The more I read about ethical frameworks, the more complicated it is to draw lines between them. In fact, I have the tendency to want to say: they are all saying the same, just in different words. Utilitarian considers costs and benefits, deontological maintains that actions should reflect static principles, virtues argue that we are forming who we are as a person with every action and therefore our actions should point to a complete and happy (eudaimonia) person, feminist ethics focuses on the positive role of feelings, particularly caring for others and for oneself. However, from my Christian perspective I see all of these at play.
Image source: http://tinyurl.com/9zkw2s8
This is what drives my ethics: “Love the Lord your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself” (Luke 10:27). In openly declared Biblical rules, like “do not steal” (Exodus 20:15), there is a basic deontological ethics at work. God said it, therefore it must (or must not) be done. Yet, the same action is defendable from the biblical perspective of Matthew 7:12: “do to others what you would have them do to you”. This is a somewhat Kantian deontology. Furthermore, as the bible requires to “examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good”, it does not specifically call for a cost-benefit analysis, but in my experience I have found myself applying biblical principles to analyze the expected outcomes of two possible courses of action to determine which one is the right decision. Virtue ethics are also reflected in biblical principles as Paul says, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things… practice these things” (Phillipians 4: 8-9). He is calling each person to dwell and meditate on good things, to make them a continuous practice. All of these lead to Christlikeness, which is the ultimate virtue, a reflection of the perfect character of God (Ephesians 4:13). Finally, going back to the verse I first used, the driving force in my Christian ethical perspective is one that is based on love, and what is love, if not real care for another person. In this case, the person is first God, then my neighbor. Feminist ethics emphasizes caring and feelings as part of a well-rounded ethical framework.
I would be interested in knowing if other people whose ethics are not related to Christianism find the same interconnection, or even any interconnection, between these approaches to ethics.
So it sounds like you are an ethical pluralist, then? How would you respond to people who think there is one “right” ethical framework?
Well, I wouldn’t say I am a pluralist, as much as I would say that having only one ethical framework usually leaves holes in a person’s capacity to make decisions. To use something specific: there are many things in the Bible that are black and white. Either adultery and fornication are right or wrong. The Bible says they are wrong. To me, there is no debate. Other things are not so specific in the Bible. If my only approach to making ethical decisions is the deontological position that I do what God says clearly, then I have no explicit frame to deal with other topics such as drug use, legal battles, online disclosure, privacy. Yet, the Bible offers principles that are mirrored by other theories (feminists talk about caring, utilitarian about weighing consequences, etc). So, in reality I am more of an absolutist than a pluralist who understands that having a Christian ethics is not as stationary and uninvolved as the description of religious deontology may sound.
OK, but an absolutist position would hold that there is one, and only one “correct” ethical framework (whichever framework the person in question follows). It doesn’t sound here like you are rejecting the validity of other frameworks. In particular, when you say “Yet, the Bible offers principles that are mirrored by other theories (feminists talk about caring, utilitarian about weighing consequences, etc).” that sound very much like a pluralist (not relativist, mind you) position. Pluralists hold that while different ethical frameworks may appear on the surface to have nothing in common, if we look deeply we can often see that we hold some shared values. When you say the principles in the Bible are mirrored in some principles of say, Feminist ethics, isn’t that saying that deep down you have some similarities? That you are not rejecting Feminist ethics for being “wrong,” but rather looking at ways in which Feminist ethics can reflect similar values from Christian ethics?
Certainly, I am looking for common ground. But then, how many people are truly absolutists then? Is there anyone that would deny similarities just because someone else arrived to the same conclusion a different way (one they disapprove of)?