When Moral Laws Collide (4)
Our mid-January podcast features one very tough ethics question, about moral rules in conflict. We present a case study from The Hiding Place, a classic story about Nazi-occupied Holland during World War II.
You are hiding political refugees in your house, and soldiers knock on your door. Do you lie to the soldiers to save a life, or do you tell the truth, putting your guests at risk? Two duties are in conflict: the duty to tell the truth, and the duty to preserve life. How do you decide?
Special thanks to Aaron Costerisan, this year’s Center for Bioethics Fellow, who joined in the discussion.
Sources and Links:
- Moral Conflicts, by Nathan Ramsey (CedarEthics Online)
- Moral Dilemmas (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
- The Hiding Place, by Corrie ten Boom
Theme Music: Gli Uccelli (The Birds), Part I. Prelude (Allegro moderato), by Respighi, courtesy of Shockwave Sound
Special Music: ‘The Sanctuary’ by Paul Lisney
Music Bumpers:
- ‘Sleep Soond I’da Moarnin’ by Kim Robertson
- ‘Simple Lyric’ by Carline Lavelle
Except as noted, all music courtesy of The Podsafe Music Network and IODA Promonet.
To listen, just click on the player below (click on the “Audio MP3″ button if the player doesn’t appear).
Podcast Alley{pca-736855c6889f8515afc76b007c672534
N. Jillich wrote,
When it comes to moral conflicts I feel that the graded absolutist view is the best option, in my opinion. Compared to the other views, I feel that this one gives the most clear definition of what right and wrong is, and I do believe there is a right and a wrong. I would tend to side with this heirarchy rule because I think I would feel less guilty if I chose what I felt was more important.
A moral conflict I myself have run into is such. I told my friend that my friend (Katelyn) that my other friend (Kelly) and I would meet her at the mall at a certain time. In the mean time, my friend Kelly that I was with ended up passing out in my kitchen, stopped breathing, and we had to call 9-1-1. We did NOT make it to the mall on time that day. I feel less guilty for attending to Kelly’s needs and calling an ambulance to get her medical attention rather than leaving Katelyn stranded at the mall. I also believe that the choice I made was the right one. There is a right in wrong in every moral conflict, and I believe this view puts it into clear view as best as it can be perceieved.
Link | January 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
m. steele wrote,
I agree with the first comment made, in that I like the graded absolutism theory the best. In class and in this last podcast, Rahab was brought up about how she hid the men and lied when the people came looking for them. Rahab was forced into a a situation with conflicting moral absolutes, and she chose to lie.
Dealing with the dilemma that was brought up in class and in this last podcast, I think I would say no if the soldiers were at my door and asking about me hiding any Jews. Although i was lying to the officers, I was keeping the promise I gave to the Jewish people hiding that i would give them protection no matter what. This is another example of what graded absolutism talks about when it says that moral absolutes come into question. Do I tell the truth and take away the promise I gave the Jewish people hiding, or do I lie and keep the promise?
We face problems like this everyday, where any option we have has both negative and positive consequences.
Link | January 20th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
R. Noden wrote,
I am still really really torn over this question. Not so much because I feel that my lying would be wrong in that situation. I think that already we have clear biblical examples between Rahab and the Israelite women of how God has honored their choices regardless. I guess my struggle in this is more of a personal conviction concerning how much I am trusting God and His sovereignty. I feel like my lying would be me attempting to take charge of these lives instead of trusting that God is going to protect us all. I don’t know that I would necessarily say, “Yes, I am hiding Jews; here let me truck them all out for you.” But at the same time, I feel as though I should have no fear or reticence in allowing them to come inside and inspect my house because I know that God’s power is so much higher than theirs and that He will have His way in that situation. Its not that I believe lying is necessarily wrong in that situation but I want to be aware of my motives…whether I am trusting my own capabilities or God’s protection and sovereignty in my ministry. I feel like God honors more those who trust in Him and act our of that trust (whether they lie or not) than those who attempt to manipulate the situation into their own hands.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 12:06 pm
J. LaRose wrote,
When we first began discussing the issue of moral absolutes in conflict in class, I held to a more non-conflicting absolutism belief. From my first instinct I felt that it would have been wrong to lie to the Nazi officials because that would have demonstrated a lack of trust in God’s soverignty.
However, after thinking about the issue in more detail I would have to change my position to the graded absolutism. It is no surprise that we live in a fallen world and that we all will face ethical dilemnas in the day to day. I feel as if the non-conflicting absolutism is too legalistic in that it deals with moral rules simply as moral rules and not as the Podcast stated “moral rules are grounded in the character of God.” I believe that God wants us to approach ethical dilemnas from a willing heart that is eager to use discernment and guidance from the Holy Spirit to make an ultimate decision, avoiding acting merely from a legalistic point of view. That is why I would now say that I would probably lie to the Nazi officials about hiding Jews, believing that my duty to protect human life is more important than telling the truth, just to tell the truth.
