The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
The Moral Quest
Foundations of Christian ethics
1. Introduction: Christian ethics in a transitional age
Ethical questions are coming to us from every direction via media. To live is to face ethical challenges.
Ethical Challenges and the Contemporary World
We face a unique challenge since the Enlightenment. Modern science gave us more capabilities and
with them new ethical challenges (abortion, euthanasia, and genetic engineering, etc.). Also, there is
no longer such a thing as ethical unanimity. We live in the midst of a crisis in morality. Post-Christendom
or post-Christian world and Postmodernism.
The Ethical Challenge and the Christian
God desires a certain way of living and disapproves of certain other ways of living. We must be Christians
individually and corporately in the specific context God has placed us. Threefold activity in the
contemporary world:
- Attuning: We must listen to the world through the ears of our Master.
- Analyzing: Seeking out the central issue.
- Applying: How do our resources provide us direction today?
Foundational thesis: Ethics is theology in action.
Chapter 1: Christian Ethics & the Ethical Task
Aspects of General Ethics
Is there a universal ethic to which all humans have access through reason?
Three aspects:
- Empirical: Observation of ethical decision making.
Normative Ethics
Describing persons, things or acts as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘admirable’, and ‘despicable’.
Judgment of moral obligation: Stating what someone is morally obliged to be or do. ‘Honesty is good’.
Judgment of moral value: Expressing what we value/stating conviction. ‘My father is a good man’.
Non-moral judgements: They are normative. What we see as standard.’Non-moral obligation: ‘You
must see Skyfall’.
Non-moral value:’My Mustang is a good car’.
Judgements of non-moral value are of interest: they are connected to what people consider to be ‘the
good life’. This concept is crucial in ethical decision-making.
Analytical ethics
Analytical ethics takes ethics apart and explores the nature of morality itself. Analytical ethics pursues
questions of definition: ‘What does the word ‘good’ mean?
Constructing a normative ethic of doing
Casuistry: talking about boundary situations. Three points made by Socrates:
,The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
- Ethical questions ought to be settled by reason alone.
- Ethical questions are to be answered according to the standards of the person involved alone.
- The outcome of an act is irrelevant. The consideration is whether an act is intrinsically good or
wrong.
The deontological approach
Deontology: what is intrinsically right. Morality is the objective. What can determine the rightness or
wrongness of an act? → Rule-deontologism, for example, the Bible or human reason. ‘How many rules
(or Scripture references) is enough? One rule → principle monism.
Kant: categorical imperative. 1. Universalize maxims 2. Treat humanity as a means and an end. 3. Sense
of duty.
Always do the at that is motivated by the sincere belief that what you are doing is the right thing to do,
right not merely for you but for anybody seeking to act properly in any similar situation. Do your duty.
However, it is not always evident what our duty is.
Joseph Fletcher: Foundational rule = the biblical commandment of love. But we don’t always know what
the loving act is in a specific situation.
Pluralistic deontologism: several rules, e.g. Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount. What if the
rules conflict? What if obedience to one rule requires us to violate or claim exception to another rule?
Hierarchicalism, graded absolutism (higher and lower rules). However, if (lower) rules can be
suspended, how can we speak of it as an ethical norm?
The teleological approach
Teleology: what are the consequences? The outcome determines the rightness or wrongness of an act.
The only goal is to produce the greatest balance of good and evil. But greatest for whom?
- You → ethical egoism (people ought to act in their own best interest). Psychological egoism
(stating that people are acting in their own best interest). Ethical egoism could be compatible
with Christian teaching (long-term interest over the short term).
- The world as a whole → Utilitarianism. An act is right or wrong depending on the degree to
which it is useful or harmful. Produce the most good or the least evil possible in the given
situation. But: acting on behalf of the greatest number of people provide moral sanction for
overriding the concern for individual justice (Caiaphas).
These problems have led to a hybrid view: rule utilitarianism. Which rule has the greatest
utility(produces the greatest balance between good and evil for the greatest number of people)? But
can we anticipate the results of our actions?
