The Field of Ethics

My ethics book came today that my class will be using. It’s Normative Ethics by Shelly Kagan. I am reading the introduction and it already looks good.

Shelly explains that there are really three different divisions in the field of ethics: Meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. As you can tell by the title, this book is about normative ethics.

Normative ethics deals with the question of what ought to be. For example, we ought not kill humans, is a normative ethical principle. It tells us that we should not or ought not kill humans. The field of normative ethics seeks to tell us what is the best way we ought to live. What moral prinicples are there? What is the correct set of moral beliefs?
Now there is a sharp distiction between what is and what ought to be the case. These two should never be confused. For instance, an anthropologist can go to a foreign culture, observe their moral principles, and report back to us what they are. However, this account of their beilefs about moral prinicples does not tell us whether they are the correct ones or not. This report only tells us what is the case, not what should be the case.
This important distiction is lost sometimes when people make the following arguement: Look, every culture has different codes of morality and conceptions of what is right and wrong, so therefore morality is relative to cultures, there is no objective moral code for everyone to follow. This is not a good argument because observations about the moral codes of a society don’t tell us whether or not this is a good moral code or not. This is not a good argument for moral relativism.

Applied ethics is basically normative ethical principles put into practice. The principles are applied to a situation to find out what one should do in that specific situation.

Meta-ethics is a field of discussion about the nature of wrongness and justification. It asks questions such as: What does it mean for something to be wrong? Whats the definition of right and wrong and good and evil? Can we know anything about ethics? Are there any ethical principles? These are more abstract questions that meta-ethics seeks to answer.

So then we can put the entire field of ethics on some sort of continuum. (Some philosophers try to draw very sharp divisions between meta-ethics and normative ethics, claiming that one does not influence the other; however, I along with Kagan, disagree) The continuum looks something like this:

Meta ethics————-normative ethics————–applied ethics

Where we move from the abstract on the left to the more specific and practical on the right. The views of meta-ethics will influence the normative ethical theories you produce and thus also the way you apply them.

So this is a broad introduction to the field of philosophical ethics.

General Revelation

Some Christians like to say that the Bible is all we need, or we can learn everything from the Bible. For instance, many Christians today are against the use of “secular psychology” and advocate a “Biblical counseling” approach to psychology. This Bible-only view of the world is too short-sighted in my opinion. I was listening to J.P. Moreland field a question about this after he had given a speech on naturalism, and I think he made a great case for general revelation. We can learn all kinds of things from looking at nature. The whole field of psychology looks at the way humans behave and can teach us alot of good things from it. For instance, where in the Bible will you learn about the tendencies of a middle child? You can look till you are blue in the face but you’ll never find it. However, good psychology can tell us about what tendencies a middle child will have as apposed to a first, last, or only child; and this is immensley helpful for parents who want to be good parents. The book of Proverbs even advocates looking at the ants to know that hard work is a virtue and slothfulness is a vice:

Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. Without having any chief, officer, or ruler, she prepares her bread in summer and gathers her food in harvest. How long will you lie there, O sluggard? When will you arise from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest, and poverty will come upon you like a robber, and want like an armed man.
(Proverbs 6:6-11)

We can look at general revelation and learn lots of things. All we do as Christians is keep the good observations, and throw out the bad conclusions. Freud had a lot of Darwinian nonsense to say, however his observations about relationships, repression and projection are immensley helpful. I guess there are at least 7 different kinds of depression, and those people need special kinds of drugs and counseling to help them, not just Bible verses thrown at them. There is even branch of ethics called natural law, where observations on nature can yield moral principles. For example, if we look at the way male and females sexual organs function, the way they fit together, and the way they produce the next generation; we can conclude that this is the way it is supposed to be.

So all in all I think we as Christians do need a better way of looking at general revelation, the world that God created, so that we can learn wise things.

Theology Connecting with Philosophy

Recently one of the things I have been pondering upon is the connection between theology and philosophy and what I believe that connection to be. This was spurned by an article by Alan G. Padgett titled “The Relationship between Theology and Philosophy: Constructing a Christian
Worldview.” I found this article within the book For Faith and Clarity. Within the article, Padgett gives a brief overview of several great theologians and philosophers of the Christian church. Here is a summery of his historical section:

Anslem of Canterbury: fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). One of the most common views of connection, Anselm claims that faith in Jesus Christ is where one must begin their journey, but this will lead a person to philosophy to gain deeper understanding.

Thomas Aquinas: Philosophy leads to Theology. Aquinas states that philosophy “acts as a praeambulum fidei, a journey that leads toward theology.” Faith and reason are connected in such a way that reason will direct a man toward faith in order to fulfill its deepest longings.

