and what's it based on. Okay so simple enough. Let's look then first at question number one and some of these I have reworded slightly some people send in questions. They were worded a little difficult a little difficultly.

So I went in reworded them. First one is mandatory military service ethical is mandatory military service ethical. First I want to just say the person who gave the question is a military veteran. So I I don't know this for certain.

It was brother Mike Smith. He's in he's in Arizona. I believe he's going to still listen to this class. Him and miss Deborah will probably still hear this. So hello from Florida to Arizona. But I the way that he asked the question seemed to me like he thought mandatory military service was a good thing.

So I'm assuming that though I could be wrong. I'm basing that on just the way the question was proposed. And so we want to start with the question of okay what what virtues are are in play here. This is a little less this is a little less easy then then you know these this one's a little more thoughtful.

We have to kind of dig a little what virtues at play when we talk about something being mandatory I'm going to race give us a room. What's what virtues are at play. We talk about something mandatory. Well let's just deal first with that being mandatory and then we'll get to the the idea of ethics of war.

But just first something being mandatory that that would deal with it. What ethic or what virtue choice. Who said choice. That's that's that was what I have. I said it deals with freedom choice right.

So right away when you talk about something being mandatory you're automatically dealing with people's ability to make a choice right. And a choice at least from a simple perspective the Bible clearly teaches that human choice is dangerous but good.

It's dangerous like we see humans make bad choices. But doesn't the Bible call us to make choices right. You choose this day whom you will serve right. We see that in Joshua we see all throughout Scripture the command to make good choices right which means we have the right or the ability at least to make choices.

And so what's what's at play. And I'm gonna put this next to the word choice is the word autonomy which means self-government right. The ability to to to choose one's own to will to do what one wants to do.

One of the most difficult things I have outside of just the issue of private property in regard to communism is the other issue of lack of autonomy freedom. You can't just do what you feel called to do or feel led to do.

You have certain things that you can't do or you have to do based upon government oversight and so this is the issue at play is the issue of choice and autonomy. But we said mandatory military service.

So there's other virtues at play. What's another virtue in that question. Yeah the military is a good thing. Right. We would say the government is called to bear the sword. Right. We read that about Romans 13.

So so so the government has a place I would just say under virtues military and I'm just going to put equal a a national defense. National defense is a good thing. So now we have two virtues that are somewhat conflicting.

You see how this begins to create the issue with how we do ethics. Right. Because military is a national defense need that every country has a need for a national defense. Because if a country doesn't have a national defense what is it going to be not a country very long.

Right. Because another country that has a strong national power is going to come and overtake that country. So a country needs a strong national defense. And so if there is no national defense there's probably not going to be a country very long.

So we have two competing goods the good of national defense and the good of personal autonomy. So now we have the concerns that the further questions. Okay the question of the individual should all people serve in the military.

Some would say yes. Some would say no. But the the should anyone be allowed not to serve by virtue of their conscience. And this gets back to just war. Right. What if somebody is and I hate I'm going to put this under under virtue only because this is what they would see as a virtue not because I necessarily think it is.

What if somebody saw themselves as a pacifist that had to be a Christian pacifist just a pacifist in general they say I am a person who does not believe in pacifism. And there's actually a term that was used in Vietnam when a person didn't want to serve what they call them conscientious objector.

A conscientious objector meaning they looked at the the conflict and based on their conscience they could not support the war and therefore they objected to the war. They did not want to serve famous conscientious objector.

Anyone have an idea. Mr. Muhammad Ali. Mr. Muhammad Ali made some very colorful statements regarding the Vietnamese and the Americans and you know you know made himself a target of people who considered themselves patriotic because they felt like he was being unpatriotic by being unwilling to serve right.

And so that's a whole other part of the conversation. So how do we begin to narrow this down. The first thing I think we have to consider is we have to consider how these virtues become principles. Does a person who lives in a nation have responsibilities to that nation by being a citizen.

So we all have citizenship citizenship responsibilities. So none of us have complete autonomy. Have you ever heard the phrase sovereign citizen. You know what that is. That is a that is a well I say relatively recent within the last generation or so there have been people who've come out and claimed that they are sovereign citizens meaning that they are not under the legal requirements of the United States but they themselves constitute a sovereign person who's not under the law of the land.

And you know how long that lasts when they violate the law of the land. Not very long because whether they like it or not they are under the law of the land. And if you you can call yourself a sovereign citizen but as soon as you violate the law to a certain point you're going to have the law bear down upon you.