Ethics and Theories of Value
What ought we to value and hence call ‘good’?
Extrinsic and intrinsic value
Extrinsic value: the ground of its value lies in its relationship to another value
Intrinsic value: the ground of its value lies within its own nature. Discussions about value eventually are
about what has intrinsic value.
The question of the foundational intrinsic value
What has intrinsic value:
- Pleasure → hedonism.
1. Pleasure is good for its own sake, pain is always bad.
2. Pleasure is the only thing good for its own sake, pain is the only thing intrinsically bad.
,The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
- Interest theory of value: Something is good is we have a mental disposition of being ‘for’ it.
- Self-realization: The only intrinsic good is to have a goal/purpose for existence.
Essentialist view: The purpose of our existence determines our nature.
- Henry Wright: Self-realization involves ‘the attainment of a progression of
ends, each of which includes and supersedes the one before until the supreme
and all-comprehensive ideal is reached. (Pleasure → culture → altruism →
humanitarianism → universal progress)
- In contrast: self-actualization: We have no inner nature, and must decide what
we wish to become.
- Virtue: When reason acts as master over our passions. (Greeks). Beyond the realm of obligation.
Constructing a Normative Ethic of Being
Let’s abandon our search for an ethic of doing and seek instead to devise an ethic of being (or virtue).
Doing versus being
An ethic of being is concerned with what we should be or what we should prefer. Conduct is not ignored
but is important as an expression of character and as a means in its development. David Hume: ‘When
we praise actions, we regard only their motives’.
Deontological versus teleological approaches
- Trait deontologism: Certain characters are intrinsically good.
- Trait teleologism: Traits are to be measured by results.
- Trait egoism: The basic moral virtue is a careful concern for your own good.
- Trait utilitarianism: The basic virtue is the desire to promote the general good.
Updated trait deontologism: Nel Noddings has a female approach: to care is to be good. The will to be
good = to remain in caring relation to the other.
Updated trait teleologism: Alasdair MacIntyre: Virtues are instrumental to a higher goal, i.e. bringing
unity to our lives.
Normative ethics and the pursuit of the good
Deontologism (‘right’) and teleologism (‘good’) appear to be divergent. If ‘right’ is the key, then ‘good’
becomes the will from which duty springs or the reward that follows the duty. If ‘good’ is the key, then
‘right’ becomes the means to maximize the good. → search for convergence between the two.
Schleiermacher: good → duty → virtue. Both approaches of normative ethics ultimately lead to the
question of the good life.
Constructing a Justification for Ethics
What is the foundation for ethical judgment? Three major responses:
Naturalism
Appealing to ‘the way things are’. Ethical judgments can be translated into non-ethical statements, i.e.
statements of the factual kind, which can in some way be empirically verified.
Teleological naturalism: ‘Good signifies whatever enables something to fulfil its inborn ideal.
Natural law. ‘Is’ leads to ‘ought’. Snow is white → snow ought to be white?
How can we move from ‘is-ness’ to goodness? That is only possible if our world is ‘the best of all possible
worlds’ or human nature/potential is untainted by the Fall. What appears to be quite natural may also
be quite wrong.
,The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
Metaphysical moralism
Metaphysical moralism appeals to the supernatural world. Good is ‘what is commanded by God’. But,
is something right because God commands it (might makes right → God becomes a cosmic bully)? Or
does God command it because it is right (God must conform to our standard)? These questions have
led to the abandonment of metaphysical moralism.
Intuitionism (non-naturalism)
Ethical truth is self-evident: you either see it, or you don’t. But what exactly ought we to ‘see’?
G.E. Moore: ‘goodness’. We know by simply ‘seeing’ whether the assertion ‘x is good’ is true. When we
understand foundational moral principles, we come to see their truth as well (we need no other
evidence to see they are true).
Others declare ‘rightness’ also to be an indefinable quality known only through direct apprehension.