Martin Luther: Tension between Theology and Philosophy. Luther has a harsh and critical view of philosophy, claiming that human reason is corrupted and is best left out of theology. Though at times it could prove useful, it more often than not would be found as a better tool of Satan’s, so Luther preferred to keep philosophy separated from theology.

James Orr: Theology transforms Philosophy. Orr’s thoughts follow the lineage of Calvinists, holding a similar view to Luther but believes faith can change philosophy. By itself, philosophy is a tool of Satan’s but faith can change it making it useful for theology.

Borden Parker Browne: Being the liberal view of the group, Browne believed that theology needed to change and progress with intellects and cultures. If a science or philosophy contradicted with theology, theology would have to change to fit the present culture. His influences are derived from a German idealism, and he is found in good company with philosophers Hegel and James.

Very much disagreeing with Browne (and therefore uplifting Luther‘s view), theology must be first and foremost in a Christians worldview. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). But I do not fully hold Luther’s view for “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). Anslem’s fides quaerens intellectum holds true. Faith in Jesus is where a Christian must begin in their journey for understanding. They must “think about Him in all [their] ways, and He will guide [them] on the right paths” (Proverbs 3:6 bracketed pronouns changed). Combining these two views would have me approach the Calvinist position that Orr supports as a probable view of philosophy and theology.

Another interesting quote I found on the subject matter was from Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho: “Immediately a fire was lit in my soul, and a desire for the prophets seized me and for those men who are friends of Christ; as I turned over his words in my mind I found this the only reliable and profitable philosophy. In fact this is the way and these the means whereby I am a philosopher. I would like everybody to conceive a determination equal with mine not to abandon the doctrines of the Savior. For they include among them a certain menace, and they are sufficient to discourage those who are turning away from the right road, and also the most delightful refreshment exists for those who practice them.” (Chpt 8; emphasis added)

Link

So on my previous post I mention a website to checkout for my company. Somehow instead of posting the link it has my last couple of paragraphs as the link. So if you click on one of the paragraphs it should link you to Salient’s website.

My Intro…I Reckon

Good Day Ya’ll,
My name is Jeremiah and I am co-administrating this blog page with Zach. I am currently a Philosophy major at The Ohio State University, hoping to graduate this spring. This is the first blog or post I have ever written so I am not very certain as to what I am wanting or should write here. Zach already introduced me a little bit with letting you know I was his best man at his wedding. That should let you know that our friendship dates back a little ways (Zach being the person I have known the longest at OSU). This blog thing was his idea, possibly because we no longer live in the same house and can’t pass ideas and thoughts back and forth quite as easily, Discussing theology and philosophy has always been one of our favorite past-times.

Currently I am working for a company known as Salient Systems. We design, build and install hazard prevention systems for railroad companies. I am actually writing this blog from my motel room after a long days work in Kenosha, WI. We are installing a W.I.L.D. system currently. If anyone is curious about the company check’em out at

I am also a co-leader of a campus ministry on Ohio State’s campus. I have been active in Crosswalk Ministries since my freshman year of college and took over a leader’s position when the previous leaders (and good friends), Phil & Jimi, moved back to Kansas.

As for my interests: I enjoy researching and studying such things a the Calvin/Arminian debate, free-will vs. determinism, epistemology, metaphysics, my personal faith and its correlations with everything else in this list, and faith & religion in general, history, and whatever the flavor of the month might be. Currently it is relationships, simply because recently I myself have had the pleasure of taking a beautiful young lady (Bekah) out on several dates over the past month and hope to honor her the best that I can in our relationship. So it is good to know what things encourage a relationship and what things to avoid because they lead to failure.

I really don’t know what else to write, but I just keep babbling on because I am sitting alone in my motel room without much else to do. I will probably go read…

New Abortion Arguments

I love listening to Scott Klusendorf (Life Training Institute) teach about giving a well reasoned case for the prolife view.  In Pro life 101, Scott argues that the fetus is a human being, and his argument goes something like this:

    (1) Intentionally killing innocent human beings is wrong
    (2) The unborn is an innocent human being from the moment of conception
    (3) Therefore, killing the unborn is wrong

Up until this point, most of the people on the street would attack premise (2).  This has historically been the case as most prochoice advocates used to argue that the unborn is not human, just a blob of tissue or a parasite or something to that effect.  Now, however, people are starting to take issue with premise (1).  People like Judith Jarvis Thompson and David Boonin are now granting prolifers premise (2) by saying, yes the unborn is a human and is essentially identical to the adult it will be.  But they argue it is justified to kill it anyway.  David Boonin tells tells this coldly in the preface of his new book, A Defense of Abortion:

On the desk in my office where most of this book was written and revised, there are several pictures of my son, Eli. In one, he is gleefully dancing on the sand along the Gulf of Mexico, the cool ocean breeze wreaking havoc with his wispy hair . . . .In the top drawer of my desk, I keep another picture of Eli. The picture was taken September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clearly enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows the same little boy at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point. (pp. xiii, xiv)

The new abortion rights advocate is saying that we may kill human beings.  Why?  Because human beings do not have value in and of themselves.  They don’t have intrinsic worth.  There has been a steady shift in the culture to say that humans don’t have this kind of value.  For example, in my Philosophy of Religion course last quarter; we were reading an article that assumed that humans had more value than horses or rocks; and it wasn’t immediately apparent to some people in the class that this was the case.  Why would a human be more valuable than a horse, they asked.  This is strange because in America there has always been a recognition that humans had intrinsic value because of the kind of beings they were, beings made in the image of God.  Animals and rocks don’t have this image, only humans do.  Now this is the kind of thing that is being questioned more and more in the culture we live in.  This opens the door to a lot of scary things, like a law in New Jersey that says anyone can clone human embryos and experiment on them in the womb all the way up to birth, at which time they must kill them.  This is legal in New Jersey.  This is what happens when human nature is devalued.

Camp Quest

I was surfing around and I found this camp site: Camp Quest
Here is the title of the camp:

Camp Quest
It’s beyond belief!

Under the Info page, this who the camp is for:

Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view.

The first camp for children of Athiests.  That exciting!  It always confuses me though that Athiests like to use the term “Freethinkers” to define themselves.  The connotation is supposed be that those “religious” people are not freethinking and just follow whatever they are taught.  Well, whatever, I’d like to think of myself as a free-thinking person, in fact I don’t believe lots of things that are told to me.  Just because my freethought lines up with Christianity automotically disqualifies me from freethinking?  It seems like the term is supposed to mean Athiests are just more openminded than us religious folk.  I don’t think that is the case though.  After all, these Athiests are naturalists, they believe that only the natural world is all that exists.  Now that seems a little closeminded to me because as a supernaturalist, I can posit either a natural or a supernatural explanation for things that happen.  However, the Athiest can only posit a natural explanation, even if it isn’t the best one.

Now I dont have a problem with a camp for Athiests, after all we have tons of religious camps.  They have a right to thier point of view and the right to teach it to their children.  I do have a quarrel with their mission statement though:

 Camp Quest is a not-for-profit educational organization created in 1996. Its purpose is to provide children of freethinking parents a residential summer camp dedicated to improving the human condition through rational inquiry, critical and creative thinking, scientific method, self-respect, ethics, competency, democracy, free speech, and the separation of religion and government guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

The last part of the paragraph is about separation of Church and State that is supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.  The “Separation of Church and State” clause is located in the beginning of Amendment #1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now this says that the Congress cannot establish a religion nor prohibit the exercise of that religion.  I don’t see anything about separtation.  It seems like it is saying that the Congress can’t force everyone to be one religion, and cannot silence any religion at all.  This Amendment restricts the government, not the people or any religion.  Religion is free to influence public policy and law anyway it wishes, just as long as it doesn’t try to make a law requiring everyone to be a part of that religion.  This means the government should be able to sponsor faith based organizations to help the needy and poor.  And any person should be able to hold any office and not be disqualified because of the religion he holds to.

For more on this see Greg Koukl’s article, “Church and State: The Separation Illusion“

Allow Me to Introduce Myself

My name is Zachary Ross McClure Drabick.  I was born on October 21, 1983, which means I am 23 years old right now.  I was married to my wife, Ashley, on October 12, 2006.  My best man was Jeremiah Melvin, who is also running this blog.  I am currently a student at the Ohio State University majoring in Pharmaceutical Sciences and minoring in Philosophy; Although I proboably will make that a double major since I want to go on and get my PhD in Philosophy.  My interests are in Philosophy of Religion, Ethics, Metaphysics, and Epistomology.  My classes for next quarter include:  Intro to Metaphysics, Advanced Intro to Ethics, History of 17th Century Philosophy, and Personal Finance.  It will be a busy quarter.  I will mostly write about stuff I am learning in those classes and how it applies to Chrisianity. 

Hello world!

Hey everyone, this is my first post on the new blog site! yay!

This blog will contain writings on Philosophy (Reason) and Theology (Revelation).

Zach and Jeremiah will be the Administrators of this blog and will do most of the writing. Hopefully though we will have guest contributors sometime.