Ethics? Choices? Art?

While we sort through the systems of how we decide, I see a “both and” system.  To say that we are always either deontologist or teleologist is too narrow of an approach.  These have been presented as mutually incompatible.  It may be useful to identify the general direction we lean into. However, the awareness of this may help expand our understanding of ourselves and others.  The deontologist bases her decisions of what is “right” thing to do.  It is a principle based perspective.  The teleologist bases her decision on what the best outcome would be.  Yes, ethics works in the gray zone and in controversial issues.  Here is where it gets messy.  Do we apply rules or envision a goal? 

As we study the four types of ethics, the theories appear to be much simpler than the practical side of applying them.  The Legalistic type of ethics is based solely on rules or principled functions from a rigidity that I find restricting.  Not only is this restricting, but also I find a lack of consistent principles.  Antinomianism is the doing whatever feels right.  How could I work/live in a world with safety if my neighbor thinks that whenever she feels a need she could violate my values, property or personal well-being?  While Situation Ethics begins to function with some common principle such as love, I still am asking for your definition of the principle.  What looks like love to you may be the very opposite to me.  For example, you may believe that the panhandler on the street should be given money, I know that I give my time and money to the organization in the next block that feeds him.  And, if he goes there he will get the medication he needs.  The fourth type is Contextual Ethics which is to do it if it appears right based on a matrix of values and the model of Jesus Christ.  Here we have a relational perspective and an interactive model to draw from.  I find this type most palpable for me especially in ministry.  We have a model of Jesus Christ as well as twelve powers, and our basic principle in Unity of there is only one power and one presence, God the Good omnipotent. 

If we are strictly a deontologist we confront a major question.  What rules are we deciding with?  My rules are different than the rules of the Chinese.  In China, when I visited in 1999, most people would seem to have a good life.  Their choices would invariably be from a deontological view.  I asked what would happen if they had a second child (this was not allowed by the communist at that time)?  The response was always “that is not allowed.”  There was no thought about a “what if” or any consideration of exploring beyond the law.  While this may be helpful in a country with millions of people in a very small area, this westerner finds it a bit uncomfortable to be without a choice and be unaware of the ability to discover options.

Who am I to tell someone what the “good life” or the “right decision” is?  The definition is so driven by experience, tradition, scripture, and reflection (read Unity Quadrilateral) that who can say what that is for everyone or anyone?  It is easy for me to say that certainly a spiritual life is required for the “good life.”  I am sitting here in a nice warm room with plenty to eat in a supportive environment in a country without the imminent threat of a bomb going off.  I think of the concept of the football stadium filled with people that are generally well off.  If we look at each one, though, are they really having a “good life?” just because they have managed to get to what others may consider a frivolous activity?

Who are we to judge? 

Is it really choice if we are driven to or by a specific view?  I think not.  This is a reason to call ministry an “art.”  As ministers what is our role?  To inflict our values?  Or be clear on what we base our choices or decisions?  I think it boils down to the best decision we can make which will, of course, engage our theology, our role and our values.  We cannot judge another for their ethics.  We can be aware of our tendencies to be on auto pilot for the decision.  We can step back see all possible ethics and choose from a prayerful place that hopefully includes honoring the divinity in us all.