Noncognitivism
Ethical judgments do not carry cognitive meaning; they neither assert nor deny objective facts. They
do, however, carry great emotive meaning, i.e. they express emotions, feelings and attitudes →
emotivism. There is a difference between the expression of feelings (e.g. ‘Yes!’) and the assertion of
feelings (e.g. ‘I am pleased’). The latter are descriptive and belong to the realm of psychology.
Radical emotivism: ‘Hitler was morally culpable’ equals ‘Boo Hitler’. Ethical judgments are nothing more
than forceful expressions of the speaker’s own emotions.
In uttering ethical statements we intend that the hearer will gain a similar emotional feeling. Some
emotivists say that ethical statements are calculated to arouse feeling and thereby perhaps even to
stimulate action.
Others suggest that ethical judgments do carry descriptive meaning, namely to indicate the presence
of the attitude in the speaker to evoke approval or disapproval in the hearer. They intend to be both
expressive and persuasive.
Alternative: prescriptivism.
The goal of ethical language is to guide the choice of others. The contemporary pluralist context teaches
that my own viewpoint is influenced by my own circumstances. Our hearers may share different views.
Everyone is entitled to his or her judgment.
Justifying Ethics Itself
Why be moral?
The philosophical justification
The answer lies in our corporate existence: Ethical living is necessary to produce and sustain the
conditions that make human corporate life possible. Our own survival is at stake. As members of a
corporate whole, we have certain obligations and responsibilities.
Kai Nielsen: ‘When we ask: why should we have a morality - any morality, even completely conventional
morality - we answer that if everyone acts morally, or generally acts morally, people will be able to
attain more of what they want’.
This leads inevitably to a teleological ethic. The ethical life contributes to our well-being or the good
life. I ought to live ethical because doing so is to my benefit. This step leads back to human reason as
the foundation for ethics.
Conclusion: The Ethical Cul-de-Sac and the Value of General Ethics
Our survey of possible ways of determining the nature of the ethical life, as well as the various theories
that could guide the moral quest, led us finally to the question, Why be ethical? We concluded: because
, The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
it promotes the good life. To be human is to promote our own well-being. It comes down to a personal
question: What do I consider to be the good life?
With this question, we are back at square one, since it has led us back to our starting point: the
reasonable self. This raises the question if there is a transcendent vantage point that can speak to the
human ethical quest.
Chapter 2: The Greek ethical tradition
Christianity and the Greek ethical tradition
Ethics is not exclusively Christian. The (ancient) Greek philosophers provided the mould that gave shape
to the Western ethical tradition. For the early followers of Jesus, the foundation for ethics lied in the
Old Testament. Christians encountered the Greek philosophical tradition (e.g., Acts 17) and when
Christianity gained foothold in the Roman Empire, Christians sought to understand the implications of
the gospel for a context shaped by the philosophical ethics of ancient Greece.
In general, the ethical quest for the ancient Greek (mostly teleological) thinkers was to attempt to
determine how we should best live and act so as to reach our telos. We will listen to five major voices:
Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics and Plotinus.
Plato and Ordered Integration
Ordered integration and the soul
According to Plato, the goal of life is to actualize our true nature and our innate potentialities (self-
realization), which suggests that he proposed a teleological ethic. However, it is perhaps more
appropriate to call his proposal an ethic of ‘ordered integration’ or ‘harmony’. For Plato, the highest
good is a well-ordered whole to which each part (aspects of the human soul) contributes according to
its own capacity.
Part Power Corresponding Virtue
Rational Reason Wisdom
Passionate
Spirited Will Courage
Sensuous Appetite Temperance
Justice (integrating virtue.
Harmony (Justice) appears
when the appetitive part is
subordinated to the spirited,
and both are subordinated to
the rational part)
These four virtues are interrelated and inseparable; together they comprise one integrated virtuous
life. If reason controls the passions and thereby brings about harmonious action, then evil emerges
when nonrational impulses prevail over reason. Ignorance is the main cause of evil actions. Evil is an
error of judgment.
