Toward a Public Ethic, Part 1

Law and Morality

Dan Knight, 2002.11.13

"You can't legislate morality."

"There ought to be a law against it."

You can't have it both ways, so we have to ask ourselves which statement is correct - and which ought to be discarded.

What Is Morality?

Morality is not the same thing as ethics. Ethics are our beliefs about right and wrong, and these beliefs shape our actions. Morality is the choices we make, the actions we take. Moral people behave according to personal and public ethics. Immoral people deviate from accepted behavior.

Since the purpose of laws is to condone one type of behavior and condemn another, the making of laws impacts our actions. In short, government legislates morality.

What no government can do is legislate ethics. Governments, along with churches and other organizations, can promote certain ethical principles, but it is the individual who attempts to form and live out a coherent personal ethic.

Why Do We Have Governments?

There are many theories about the origin and purpose of government. Some see it as growing out of the need for collective defense, others as an outgrowth of our need to live together in some semblance of harmony.

It's important that we understand why governments exist, because otherwise we have no way of determining which parts of life should be subject to government jurisdiction and which should not. Should the government stand against murder, protect property, or engage in war? Does it have the right to terminate a life or collect taxes? How much government is too much?

As a Christian, I believe that governments exist to promote justice. Whether they are protecting their citizens from the predations of another nation, a band of international terrorists, home grown murderers, extortionists, or con men, the role of government is to prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak and the clever from taking advantage of the gullible.

When a nation goes to war, it should be to correct injustice, whether this is the attempted annexation of Poland by Germany in World War II, the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1942, the conquest of Kuwait by Iraq a decade ago, or the support of terrorist attacks on the American populace by the Taliban in Afghanistan a year ago.

The concept of justice - not retribution, aggression, or conquest - should guide both our international affairs and our domestic ones. That's why we question the morality of detaining so many at Guantanamo Bay or blowing up one of Osama bin Laden's cronies by remote control. We do not want to be seen as bullies or terrorists; we do not want to become like our enemies.

Toward a Public Ethic

For most of the past two millennia, western culture has been strongly shaped by the Christian church. For most of the past century, we have seen that moral consensus unravel as we build tolerant multicultural societies.

Each new generation finds the monolithic Judeo-Christian ethic of the past increasingly anachronistic. In today's western culture, the highest virtues seem to be tolerance and the abolition of absolutes. Ethics are personal, morality is relative, and anyone who says otherwise is seen as living in the past.

We are attempting to build a new cultural consensus on quicksand. It isn't going to work. We need to find a firm foundation so we can build a public ethic that will lead to a new morality. Whether that new morality looks like the Judeo-Christian morality of the past or the individualistic, relativistic morality of recent decades remains to be seen. Perhaps it will look like neither.

Why a Public Ethic?

We need a public ethic so Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and others can dialogue instead of talking past each other, ignoring each other, or fearing each other. Our common humanity provides both the basis for our working together and the reason for doing so.

As a Christian, I believe that every human being is created in the image of God. In some way, God intended us to be like him. Although I also believe that we sin and fall short of God's glory, part of our human nature strives to live up to that image. This perspective provides a common foundation for our working together, whether you believe in the God of the Bible or not.

I believe that most, if not all, humans can find similar reasons within their own belief systems that allow us to discuss morality while holding divergent views about religion. That is one positive aspect of tolerance.

Together we need to look at values. Which one are important? What are the most important? If two values come into conflict, how do we decide which should trump the other?

These are important questions. 250 years ago, the leading principles in western civilization were life, liberty, and property - or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- or liberty, equality, and brotherhood - depending on which writers and which revolution you like.

There will undoubtedly be points of disagreement, but without laying down a foundation, our points of disagreement float in a pool of relativity. By creating a shared ethical structure, it should be possible for us to better discern our differences and discuss them.

In the end, we all win when we create a way for us to dialogue meaningfully across our different worldviews. I believe creating a common ethic is crucial if our society truly wishes to embrace diversity, promote tolerance, and flourish in coming generations.

Looking Forward

I don't believe that a shared public ethic will replace Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist and other ethics, but we cannot allow the religious beliefs of a single group to dictate the morality of all in a diverse, tolerant society. A public ethic is more of a "lowest common denominator" ethic we can all share; our personal and religious ethics will undoubtedly be more comprehensive.

I future columns I hope to look at foundational concepts such as life, personal responsibility, rights, and other ideas in light of building a public ethic while also looking at the world we live in today. Public ethics should shape the way we deal with snipers, terrorists, detainees, protesters, and neighbors.