Because even though you have certain amount of choice no one has complete freedom. Right. No one has complete freedom. So the question of is mandatory military service ethical begins with the with the issue of how much choice and how much freedom is required by the government to give us.

And that becomes difficult because the Bible doesn't say how much go how much freedom the government is required to give us. What it tells us is we are not to obey if the government calls us to disobey God.

Right. If the government calls us to disobey God then we do not have the responsibility to obey. But other than that if the government calls us to do something that is not disobeying God we have to consider where that fits into our own ethical paradigm.

I don't think it is right to send a pacifist to war. I would I would say right away if a person legitimately has a issue with using firearms or whatever can't have that as within their conscience I think that would right away make it to where it can't be universally mandated because I don't think the government should violate a person's conscience in that way.

I'm gonna give my opinion I want to hear yours. I'm gonna hear your thoughts but right away that one would affect me. Yes. Yeah that's what I'm saying. And that goes back. I don't know if you remember this but in our just war class I talked about the fact that there's two types of pacifism.

There's there's non-violent pacifism which said which would say we can't I can't fight but I could be a medic or or a military missionary or a minister chaplain. And there's some like the movie Hacksaw Ridge that guy was willing to be a medic but not be a fighter.

Okay. But the other side of that comes to the question of the non-participatory pacifist someone who says by by participating at all I'm violating my conscience and therein would be the biggest hurdle for me to force a person to do that.

Other thoughts on this. Yes yeah that's a great question and that's a great thought. You know I wonder how that works in Israel because I do know that's I didn't get to this but Israel does require two years of military service and what's interesting they require it for men and women which to me I'm good.

I haven't gotten there yet but that's another issue for me. I don't believe military service should be required of women but that for me is based upon a biblical principle that the people who fought in God's nation were always fighting men women and children and elderly men were not expected to fight.

It was fighting men and so I have that as a as part of my if if the government said I want your daughters I would have to say no. Right. I think so too I think. Yeah absolutely so. But but looking at Israel I wonder how they deal with people who are and I don't know because I've never looked into it but I do wonder how they would deal with keeping a good quality military when they're requiring everyone to do this so be interesting to see how that worked out on a qualitative level.

It's good very very good thought. Any other thoughts any questions. Where do we end up on this. Sometimes they sometimes answers are hard. I think that a government has the right to recruit. This is my thinking.

But again you tell me if you think I'm wrong this I think the government because of the need for national defense does have the right to recruit in times of necessity men to to to battle. But I do not think that it is incumbent upon all time at all places that every man should be forced to do this.

That's where I based upon the first based upon some that men should be given a choice but that in times of national emergency it could be and so in that sense I guess I would be a proponent of a form of selective service but as I've you guys don't know this and and I don't mean to go way off on a weird thing coming on November 4th we're having a set free benefit here at the church and it's going to have a variety show and what I'm going to be doing a little comedy act for the variety show and one of the things I was going to jokingly talk about in the variety act was the idea of being drafted because I have never had a desire to be in the military and I just think drafts for me the easiest thing in the world would just be be really bad at it and they wouldn't want you.

But that goes back to the quality. I would just be really bad not on purpose but I just don't think I would do good. I don't. I think they would be like I think we're better off without Keith. We're gonna send Keith home so but you see how this how this is going to work for the other questions we begin by saying okay what are the virtues at play how do they work out.

And where can we find a legitimate answer. And as I said to me I think the legitimate answer is there are times when the nation needs to call upon its men and those men should be willing if called upon to serve.

So that would be why I think that based upon as long as again and this comes back to to the question of legitimacy of war. Right. If there is a if there is a sense in which we can't go because it's an ungodly thing that comes back to I'm not going to let the government force me to sin so that and that's that's difficult too because when we when we discuss the subject of legitimate wars and we talked about that in in our just war class so I know we didn't come to a perfect answer but I hope that's helpful.

Yes you look like you have a thought. Yes. Yeah. I should have wrote freedom up there. Yes. Yes. I agree. Yeah. And that's a good point. This is required for that in case you didn't hear if you're at home what Bert just said is great to have freedom of choice.

There has to be a defense of that freedom of choice. So there's got to be responsibility too as as we say you know responsibility comes with with those things. Yes sir now I think that's great. A who among us if we are godly men would not stand with a godly government.

If it were a godly government. So good. Yeah. Absolutely yes. Yeah. Indeed. Yeah. So that takes us out of question one and for time I we're going to move on to question two. I said I said I always thought this is the most fun class because we just really dive into some of these.

Whether Christians May Tell Other Religions They Are Wrong

Okay now this next question was sent in by my my buddy Claude he's a pastor and this question might at the at the at the start seem like it has a simple answer but I want again I want to dive deep into this as we think about it.