The Moral Quest
Foundations of Christian ethics
1. Introduction: Christian ethics in a transitional age
Ethical questions are coming to us from every direction via media. To live is to face ethical challenges.
Ethical Challenges and the Contemporary World
We face a unique challenge since the Enlightenment. Modern science gave us more capabilities and
with them new ethical challenges (abortion, euthanasia, and genetic engineering, etc.). Also, there is
no longer such a thing as ethical unanimity. We live in the midst of a crisis in morality. Post-Christendom
or post-Christian world and Postmodernism.
The Ethical Challenge and the Christian
God desires a certain way of living and disapproves of certain other ways of living. We must be Christians
individually and corporately in the specific context God has placed us. Threefold activity in the
contemporary world:
- Attuning: We must listen to the world through the ears of our Master.
- Analyzing: Seeking out the central issue.
- Applying: How do our resources provide us direction today?
Foundational thesis: Ethics is theology in action.
Chapter 1: Christian Ethics & the Ethical Task
Aspects of General Ethics
Is there a universal ethic to which all humans have access through reason?
Three aspects:
- Empirical: Observation of ethical decision making.
Normative Ethics
Describing persons, things or acts as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘admirable’, and ‘despicable’.
Judgment of moral obligation: Stating what someone is morally obliged to be or do. ‘Honesty is good’.
Judgment of moral value: Expressing what we value/stating conviction. ‘My father is a good man’.
Non-moral judgements: They are normative. What we see as standard.’Non-moral obligation: ‘You
must see Skyfall’.
Non-moral value:’My Mustang is a good car’.
Judgements of non-moral value are of interest: they are connected to what people consider to be ‘the
good life’. This concept is crucial in ethical decision-making.
Analytical ethics
Analytical ethics takes ethics apart and explores the nature of morality itself. Analytical ethics pursues
questions of definition: ‘What does the word ‘good’ mean?
Constructing a normative ethic of doing
Casuistry: talking about boundary situations. Three points made by Socrates:
,The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
- Ethical questions ought to be settled by reason alone.
- Ethical questions are to be answered according to the standards of the person involved alone.
- The outcome of an act is irrelevant. The consideration is whether an act is intrinsically good or
wrong.
The deontological approach
Deontology: what is intrinsically right. Morality is the objective. What can determine the rightness or
wrongness of an act? → Rule-deontologism, for example, the Bible or human reason. ‘How many rules
(or Scripture references) is enough? One rule → principle monism.
Kant: categorical imperative. 1. Universalize maxims 2. Treat humanity as a means and an end. 3. Sense
of duty.
Always do the at that is motivated by the sincere belief that what you are doing is the right thing to do,
right not merely for you but for anybody seeking to act properly in any similar situation. Do your duty.
However, it is not always evident what our duty is.
Joseph Fletcher: Foundational rule = the biblical commandment of love. But we don’t always know what
the loving act is in a specific situation.
Pluralistic deontologism: several rules, e.g. Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount. What if the
rules conflict? What if obedience to one rule requires us to violate or claim exception to another rule?
Hierarchicalism, graded absolutism (higher and lower rules). However, if (lower) rules can be
suspended, how can we speak of it as an ethical norm?
The teleological approach
Teleology: what are the consequences? The outcome determines the rightness or wrongness of an act.
The only goal is to produce the greatest balance of good and evil. But greatest for whom?
- You → ethical egoism (people ought to act in their own best interest). Psychological egoism
(stating that people are acting in their own best interest). Ethical egoism could be compatible
with Christian teaching (long-term interest over the short term).
- The world as a whole → Utilitarianism. An act is right or wrong depending on the degree to
which it is useful or harmful. Produce the most good or the least evil possible in the given
situation. But: acting on behalf of the greatest number of people provide moral sanction for
overriding the concern for individual justice (Caiaphas).
