
The subtle shift that Sproll is referring to is that the two words are no longer distinct and related, but synonymous. Much like the words sphere and ball may be interchangeable in most conversations, ethics and morality are treated similarly. I have found this to be true recently when I have reviewed the academic journals and works written on this subject. Along with other theologian commentators, he believes that this is due to the postmodernist movement of philosophy. In layman's terms, when you hear someone state something like "All religions are equal. It doesn't matter what you believe. All that matters is that you believe." This is a common example of postmodernism in our culture.
I'm not totally convinced right now of our Christian brother's point of view on this shift, at least not yet. All my independent research has left me frustrated because I have only uncovered evidence that points to ethics and morality as having the same interchangeable meaning. If there is a difference, it only comes from specified fields of ethics. For example, there are business ethics, medical ethics, law ethics, religious ethics, etc. The word ethics can be compartmentalized into specified professional fields, whereas, morality applies to the individual. However, both are still relative. Each people group has their own ethics that can be different and independent of another field, and each person has a moral compass independent of one another.
This is how it is defined today, and there is not much evidence pointing to the contrary in the secular world. I can see why theologians point to the infiltration of postmodernism in our culture. I think I would like to reserve my final conclusions on the matter until I have exposed myself to more of the historical development of ethics and morality. I would like to go all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps that would be a great start in this journey.
Even so, whether or not I discover Sproll and others are accurate about their teachings, I still have to analyze the concept of today's ethical and moral definitions in the light of philosophy. Philosophy is a science that goes after the big questions: Why are we here? Who is man? Is there a God? If there is, who is he? What is my purpose? What is truth? Ethics and morality are subcategories of philosophy. They use the words right and wrong, so I have to ask how does a postmodern definition of right and wrong (ethics/morality) work? It still boils down to the age old question of who determines right and wrong for a people group or a person.
The secularist would make a statement like, "It's not personal, it's just business" (Thanks Jer). But everyone knows that this is wrong. Essentially, this person is saying, "I am wearing the business hat right now, so please don't judge me personally." They are saying that according to my business ethic, I am going to conduct myself in a way that would make you cringe if I wore my personal ethic hat, but that should be acceptable. Wait a minute! We all know this is hogwash. You can't screw me in a business deal and expect that somehow we can still be friends personally. The real world does not work this way. If postmodernism were true, we could screw someone in business and then go out for a beer later that night as if it never happened. But it doesn't happen, because humans are not wired that way. It's not possible to live in a postmodern world. It's completely unrealistic.
On the foundation of applied philosophy, one would have to consider the modern definitions of ethics and morality unrealistic. I can conclude this based upon philosophy, but I would also like to know if the modern definition has been constant throughout history. I will keep you posted on this as I uncover more.
No comments:
Post a Comment