The question is this is it ethical to present the exclusivity of the Christian religion as being the only true religion of saving faith over against other religions such as Judaism Islam and all others.

And you just put anything else you want in there. And so yeah I heard somebody say yes I I wrote I reworked I rewrote it as a shorter question. Is it ethical to tell other religions that they are wrong.

That's what he's asking. Is it ethical to say to the Jew you have rejected Christ and therefore you are wrong. Or to the to the sound just seemed like you were. Yeah. It just seemed like you were making a point.

So let's go back to the virtues here. Virtues. Okay first virtue. We just talked about this virtue freedom. Right. So is it a virtue to say that every man has the right to choose what he's going to believe.

We want to say yes. We want to say huh most Americans. And again this isn't an era American ethics classes Christian. But most Americans would affirm the right for each man to choose how and if and who he's going to worship right.

And so that's what I mean when I say the virtue at stake is freedom. But then someone would say well I'm not violating anyone's freedom by telling them that they're wrong. Right. So so that's where the that's where my initial answer would be telling someone they're wrong would not be violating their freedom.

It would simply be my understanding of God versus their understanding of God. Me telling them that they're wrong would not be unethical. But here's where the here's where the rubber begins to get closer to the road.

What if fidelity to Christianity was made legally mandatory. That's a different question. Isn't it. Because now we're not saying I can tell the Jew that they're wrong for not worshiping Christ. Or I can tell the Muslim that they have a wrong understanding of Christ.

But what if we had a theocracy. And the theocracy said that while you have every right to believe what you want in your brain you must adhere to the Christian faith. And you must go to church and you must read only the Bible.

And you must be baptized. And you must obey the church's understanding of God's law. See where that. And you might say I'm changing the argument. Well I am in a sense because I think this is where the debate would come in.

Would that be right to tell men that under penalty of law they must be Christian. No I want to hear. No it is. It's it's I'm gonna write a word on the board. I'm sure it's on your mind. It's the principle of theonomy.

Theonomy is the idea that all of the government should be submissive submitted to God's law. Theonomy means God's law. So the idea is that whether you're Christian or not you should be subject to God's law which you are.

Everybody's gonna be judged for it. Right. Everybody's gonna be judged according to God's law. But that's essentially what we're talking about. And and I don't know if you and I've ever really discussed our views on this.

But this is the big when you talk about the big debate this is where it is. And there's different views. There's the Reconstructionist view and different things that that that come out on different places on this you know.

Because what happens. I know you want to say something. Let me just finish my thought. What happens. Is you you end up with questions of like okay. Well what about the issue of like something like homosexuality.

Okay right now it's it's against the law. In certain places they still have sodomy laws on the books. But in general it's it's it's overlooked. It's not enforced. But what if it were enforced would we be in would we be in favor of of homosexuality as being not only a sin but a law.

I I get what you're saying. I yeah. No no you're right. You're right. And so I love that you said there's no neutrality. I say that all the time it's Christ or chaos. It's not. It's not that you have Christ and other potential.

Good. That's right. What we gonna say Bert question for people at home who maybe couldn't hear Bert. Bert asked the question where does the Constitution play in this. Or how do you view the Constitution in this regard.

Okay. Sure the men who wrote the Constitution though not all of them were Christian they were they had a more ingrained biblical worldview and that I think goes back to even AJ's point about the neutrality.

It's two worldviews. It's either a biblical worldview where there's a God who makes laws and we must obey those laws. Or a atheistic law worldview which says the universe is chaos. Right. Or any other form of you know religion.

So yes we can argue the the the benefit or not the benefit the reality that the founding fathers were dealing in a in a much different framework than we are now. We live in a syncra syncra syncratistic world where all religions are seen as being equally valid and equally valuable.

And certainly that's not true. And that goes back to the question that that Claude asked is it right to tell them it's not true. That's what I say absolutely have to. We have to say that these other religions are false and damnable and dangerous.

And some would say that's unethical but I would say we have to be able to say that. The question is is the mandating of it. I think. Yes sure I think and while I would agree that we can't force anybody to be a believer where we're talking about is the issue of what what what standard the government governs under so that that would step away from that slightly.

But I understand what you're saying and that's where I say we can't we can in no way shape or form mandate Christianity as a faith because you can't make somebody believe you can't give someone faith I can't make someone elect.

And so that's you know that's something. And I know we've gone beyond what Claude has asked here I think would we all agree that it's not unethical to tell someone that Christianity is true and other religions are false.

