Last month I posted an article on graded absolutism that was in fact an excerpt from my Commentary on First Peter. The following is one person's comments on what I said and my response. I did not plan to release this, since the objection itself is so weak that it carries limited value for theological instruction. However, it provides an additional illustration to a point that I plan to discuss in my next article.

Here I will reproduce from my article the paragraph that describes the popular ethical "dilemma" in question, but you might need to review the whole article to get the full context behind what follows:

Here is a favorite test case, or mental experiment: Suppose a person comes up to you with a deadly weapon demanding you to disclose the location of another person, whom he intends to murder. It appears that two moral duties apply in such a situation. First, there is the duty to preserve the life of another. But if you lie to divert the man from his target, then it seems that you would be violating your duty to tell the truth. To put this negatively, on the one hand, you are forbidden to contribute to the unjust death of another person, and on the other hand, you are forbidden to lie.

Then, here is the person's comments, and after that, my response, which I have expanded from the original.

His criticism is interesting, but the proposed solution is poor. It does not work out an answer for the problem and does not make a lengthy and careful exposition on how to "obey the commandment" and trust in God for the rest. What commandment or commandments? Or does he think the dilemma does not exist here?

I prefer the solution presented by Charles Hodge, in which he examines the question of a person's right to demand an answer to the question (in this case, the man with the gun). If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie. I suspect that Cheung will say this is Christian sophism, but the evaluation of the person's right is something that should be done.

1. "What commandment or commandments?"

If he is asking which commandment applies, then I would say that at least in principle, all of God's commandments are in force at the same time. I say "in principle" because, although "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife" is always in force, if the entire scenario has nothing to do with anyone's wife, then it is not directly relevant in that situation. But still, this does not mean that it is not in force — it just means that there is no wife for anyone to covet at that moment.

But if he is implying that we must select a commandment to apply, then he is arguing in a circle, since he assumes the type of reasoning used by graded absolutism without answering my objections against it. So if this is what he means, then he is not doing anything to defend graded absolutism, but he is merely asserting it again.

2. "Or does he think the dilemma does not exist here?"

Correct. There are no dilemmas, paradoxes, or contradictions — ever — in God's commandments, and in any situation. No one has ever shown that there is in fact a dilemma in the above scenario, or any other scenario. And asking this rhetorical question does not create a dilemma where there was none.

The truth is that the tension in any so-called ethical dilemma is never between two or more of God's commandments, but between God's commandments and the person's own opinions and desires.

3. "It does not work out an answer for the problem."

Actually, I did answer it, but he does not say what is wrong with my answer. Also, as indicated above, there is in fact no "problem" at all, and this is also part of the answer.

4. "…and does not make a lengthy and careful exposition on how to 'obey the commandment' and trust in God for the rest."

In fact, I did this as well, but he does not interact with what I said.

5. "If he has no right to the answer, then to deceive him cannot be classified as a lie."

WHY? Who made up this rule? Where is it in the Bible? "Thou shalt not bear false witness unless the person does not have a right to the truth"?!

Now we must examine the Bible to tell us who has a right to the truth in each situation. And are there ever dilemmas, paradoxes, and contradictions when it comes to this? That is, are there situations in which a person seems to have the right to the truth according to one portion of Scripture, but then does not seem to have that right according to another part of Scripture? How is this resolved when that happens? So this is just double graded absolutism. Now we need a third principle to determine who has the right to the truth in each situation. And if that ever produces a dilemma, then we need a fourth, and so on.

If someone does not have the right to the answer, why not just refuse to say anything? Or, why not say, "You have no right to the answer"? And what about the other possible options that I suggested in the earlier article? But somehow the idea is that when someone does not have the right to the answer, then we should go ahead and lie to him. In fact, he says to deceive is not to lie in this case, which is nonsense. Perhaps he intends to say that to lie is not to sin in such a situation.

6. "…but the evaluation of the person's right is something that should be done."

Again, who says? Is his God Jehovah, or Charles Hodge?

7. "I suspect that Cheung will say this is Christian sophism."

(Sigh…)

No, my dear brother. I am not trying to sound clever or to mock you, but the truth is that I will just call you a liar. And I will probably never believe anything that you say. You see, if you are so prepared to lie, then in your heart you have already done it, and that is who you are.

 

This is the state of Christian theological reasoning. God have mercy on us all.

 

RECOMMENDED

The Sermon on the Mount

Posted in Theology, Philosophy | Permanent Link