ONLY REPLY TO STUDENT 1 AND STUDENT 2
This was the discussion question
Post an initial thread discussing, the problems with evolutionary ethics. Which of the problems McQuilkin and Copan mention in Chapter 11 are most important — that is which is the most compelling reason to reject Evolutionary Ethics and why. Consider whether McQuilkin and Copan overstate the case or not (are the problems with evolutionary ethics inevitable, or merely possible problems, for example). Consider whether Evolutionary Ethics is compatible with belief in God as the foundation for Ethics. (Don’t merely say, “The Bible teaches creation, therefore evolution is incompatible. . .” Instead, consider the logic of the question and offer a defense of your view that will be convincing to a general reader.)
Student 1
Other than Christian ethics, there is another system of ethics called evolutionary ethics. Mcquilkin describes evolutionary ethics as ethics in which “our ethical beliefs have developed through evolution to help us survive and reproduce.”[1] In other words according to Mcquilkin, evolutionary ethics is ethics that has evolved merely based upon the biological needs of mankind. A major issue with evolutionary ethics is the fact that there will never be a constant standard to base such ethics because it is constantly changing. Such ethics will always be relative. A key component that makes up evolutionary ethics is the component of duty and responsibility. As evolutionary ethics is constantly changing, such duties and responsibilities will also naturally change therefore, one can never be sure of whether such duties and responsibilities are legitimate to begin with. However, in Christian ethics, duties and responsibilities are given a legitimate purpose and context for which man can exercise them. Mcquilkin states, “The existence of a good God changes the picture entirely. This places human dignity and duty into a sensible context; we have good reason to expect value in this universe if a good God exists. We begin with value (a good God) and so we end with value in this world (valuable human beings). There is no illogical leap from ‘is’ to ‘ought’ if we start with a supremely valuable God.”[2]
The Bible states in Romans 3:23, “…for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”[3] There is no set of man-made ethics, including evolutionary ethics, that will ever be able to justify a man into “right living” in this world. The only set of ethics that can justify a man unto salvation is Christian ethics through the law of God, which man also failed to keep. As a result, God sent His Son, Jesus, to pay the debts for our sins so that through His Spirit we would be able to live according to the Christian ethics He gave to us outlined in His Word. Paul says in Romans 8:3-4, “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” Therefore, Christian ethics is the only set of ethics that is capable of allowing one to live with true legitimacy and purpose according to the design set by the Creator Himself.
[1] Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom, Third edition. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 180.
[2] Ibid, 182.
[3] All biblical references are quoted from the New King James Version unless otherwise noted.
Student 2
Copan and McQuilkin identify a popular ethical system often connected to utilitarianism known as evolutionary ethics which maintains that our ethical beliefs have developed through evolution to help us survive and reproduce.[1] While some evolutionary ethicists such as Michael Ruse, argue that man has no obligation behind beliefs[2], others such as Sam Harris affirm the objective moral duties of well-being.[3] Immediately, it is worth pointing out that Harris has no basis for claiming that survival and reproduction are objectively good as an atheist. He is therefore doing what apologist Frank Turek calls “stealing from God” in that he is borrowing a concept from God in order to try to argue against him[4]. Nonetheless, even if Harris is granted the grounds to say that survival and reproduction are the chief objectives of humanity, his ethical system should still be rejected.
The most compelling reason to refuse these ethics is its inability to make objective moral adjudications for how survival and reproduction are to be achieved. For instance, while the majority of civilians may agree that loving our neighbor and considering the needs of others unconditionally is best for surviving and reproducing because our legal system assumes dignity, worth, and responsibility; a smaller minority might argue that it is best to have women who cannot or no can longer have children only live off of welfare and distribute their resources to women who’s womb is still fertile because it enhances reproduction while still allowing the infertile women to survive. After all, if reproducing is our highest duty instead of imitating Christ’s love, then women immediately become less valuable as soon as their womb becomes infertile. Moreover, because evolutionary ethics rejects human being made in God’s image, no moral objection can be raised to the implementation of this ideology because the logic simply evolved into one’s mind just like every other determination of how one ought to behave.
This concept exposes another major issue with evolutionary ethics as it fails to explain developmental differences in morality that place any responsibility on humans. In other words, if our moral beliefs are the product of sheer material processes why are some humans more morally developed than others despite being the same age? According to the Christian worldview some reject Christ and are handed over to a debased mind as Romans 1:28 teaches; and even within the church, saints are prone to quenching the Holy Spirit as 1 Thessalonians 5:19 states.[5] Both rejecting God and not expressing the Holy Spirit are conscious choices. However, evolutionary ethics provides no basis for differences in moral development that involve free choice as in the same way some people are genetically taller than others some are morally ethically developed than their peers. Along these same lines, if humans are made in the image of God, then evolutionary ethics cannot explain why animals’ morality is superior to ours especially if the particular species flourishes quite well in terms of reproducing and surviving among themselves.
Therefore, I do not believe Copan and McQuilkin overstate their case as while the rejection of Yahweh as the divine law giver does not guarantee utter moral anarchy, it creates the possibility for it. Additionally, while it is possible to believe that God engineers the evolutionary process, ultimately the system is incompatible with a Christian worldview as long as it rejects objective moral duties rooted in God’s nature. Ultimately a moral law requires a law giver and any attempt to make something or someone other than God this lawgiver is idolatry.
[1] Paul Copan Robertson McQuilkin An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom 3rd edition 2014 IVP Academic Downers Grove, IL 81
[2] Ibid
[3] Sam Harris The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values 2010 Free Press Publishing New York, NY
[4] Frank Turek Stealing From God: Why atheists need God to make their case Library of
Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ISBN 978-1-61291-7016
[5] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).udent 2
The post ONLY REPLY TO STUDENT 1 AND STUDENT 2 This was the discussion appeared first on PapersSpot.
