Is there Moral Gray? (Part 2)

Image Credit: i_yudai

This post is a continuation of a series of articles. Click to go to "Is there Moral Gray?" (Part 1)

Many past writers have worked from the perspective of the clockwork universe. What I mean by this is a world where things run much like a grandfather clock. Like any machine all you do is wind it up and you know exactly what kind of outcome to expect. A child can play with a top over and over and have a similar experience every time because of how the toy will behave consistently. You give the top a good twist (means) and the top continues to spin, much to the delight of the child (end). The idea behind this is that if you could set up the entire universe as a machine in a lab you could turn the machine on and watch the future unfold.

Now, it is likely that you have heard “The end justifies the means.” This was first written by Machiavelli but has reappeared in many variations and forms since. Here the “end” is like our spinning top with our laughing child and the “means” is giving the top a good twist. Machiavelli makes a statement about how we should think the two are linked. In fact, most moral literature will incorporate these two terms, means and end, in one way or another and this article will be no exception.

From our clockwork universe framework it was thought that human beings were bound to a method of causality where one thing leads to another. This means humans, like our children's toy, were a predictable part of the predictable universe. You could wind them up and watch them tick like a complex toy or machine as they reacted, in a relatively predictable manner, to the world around them. Likewise, it is from this framework that we inherit a lot of our moral literature, thinking, and language.

Here it is easy to see how if you have one action, say one good action, you will have only one possible result. Any means combined with a little time will lead to a certain end. It is within this framework that the one good action vs. one evil action makes the most sense. After all, the end is always predictable and it depends solely on the starting conditions found within the means.

Unfortunately the world just isn't this simple. Various works such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle along with our own experience have demonstrated that the world isn't always predictable. One single action could potentially lead to any number of ends.

To demonstrate, let's return to our story of the husband faced with a choice to steal a drug and save his ailing wife or to let her die. In this case, our little dilemma could lead to any number of results. Say our dear friend Heinz decides to steal the drug, what is the outcome if he gets caught? What if the druggist catches him and lets him go? What if Heinz is unable to find the drug when he enters the secret lab? What if, despite his efforts, he is too little too late? Suppose he chooses instead not to steal the drug for his ailing wife. We could see her condition improve. Perhaps her last words would reveal the secret location of a hidden fortune. Is it possible that in his pursuit to save her he misses her last words?

The problem our experience has with the “one good means, one bad means” approach is that there is usually a multitude of different outcomes. In fact, the outcomes seem to be only loosely linked to the means. This causes us to become unsure of how one means is going to turn out in the end. We see that any single means could result in a variety of different ends. Because of this, it becomes natural to think of the means only in the terms of the possible ends it could produce. The means becomes a mixture of the ends.

Furthermore, since everything depends on the unknown we then begin to break down our choices into speculative categories that will produce better and better ends, or a better chance of a good end. This also brings ourselves into the equation, we are placed into the role of the evaluator of the various possible outcomes. We begin doing a "risk assessment" and trying to find out what is "best for us." Furthermore, we are only presented with half of the information we need to make an informed decision, our knowledge of any given situation is limited. It is like we are blindfolded and throwing an unknown object at an unknown target.

Suddenly trivial matters alongside the real dilemma become remarkably important. For example, in our dilemma what if the wife was a serial murderer? Should Heinz steal the drug now? What if she was an important political figure? What if the druggist has a less than savory past? What if Heinz decides to steal the drug, is caught, and finds himself holding an innocent bystander at gunpoint?

The problem with moral gray can be summed up: It depends.

But it depends on what? On a person? On the situation? On who or what is involved? If it depends who makes the decisions? Me? You? Our boss? The government? If so, what power group is the one that makes the decisions? Why? What do we do if those making the decisions become corrupt themselves? If you have seen the movie Who Watches the Watchmen, this is exactly the dilemma that is being addressed. If we are really going to state that our moral code is a system based on shades of gray subject to our own opinions how do we then turn around and make an account to ourselves or to each other. You may be able to think it is okay to stab your friends in the back, but does anyone else? What if everyone else thinks it is okay to kill, does that then make you, the minority, wrong?

This is why the Christian worldview asserts that the means is the end. This way of thinking is a view of morality that doesn’t require the existence of moral gray areas, it is one that still accounts for all the variety of choices and outcomes, and it is one that can produce an outcome that truly can be seen as good.

Next post we will discuss what this system looks like and how it works.

Greatest Blessings,

Carl Myhre

Is there Moral Gray? (Part1)

Image Credit: i_yudai

Because we are dealing with some weighty ideas and I don’t want to overwhelm everyone I am going to be writing in a serialized format. For a week, or two weeks, I will be posting articles related to a specific idea. My hope is that each article will be able to stand on its own. Yet, in the end they will make the most sense when seen as a complete unit. It is my hope that this will be the best of both worlds. For those who want a little reading to stimulate the mind you can just read a post here and there. For big picture people, like me, I will be reposting the entire series as a complete unit when I finish before moving on to another topic.