This position may seem a bit intimidating in the sense that coming to an answer to ethical dilemnas will not be a quick fix. It will be a process that requires prayer, counsel and discernment. But it is a process that if we are truly seeking God, will be worth the effort and has potential to bring glory to God.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
C. Rozelle wrote,
After considering how to deal with moral conflicts, I would have to agree with the graded absolutism theory the most. I have struggled with this issue and can understand where each of the three main theories are coming from. But ethical conflicts are real and we face them everyday, even in minor ways. I think that when confronted with this type of conflict, we have to decide which is the best choice. Both options might be good in and of themselves, but one way is best. While ranking our options in a hierarchy the next question that comes to mind is, who decides what that oder is? As a Christian, I would say that God and the Bible determine it. I think it is very important to be in tune with the Holy Spirit and be in the Word to make the best choice. The examples of Rahab and the Hebrew women in Exodus are good things to guide us.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
M. Vanden Berg wrote,
I agree with both of you that the graded absolutist theory seems to address this issue better than the other two views(non-conflicting absolutism and conflicting absolutism).
However, the graded absolutism theory does appear to be a little relativistic. At the same time, we have to remember that moral absolutes can only be ranked when they come into conflict. Now we say that sin is sin, no matter what. We believe this because God is a holy God who cannot tolerate anything less than perfection. Anything that falls short is sin. At the same time, we would all recognize that idea “the punishment should fit the crime.” It is interesting to note that we acknowledge that murder requires a harsher punishment than stealing a pack of gum. In the Old Testament this idea is very prominant. This would seem to support the idea the when moral absolutes come into conflict, one should choose to obey the higher norm.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 3:13 pm
s.schnepp wrote,
This is something that I have been questioning ever since it was brought up in class. I do think there are absolute right and wrong things ethically. I can see both sides of the argument, but I beleive that in the heat of the moment, I would lie to the soldiers. As a couple people have stated, I think that preserving human life seems to be of higher importance then a lie. It is shown in the Bible that God did honor women when they lied to preserve life. It is a tough issue. If you do lie, then are u not believing in God’s sovereignty? Or are you not trusting that his will is greater then what yours may be? I think it is important when attempting to make the correct ethical decision to pray and ask God to help give us the wisdom to make the best decision for that situation.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
V. Kooiman wrote,
I appreciate that the podcast pointed out the fact that not only should we use the Bible to derive our moral ethics, but it recognized the fact that we use our minds, emotions, and reasoning to put these ideas and truths together into something cohesive that applies to our everyday lives. So often it seems that educators who want to emphasis Biblical teaching pound into our heads that all the answers and seemingly simple solutions are found right there- and they are, but the answers aren’t really so simple because we have a responsibility to integrate truth into our lives which many people do not emphasize.
I would agree with some other commenters that the graded absolutism view seems nice, but just seems so relativistic at the same time. It claims not to be, but I find a hard time believing that. It says that it does not deny that absolutes exist, but if these same standards do not necessarily need to be accepted by everyone, then how are they recognizing absolutes? They pointed out that we are given judgment and guidance of the Holy Spirit when we need to decide which standard should be ranked higher than another one, but then, why don’t we, who are all indwelt by the same Holy Spirit, always arrive at the same solutions to moral conflicts? Absolutes need to be absolute for everyone, not left to our own picking and choosing based on the particular circumstance.
There is something I would like to point out about the situation in Exodus 1. First of all, it says that the women were rewarded for fearing God, nowhere does it say that God endorsed lying- He endorsing the glorification of His name. Secondly, and what I am getting at, is that we can not always base our decisions on the outcome. I mean, the podcast said that we know what the midwives did was right, because God blessed them. Just because a person is blessed does not mean they did something right. What about Job, who was blameless and yet suffered immensely? Or, all the passages such as ones in Ecclesiastes which talk times that the wicked are blessed while the righteous are not?
We need to base the idea that what the midwives did was right on something other than the fact that they were later blessed.
Also, as a side note, I think I would like to hear a podcast proposing two equally strong views that do not agree.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 9:01 pm
B. Duncan wrote,
There are issues with all three of the views of absolute law. However, I would have to agree with the both of you, that graded absolutism makes the most sense when speaking of the two duties of telling the truth and protecting moral life. In this particular case, life would most likely be chosen above honesty. Many people would have issues with placing emphasis on a duty hieharchy, however, I liked what the bio fellow said. We all have the leading of the holy spirit…but we also have the battle of the flesh. I think the question is which one will we submit to, flesh or the spirit. When we submit to the authiority of Christ we are obediently seeking the Lord.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 9:28 pm
H Bochman wrote,
If I were in the position of hiding jews I would probebly lie. I think I tend to lean towards the idea of the hierarchal system because its hard to believe that being invovled in the death of someone is the same as lying. I know that God sees all sin the same and some sin has different consequences than others. As we discussed in class and on the podcast there have been plenty of Biblical accounts where people have lied to save other’s lives. In the case of the jews, rehab, and the midwives their decisions were not made hastily. They all had time to think how they would reply. I think that what is important to remember is that God is in control no matter what. Either action we take He will turn it around for His glory.
