* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download DEFINING PLURALISM - Second Baptist Church
Cosmopolitanism wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Virtue ethics wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of eating meat wikipedia , lookup
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Nel Noddings wikipedia , lookup
Moral relativism wikipedia , lookup
Primary care ethics wikipedia , lookup
Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup
Declaration of Helsinki wikipedia , lookup
Aristotelian ethics wikipedia , lookup
Compliance and ethics program wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Medical ethics wikipedia , lookup
Marketing ethics wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of technology wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Accounting ethics wikipedia , lookup
Organizational technoethics wikipedia , lookup
Arthur Schafer wikipedia , lookup
Clare Palmer wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup
Business ethics wikipedia , lookup
Jewish ethics wikipedia , lookup
DEFINING PLURALISM __________________ A Paper Presented to Dr. Brian Bohlman Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for CHPL 500 __________________ by James R. Brooks February 18, 2010 Defining Pluralism The American Heritage Dictionary defines pluralism as “a condition in which numerous distinct ethnic, religious, or cultural groups are present and tolerated within a society.”1 Within the context of the subject matter under discussion, as it relates to military chaplaincy, religious pluralism will be the focal point of what will be examined. To begin this process, one must identify the source or basis of authority in asserting propositional claims regarding the pluralistic view. What this brief exercise will seek to demonstrate is that unless one presupposes a Christian theistic worldview as the starting point for defending ethical notions, which pluralism can not do, justifying one’s ethics are not even possible. While the term pluralism seeks to advocate tolerance in competing worldviews within an organizational matrix, such as the military, one must eventually ask if competing views within a pluralistic dimension are not self defeating. For example, without appealing to a utilitarian form of ethics, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, how does one who advocates pluralism justify any ethical notion? To appeal, for example, to the UCMJ, is to simply beg the question because one must eventually ask, what is that system of ethics based upon? If this is the case then one must search for an ultimate standard or starting point by which ethics may determine right and wrong. For example, Corporal Smith might think that it is okay to kill or rape an enemy, female, combatant. If one were to adhere to a strict form of pluralism, then one has no moral argument for repudiating Smith’s views or actions regarding the killing or raping of females. Why, because in a pluralistic society one or even many people’s personal view’s of ethics and 1 Houghton Mifflin, "Pluralism," Yahoo Education, 2009, www.education.yahoo.com/ (accessed February 16, 2010). 1 2 personal freedoms are just as valid as another’s. Smith could easily state that within his system of ethics, killing or raping women is acceptable. If pluralism is accepted, then there is no universal standard by which one may make an ethically righteous appeal. Only the Christian worldview has an absolute standard which is consistent “with the teachings of Scripture [in pointing] society to a higher standard of righteousness…” in determining moral or ethical absolutes.2 Another view accepted within the pluralistic schema that presents ethical dilemmas is the view that the Church and State should be separate.3 Proponents of this view espouse that separation of Church and State would allow room for both Christians and non-Christians to equally coexist in an organization without impeding each group’s views.4 While in theory this proposition sounds feasible and appears to be the majority view, even within Christendom, it again does not address the most basic issue. By what standard is the group, organization or Country going to use. If not using a biblical view for legislating morality, then again, all ethical notions must be viewed as equally valid or based upon a utilitarian standard. What will eventually occur, given time and circumstances, is conflict. This is due to there being no unified standard for the basis of ethics that can be soundly justified.5 The pluralists however, may charge the Christian with the same thing, a circular argument. 2 John Jefferson Davis, Evangelical Ethics (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004), 26. 3 Scott B. Rae, Moral Choices (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 268. 4 Ibid., 268. 5 It is beyond the scope of this exercise to present the vast array of the theological and philosophical arguments to support the Christian theistic perspective against pluralism. However, for a detailed analysis of how to justify and defend Christian theism using the transcendental argument see: Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til's Apologetic (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1998). 3 How does one reconcile this? The answer is the workable worldview. Christian theism is the only worldview that can make sense out of logic, morality, science and universal abstract entities such as love and ethics. A brief example of this, only for the sake of time and the restraints placed upon this exercise is the atheistic worldview. Atheism espouses that there are no abstract universal entities and that the only thing that is real is the material Universe, determined by empirical observation and experience. Given this presupposition, one must eventually ask the atheist if the conclusion itself is based upon empirical observation and experience. The answer of course is no. This is but a glimpse of what could fully be laid and the pluralist’s door step when pressing the antitheses regarding one having a workable and cogent worldview. Pluralism does not. What can be concluded from this brief exercise is that pluralism, because of its appeal to being tolerant, is a good idea but is a fleeting illusion. This is because when one gets behind the idea of pluralism to the working mechanisms of its ethics, the only thing present is conflict and self refutation. This exercise has demonstrated that pluralistic views do not have a proper foundation by which ethical propositions can be defended or universally applied. Therefore, adhering to pluralism as a worldview is not possible if one seeks to remain rational. BIBLIOGRAPHY Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2004. Mifflin, Houghton. "Pluralism." Yahoo Education, 2009. www.education.yahoo.com/ (accessed February 16, 2010). 4