The lawyer pondered for a moment, then said, "I'd refuse to answer."
Of course, that evasion can be easily blocked by stipulating that silence would result in a Gestapo raid.
The example I use in class is that of an aggressive District Attorney ducking behind a dumpster, followed soon thereafter by a Mafia hit man, gun in hand. "Did you see someone go in that alley, or did he run ahead up the street?" Tell the truth, and you will be guilty of the crime of Accessory to Murder. Of course you lie. It is a moral imperative. Hence "do not lie" is not an absolute commandment.
Last month I was visited by two Mormon missionaries, who read to me the Twelfth Article of Faith of their religion: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
I asked, "what do you do if the President that you are subject to violates the law, or still worse orders you to violate the law? Which do you obey, the President or the Law?"
He replied: "I'd pray on it, and ask the Lord for guidance." Touching, but not very helpful.
And so on, with the other commandments. You can readily imagine conflicts in which violation of one or another rule is unavoidable. Here's another challenge: state an ethical rule for which it is impossible to imagine some particular emergency that would morally require you violate it. If you can't, then you are a moral relativist.
Are there no Moral Absolutes?
As a steadfast skeptic and relativist, I am inclined to never say "never"!
So let's look for some exceptionless moral commandments.
The Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," won't do, since the Bible itself specifies exceptions such as self-defense, just war, and just punishment. In fact, the Bible prescribes capital punishment for such offenses as working on the Sabbath, a child's disobedience, and premarital sex (by women only, of course). For those who do not accept the Bible as a moral authority, self-defense and just war remain as reasonable exceptions. The death penalty, however, is a highly controversial issue.
Then how about "Thou shalt not murder," which, I am told, is the correct translation of the original Hebrew word, "ratsach."
To be sure, there is no conceivable exception to this commandment. But that is because it is not, logically speaking, an authentic commandment. It is a tautology - a "truth by definition."
This is why: We are asked to take the "Thou Shalt Nots" of the Ten Commandments to be statements of (allegedly) God's commandments as to what conduct is, or is not, morally justifiable in The Lord's eyes. Thus "Thou Shalt Not..." means "it is forbidden" or "it is not justifiable."
Now "murder" is surely defined as "unjustified killing" - i.e., not in self-defense, or in a just war, or by God's command.
Hence "Thou Shalt Not Murder" parses out as: "Unjustified Killing is Unjustified." Begin to spell out the meaning of "justification," and you are returning to the realm of moral guidance.
Of course, that evasion can be easily blocked by stipulating that silence would result in a Gestapo raid.
The example I use in class is that of an aggressive District Attorney ducking behind a dumpster, followed soon thereafter by a Mafia hit man, gun in hand. "Did you see someone go in that alley, or did he run ahead up the street?" Tell the truth, and you will be guilty of the crime of Accessory to Murder. Of course you lie. It is a moral imperative. Hence "do not lie" is not an absolute commandment.
Last month I was visited by two Mormon missionaries, who read to me the Twelfth Article of Faith of their religion: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
He replied: "I'd pray on it, and ask the Lord for guidance." Touching, but not very helpful.
And so on, with the other commandments. You can readily imagine conflicts in which violation of one or another rule is unavoidable. Here's another challenge: state an ethical rule for which it is impossible to imagine some particular emergency that would morally require you violate it. If you can't, then you are a moral relativist.
Are there no Moral Absolutes?
As a steadfast skeptic and relativist, I am inclined to never say "never"!
So let's look for some exceptionless moral commandments.
The Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," won't do, since the Bible itself specifies exceptions such as self-defense, just war, and just punishment. In fact, the Bible prescribes capital punishment for such offenses as working on the Sabbath, a child's disobedience, and premarital sex (by women only, of course). For those who do not accept the Bible as a moral authority, self-defense and just war remain as reasonable exceptions. The death penalty, however, is a highly controversial issue.
Then how about "Thou shalt not murder," which, I am told, is the correct translation of the original Hebrew word, "ratsach."
To be sure, there is no conceivable exception to this commandment. But that is because it is not, logically speaking, an authentic commandment. It is a tautology - a "truth by definition."
This is why: We are asked to take the "Thou Shalt Nots" of the Ten Commandments to be statements of (allegedly) God's commandments as to what conduct is, or is not, morally justifiable in The Lord's eyes. Thus "Thou Shalt Not..." means "it is forbidden" or "it is not justifiable."
Now "murder" is surely defined as "unjustified killing" - i.e., not in self-defense, or in a just war, or by God's command.
Hence "Thou Shalt Not Murder" parses out as: "Unjustified Killing is Unjustified." Begin to spell out the meaning of "justification," and you are returning to the realm of moral guidance.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