Our first articles will be loosely grouped under the topic of morality. The main topic we are trying to cover: “Is there moral gray?” Namely, is there such a thing as actions that are some mixture of good and evil? Or as another way of looking at it, does there exist pure good actions and pure evil ones, or is everything just some mixture of the two?

I’d like to show that the Bible doesn’t support a morally gray hypothesis and neither do I. I would also like to allude to how this can still be considered logically consistent. This does not mean that I am setting out to construct a vast philosophical system. I am merely presenting some interesting concepts, both old and new, that will hopefully get readers thinking about some of the assumptions we make without realizing it when we look at the world. For those who know little about Christianity this will be a good opportunity to learn what Christians believe and how it makes sense. For those who have studied the topic for a number of years it is possible you have heard all of this before, so might I direct you to this blog.

I don’t think it would be a stretch to say that the prevailing worldview in America today is one that embraces the idea of the moral gray. But might I assert that people don’t think this way because they have pondered long and hard and formed a thoughtful picture of the world. Instead, I think it exists more because of a reaction to a different worldview; a worldview where we split things into polar opposites, or a binary.

Consider this analogy: A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it."
Text from: Lawrence Kohlberg's Collected Papers on Moral Development and Moral Education.

What would you do? Would you steal the drug? Some could quickly jump to the Ten Commandments and turn this argument into a binary. It is wrong to steal and therefore stealing the drug is evil and not stealing the drug is good. Now, ultimately I would agree with them, but this way of thinking misses the whole point! We don’t really care about theft. We would like to know what our husband’s next move is. This is especially true given the inconsiderate actions of the druggist against him and his wife! After all, there must be some alternative that will lead to a better outcome, right? If the man were to steal the drug the wife would be saved and the druggist would certainly be able to continue selling the drug and making his enormous profit. So what harm is there in this really?

After considering this story called “Heinz’s Dilemma” it quickly becomes clear why a system of balancing alternatives begins to fit the world. After all we can’t all be winners. If we give a billion dollars to one program we certainly have to be taking it from a different one. So we are left then with a system of balancing many extremes and trying to create an outcome that could be called “good.” But this balancing act comes with its own dilemmas such as trying to decide who makes the final decision, among with many others I don’t want to go into here.

Clearly the system of binaries has been rejected because it doesn’t fit with what we see in the world. On top of this, it contradicts Christian teachings on free will. If your life is only a series of choosing between two extremes, one which will result in evil and the other good, it is not like you could say you have been given a fair choice! But what if there is a third option to these two worldviews? A view of morality that doesn’t require the existence of moral gray areas, one that still accounts for all the variety of options that are in front of us when we make decisions, and one that provides an outcome that can truly be seen as good?

For that I think we will have to wait for the next post.

Greatest Blessings,

Carl Myhre

Welcome to Deep Embers

Since this is my first writing I wanted to write about the purpose of this site. At this point it is hard for me to truly define the ultimate machinations of this site. It hasn’t been created yet and through the creation process it will certainly go through much iteration and many changes. I hope this will be a growing and learning experience for me and you both.

I formally invite you to look at one of the first articles I have written, an introduction of myself. Who I am, what I believe.

This site is directed for the Christian world. I am a Christian and I take my faith seriously. On the other hand it is one of my goals to create a site that is simple enough that anyone, even someone with no theological education, will be able to read, understand, and relate to the ideas and concepts I hope to provide here.

I hope this is readable for anyone but I also ask, that you as a reader always bear in mind where I am coming from. The purpose of this site mainly, ultimately, and entirely, is to do two things. The first is to share my faith; secondly to encourage you to grasp the gravity and wonder of your faith and to know how to share it naturally. The purpose of this post is to serve as an introduction for you and a way for me to coalesce my ideas.

I am going to write here about things that I am most passionate about. Namely, my faith and philosophy. Thus if I were to describe this site as anything in particular I would call it a site on Christian Philosophy (I am speaking very broadly here.) Before you get too worried, concerned, or lose interest, let me encourage you by letting you know that I also hope to make all of the ideas that are so central, dear, and important to understanding the Christian faith and the Christian worldview as accessible and readable as possible. I have done my searching before creating this site and there are already places for those who want articles such as “how to handle the Christian response to the Euthyphro dilemma during a debate.” This is not one of them. Look forward to a lot of analogies, a lot of pictures, and a step by step view of some very big picture ideas. That said this is also a site that will require you to bring your thinking caps. If you are looking for a daily devotional or pick me up, know that I am not a fan and you will not find them here. Though I do hope that in time, we can learn some weighty concepts in simple ways and that these concepts will bring to you the overwhelming joy and vitality that they have added to my life. I invite you to critique my articles: in person, by e-mail, or by leaving a comment following the post. I hope to make you, the reader, involved in this creation process. For now a good way to do that is to let me know if you think I am doing anything wrong. Feel free to be harsh, I’m a big boy and I can take it.

Greatest Blessings,

Carl Myhre