These problems have led to a hybrid view: rule utilitarianism. Which rule has the greatest
utility(produces the greatest balance between good and evil for the greatest number of people)? But
can we anticipate the results of our actions?
Ethics and Theories of Value
What ought we to value and hence call ‘good’?
Extrinsic and intrinsic value
Extrinsic value: the ground of its value lies in its relationship to another value
Intrinsic value: the ground of its value lies within its own nature. Discussions about value eventually are
about what has intrinsic value.
The question of the foundational intrinsic value
What has intrinsic value:
- Pleasure → hedonism.
1. Pleasure is good for its own sake, pain is always bad.
2. Pleasure is the only thing good for its own sake, pain is the only thing intrinsically bad.
,The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
- Interest theory of value: Something is good is we have a mental disposition of being ‘for’ it.
- Self-realization: The only intrinsic good is to have a goal/purpose for existence.
Essentialist view: The purpose of our existence determines our nature.
- Henry Wright: Self-realization involves ‘the attainment of a progression of
ends, each of which includes and supersedes the one before until the supreme
and all-comprehensive ideal is reached. (Pleasure → culture → altruism →
humanitarianism → universal progress)
- In contrast: self-actualization: We have no inner nature, and must decide what
we wish to become.
- Virtue: When reason acts as master over our passions. (Greeks). Beyond the realm of obligation.
Constructing a Normative Ethic of Being
Let’s abandon our search for an ethic of doing and seek instead to devise an ethic of being (or virtue).
Doing versus being
An ethic of being is concerned with what we should be or what we should prefer. Conduct is not ignored
but is important as an expression of character and as a means in its development. David Hume: ‘When
we praise actions, we regard only their motives’.
Deontological versus teleological approaches
- Trait deontologism: Certain characters are intrinsically good.
- Trait teleologism: Traits are to be measured by results.
- Trait egoism: The basic moral virtue is a careful concern for your own good.
- Trait utilitarianism: The basic virtue is the desire to promote the general good.
Updated trait deontologism: Nel Noddings has a female approach: to care is to be good. The will to be
good = to remain in caring relation to the other.
Updated trait teleologism: Alasdair MacIntyre: Virtues are instrumental to a higher goal, i.e. bringing
unity to our lives.
Normative ethics and the pursuit of the good
Deontologism (‘right’) and teleologism (‘good’) appear to be divergent. If ‘right’ is the key, then ‘good’
becomes the will from which duty springs or the reward that follows the duty. If ‘good’ is the key, then
‘right’ becomes the means to maximize the good. → search for convergence between the two.
Schleiermacher: good → duty → virtue. Both approaches of normative ethics ultimately lead to the
question of the good life.
Constructing a Justification for Ethics
What is the foundation for ethical judgment? Three major responses:
Naturalism
Appealing to ‘the way things are’. Ethical judgments can be translated into non-ethical statements, i.e.
statements of the factual kind, which can in some way be empirically verified.
Teleological naturalism: ‘Good signifies whatever enables something to fulfil its inborn ideal.
Natural law. ‘Is’ leads to ‘ought’. Snow is white → snow ought to be white?
How can we move from ‘is-ness’ to goodness? That is only possible if our world is ‘the best of all possible
worlds’ or human nature/potential is untainted by the Fall. What appears to be quite natural may also
be quite wrong.
,The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
Metaphysical moralism
Metaphysical moralism appeals to the supernatural world. Good is ‘what is commanded by God’. But,
is something right because God commands it (might makes right → God becomes a cosmic bully)? Or
does God command it because it is right (God must conform to our standard)? These questions have
led to the abandonment of metaphysical moralism.
Intuitionism (non-naturalism)
Ethical truth is self-evident: you either see it, or you don’t. But what exactly ought we to ‘see’?
G.E. Moore: ‘goodness’. We know by simply ‘seeing’ whether the assertion ‘x is good’ is true. When we
understand foundational moral principles, we come to see their truth as well (we need no other
evidence to see they are true).
