Any ethical discourse that proceeds
from the mouth of Christians must rest in submission to the Lordship of Christ
in all areas of thought. This statement
is as much ethical as it is epistemological. Therefore, it is imperative that
all ethics be couched in proper and coherent epistemological language. The conclusions of one’s ethical inquiry will
necessarily agree with one’s epistemology, and in fact, have to. It makes no
sense for one to assume one position in order to arrive at another – this is a
dishonest and mistaken way to think about worldviews. It is an unfortunate and
I dare say sinful thing that higher education in all its levels, not to mention
basic education, is robbed of epistemology and the proper place of ethics as a
comprehensive worldview and in a logically coherent fashion. Instead, our
school systems take for granted that 1. Knowledge is possible, 2. Neutrality is
possible, and 3. That secularism is neutral and therefore desirable. In order
to make room for cultural pluralism, our system of teaching has then become
epistemologically plural. This is a correlation fallacy. To imply that just
because there exist many cultures and then come to the conclusion that
therefore there exists a viable epistemological plurality (that points to some
abstract nebulous neutrality) is the result of erroneous thinking. Just because
the devil wears 10 different suits does not mean that there exist 10 different devils.
Even worse, epistemology is not taught even in high school, for to do so would
expose the fallacy of neutrality for what it is. The system posits that it is
reasonable for many differing points of view to be taught and then to declare
all of them as equally viable choices so that it does not have to point to the
obvious fact that morality is not relative and neither are facts. If the
schools decided to place epistemology as some educational pursuit, then they
will have to arrive at many differing forms of ethics simply because there
exist different views on epistemology.
Let it
be known that our schools are in fact teaching ethics both implicitly and
explicitly. To tell a student that they ought to not cheat on their homework is
by nature establishing a universal. But this is not just a means to an end (for
a good and honest grade), it is an absolute. When a teacher asserts that
homework ought to be done honestly, they are implying that it is a good thing
to do homework honestly. Since this is, in fact, what they are implying, then
they are also implying that (all variables equal) honesty is objective and
universal, even if they do not word it in that exact way. We are hard pressed
to think that any reasonable teacher would believe that the statement “homework
ought to be done honestly” is a subjective construct that only applies to
western culture. When they say this, the way they mean it is in an absolute
way. Our language and intentions show this. It is an ethic. But why would a
student feel bad if she is caught cheating and why would a teacher feel disappointed
when this happens? If it is simply a little social construct that is
subjective, then couldn’t the student affirm confidently and honestly that
their culture is different enough so that homework shouldn’t really be done
honestly but that the student will “do it when she pleases?” By the
argumentation that morality is subjective, the student has that right. But let
us assume for the sake of argument that the student is right to do this, and
the teacher understands this and agrees to disagree with the student that “homework
should not be done honestly, but it is a favor for the teacher when the student
pleases.” Even if the teacher and student come to that agreement, this would
still be a contradiction, since in reality there would be no point of agreement.
Since morality is objective, you cannot agree to disagree on two contradictory
universal “oughts.” Teachers simply do not think this way and neither do
students, or else why would the feeling of disapproval by the teacher happen as
well as the shame of the student when they are caught? (Even if they are not
caught, the student will still know that it is wrong absolutely because they
know, by the testimony of the Law of God in their consciences, that lying is a
sin that they seek to suppress but they are not able to do this with totality.
Let us take this a bit further. Let us assume that morality is subjective, but
that the particular public school has a code of ethics that states: “In our school,
morality is subjective and homework can be done dishonestly, but in other
schools, this does not have to be the case. Therefore, Sally student is
exonerated on this basis.” The problem with this is that the terms “honest” and
“dishonest” are polar opposites. Polar opposites assume the laws of logic, and
these laws must be universal or else our society would not be able to think let
alone work.
So
where does epistemology fit into this ethical example I have given? The school’s
epistemology not only would be some sort of empirical or rationalist construct,
but it would be one that is sinfully rejecting the Lordship of Christ in
education. This is what “subjective morality” results in. It results in an
ethic that is sinful because of its epistemological starting point which is anti-Christian
and therefore antagonistic to God’s revelation (The Scriptures.)
In
conclusions, I am convinced that teachers believe that homework ought to be
done honestly, and that many of them believe that this is an objective truth.
But the incoherence lies in that the only epistemology that has the preconditions
for intelligibility in comprehensive ethics and human experience is Christian
theism. So if a teacher or school
district does not believe this, then their hidden assumptions make manifest
their incoherence and hatred of God and His truth. This can be demonstrated by
a host of contradictions that they should be ashamed of. We, as Christians who
seek to propagate the truth of the Bible must respectfully and lovingly address
these ethical issues in our school systems in dialogue and debate.
In Christ and for His glory,
No comments:
Post a Comment