Link | January 21st, 2007 at 10:49 pm
L. Wirt wrote,
I tend to lean towards a Kantian view when it comes to moral conflicts. I like to think that there are absolutes that cannot be compromised and that God will provide a window of escape, so that it will not be necessary for me to sin in a given situation. But in all honesty, there may come times where there are two things happening and I’m going to have to choose which one is more important. My prayer is that God will grant me a discerning mind and also grant me wisdom when those situations may arise.
Link | January 22nd, 2007 at 1:08 am
P.Taylor wrote,
The more I have thought about this issue, the more I really don’t know what exactly I do think. At the beginning of the class, I was like “yes, i would lie and not think a thing about it.” Now, however, I am beginning to wonder about God’s sovereignty and how much human responsibility is an issue. I believe in God’s ultimate and sovereign will, no matter what, but I also know that my actions play a major role, but that God does work under any circumstances, and thus my actions, whether they be right or wrong. however, I can’t just lay in bed day in and day out, and hope for God’s perfect will to magically happen.
Therefore, I believe that I would still lie to protect the Jews or whatever the situation may be. I have come to this conclusion tentitvely because I believe that we have a conscience and that we can sort of know the right thing to do. God’s soveriegnty and human responsibility are intrinsic, however, and both are dependent upon each other.
Link | January 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
P.Taylor wrote,
I believe in God’s will and God’s sovereignty, though I also believe in the role of human responsibility. These things are intrinsic and dependent upon each other. However, I believe that God works under any circumstances, or any decision I make, whether right or wrong.
When it comes to moral dilemmas, these things are very real and must be taken as they come. Legalism would say that rules are rules, and must be followed no questions asked. However, when relationships and all of those things come into play, the lines become a bit more blurry.
When it comes to issues such as lying to protect the Jews, I believe I would lie because we have been given a conscience, and I believe that we can know the right thing based upon the Holy spirit that is in us.
Link | January 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
t. schenk wrote,
In struggling with this question over the past week I have considered both sides of the argument and came to the realization that I would in fact lie to the soldiers. I wold consider preserving a life more important than lying to the soldiers who care only for themselves. I think it’s important to realize though that this situation is clearly a “sticky situation”. Something that is important to struggle through because it allows us to shape our morals and set of beliefs. it is also important to base all beliefs from Biblical truth. Lying is clearly wrong and so it murder, but we know that we serve a God who is just a fair and one who has already forgiven us. We struggle through these issues and there may never be a firm answer, but we know that we are finite and that we serve a God who is infinite. This gives us the hope that despite these “sticky situations” He is God and will always remain so.
Link | January 22nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Fr. Wayne McNamara wrote,
Every true lie is a child of The Lie: Man may think and act in contradiction to Life Himself, contrary to the Creator’s design, and live. He may choke the pathway of true life coming from God and heaven (worshipful obedience) and look to himself, believing there is true life in creation alone. He convinces himself of his own infallible sovereignty; he makes himself a ‘god’ and manipulates the world and others to create a heaven on earth of his own design.
Truth is whatever contradicts this lying, murderous impulse first found in Satan and then in fallen mankind. Truth is what affirms the person, character, and nature of Christ, the Creator.
To betray the ‘innocent’ by accurately representing the facts of a situation is to abet demonically inspired destroyers. It leads to increased wickedness and bloodguiltiness.
To misrepresent the facts is to contradict and hopefully prevent wickedness, thwart or even stay the destroyer, and affirm life and the commandment of God. And…in the end, it is an act of love toward those who would kill, destroy, and bear the guilt of those sins. “To lie” (misrepresent the facts) in this situation is really the truth affriming act. It is the only way to speak Truth into the situation (by word and deed).
So much to say, so little time. I have said just enough, and that poorly, to get me in trouble. But it is all I have time for.
Link | January 29th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Sarah Andersen wrote,
This is a topic that can be thought about and discussed over and over again and i think everytime I would have to reexamine the way i make moral judgements. Through these discussions i have had to think about what God’s word says, all the while trying to figure out the relationship between God honoring rahab or the hebrew midwives and the commandment “do not lie” means in moral dicision-making. I do think that Graded Absolutism is the theory i would apply in the moral decision-making process, especially when the conflict of lying or saving a life comes into play, such as in the situation of Corrie Ten Boom. I believe God values human life much more than anything else, he died on the cross for us! But i do not think we will know the extent of his judgement or grace until we stand before him in heaven and give an account for what we have done. God is gracious and good, but he is just, and he said ‘do not lie’. SO will we be punished for lying in order to protect a life with all of our intentions pure? I have no idea. I can only try to get to know God better and try to understand his nature so that when i am faced with a dilema i can turn to him, ask for wisdom, and trust that he is in control of all.
Link | February 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hennie Eybers wrote,
The Holy Spirit will lead you to the correct answer at that time and whether you lie to the soldiers or not, as long as you do the will of the Lord. His plan is greater than our imagination. Imagine leading your own son to be sacrificed, because the Lord asked you to…
The Lord tests our hearts, and our thoughts. His laws are written in our hearts and our minds.
Link | July 11th, 2007 at 6:36 am