We all agree with that. Okay that that part we have. And then like I said not and I took it to a strange place but I went to you know theonomy because like I said let me add one other thought of this the danger of going too far.

Another direction is the danger of having a religious system. Well let me back up having a church denomination that's the standard versus simply an understanding of God and his nature. So so for instance there was a time historically not in America but in Europe where to be a Baptist meaning that you rejected infant baptism could be punishable by death.

And there were if you've ever heard of the third baptism the third baptism was the people who had been baptized as babies rejected that received believers baptism and then were drowned for it. They called it their third baptism.

And so as a as a Baptist I have a somewhat of a allergic reaction when I start thinking about the mandating of church denominational standards. And I know you all would agree with that we weren't. And that's that goes further.

But that's that's my fear of where theonomy can lead it can lead to okay who now is going to determine you know who gets baptized and and will that become a marker of citizenship. It was at one time that you understand baptismal certificates at one time could be used in place of birth certificates legal documents because the church baptized who infants and so these things.

When when the church in the state become intricately tied there are issues that that arise as well. So that's that's where I think we have to think through all that. But I agree there is no neutrality.

I absolutely yeah. And and and the people who call for tolerance often become very intolerant. So moving to the third question as we spent a lot of time on the first two the third question I may have to I don't want to go too quickly through these but this one I may have to go a little quicker.

Embryo Adoption and the Sanctity of Life

This has to do with something called embryo adoption. This goes back to our question on the subject of abortion. This is how the question was written. Is it ethical for infertile Christian couples to adopt embryos.

Specifically embryos that are extras the frozen ones that have been given up for adoption by couples who had undergone a successful IVF process and do not want any more children. I'm not referring to embryos that are result of male and female volunteers or surrogates.

Okay so this is a very very specific question because they're not asking one if IVF is good or bad. They're not even asking if the use of embryos is good or bad. What they're saying is because these embryos already exist they have already been fertilized they're already frozen and ready to be implanted.

Would it be better to discard them or to allow them to be adopted. See and and. And that's where the difficulty lies. Because I'm gonna share us just a little bit on this. I know somebody who's gone through this and the way he described it to me was like a pre orphanage adoption because he says the child exists.

The child is there. It's already been fertilized and as the embryo is created we are taking that child and adopting it in the same way if I went to an orphanage and there was a living child who was two years old and I adopted that child.

That's so that's how he sees it. And that's the question of of whether or not this is a good or bad. Now I I right away the the virtue at stake is life. Right. Right. We said life is a good and so the principle becomes the principle of would it be better to terminate that life or to allow that life to be adopted.

I mean it seems to me a fairly easy answer. But then you have to step back and go even further into the question is the question of does adopting embryos support an industry that's engaging in the destruction of life.

See where it gets a little more difficult because is the IVF system something that we would be supporting by going the route of adoption. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hang our story is way. Yeah. Yes. Can you have thought.

Yeah. So it would be better. And your idea your thought is that it would be better to allow the adoption than to allow the destruction even if by doing so we are tangentially supporting an industry that we may not agree with.

I I hear you I hear what you say. I'm not disagreeing. I'm just okay. All right. Okay. Yeah. Yes sir it's a good point. That's a good point because I stood outside of abortion clinics and I have begged people walking in please don't kill your baby.

We will help you get it adopted. Saying that very thing. I mean we we had a person in our own life before my wife and I had children who wanted an abortion. We begged her to let us adopt the child. She didn't.

She said I'd rather have it destroyed. Yeah. Yeah. And they make that clear. Yeah. They're not promoting it. They're saying this exists. Therefore we're going to work within a system that's already there.

I think that makes a big difference. And I think you're right. What you think. Cory. Well that's what that's. That's what's caused this issue. There's more fertilized embryos than are you being used. So those are being adopted by people who can't for whatever reason fertilize their own embryos.

Well they're already there though it wouldn't be preventing it because those already exist. But my question is does it. And I agree with you but my question is by by the adoption existing. Does that produce more.

Are they going to produce more so that more be adopted. And then you kind of creates a vicious cycle. I agree that it should be allowed to the adoption should be allowed. So I want to say that until IVF is until IVS no longer exists.

Yes. But like I said I this one is difficult because it's dealing with a current system that already is like it already is there. Should embryo adoptions be allowed as long as there's embryos that are out there that are alive and can be adopted.

It seems to me like life would say yes. But should IVF continue to be a thing. That's where we would say probably that that's where the issue is. That's right. So you still got the virtue. Yeah. No. Like I said I think that one's that one's that one's got a lot of moving pieces.