Others declare ‘rightness’ also to be an indefinable quality known only through direct apprehension.
Noncognitivism
Ethical judgments do not carry cognitive meaning; they neither assert nor deny objective facts. They
do, however, carry great emotive meaning, i.e. they express emotions, feelings and attitudes →
emotivism. There is a difference between the expression of feelings (e.g. ‘Yes!’) and the assertion of
feelings (e.g. ‘I am pleased’). The latter are descriptive and belong to the realm of psychology.
Radical emotivism: ‘Hitler was morally culpable’ equals ‘Boo Hitler’. Ethical judgments are nothing more
than forceful expressions of the speaker’s own emotions.
In uttering ethical statements we intend that the hearer will gain a similar emotional feeling. Some
emotivists say that ethical statements are calculated to arouse feeling and thereby perhaps even to
stimulate action.
Others suggest that ethical judgments do carry descriptive meaning, namely to indicate the presence
of the attitude in the speaker to evoke approval or disapproval in the hearer. They intend to be both
expressive and persuasive.
Alternative: prescriptivism.
The goal of ethical language is to guide the choice of others. The contemporary pluralist context teaches
that my own viewpoint is influenced by my own circumstances. Our hearers may share different views.
Everyone is entitled to his or her judgment.
Justifying Ethics Itself
Why be moral?
The philosophical justification
The answer lies in our corporate existence: Ethical living is necessary to produce and sustain the
conditions that make human corporate life possible. Our own survival is at stake. As members of a
corporate whole, we have certain obligations and responsibilities.
Kai Nielsen: ‘When we ask: why should we have a morality - any morality, even completely conventional
morality - we answer that if everyone acts morally, or generally acts morally, people will be able to
attain more of what they want’.
This leads inevitably to a teleological ethic. The ethical life contributes to our well-being or the good
life. I ought to live ethical because doing so is to my benefit. This step leads back to human reason as
the foundation for ethics.
Conclusion: The Ethical Cul-de-Sac and the Value of General Ethics
Our survey of possible ways of determining the nature of the ethical life, as well as the various theories
that could guide the moral quest, led us finally to the question, Why be ethical? We concluded: because
, The Moral Quest, Stanley J. Grenz Summary by Mark Klooster
it promotes the good life. To be human is to promote our own well-being. It comes down to a personal
question: What do I consider to be the good life?
With this question, we are back at square one, since it has led us back to our starting point: the
reasonable self. This raises the question if there is a transcendent vantage point that can speak to the
human ethical quest.
Chapter 2: The Greek ethical tradition
Christianity and the Greek ethical tradition
Ethics is not exclusively Christian. The (ancient) Greek philosophers provided the mould that gave shape
to the Western ethical tradition. For the early followers of Jesus, the foundation for ethics lied in the
Old Testament. Christians encountered the Greek philosophical tradition (e.g., Acts 17) and when
Christianity gained foothold in the Roman Empire, Christians sought to understand the implications of
the gospel for a context shaped by the philosophical ethics of ancient Greece.
In general, the ethical quest for the ancient Greek (mostly teleological) thinkers was to attempt to
determine how we should best live and act so as to reach our telos. We will listen to five major voices:
Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics and Plotinus.
Plato and Ordered Integration
Ordered integration and the soul
According to Plato, the goal of life is to actualize our true nature and our innate potentialities (self-
realization), which suggests that he proposed a teleological ethic. However, it is perhaps more
appropriate to call his proposal an ethic of ‘ordered integration’ or ‘harmony’. For Plato, the highest
good is a well-ordered whole to which each part (aspects of the human soul) contributes according to
its own capacity.
Part Power Corresponding Virtue
Rational Reason Wisdom
Passionate
Spirited Will Courage
Sensuous Appetite Temperance
Justice (integrating virtue.
Harmony (Justice) appears
when the appetitive part is
subordinated to the spirited,
and both are subordinated to
the rational part)
These four virtues are interrelated and inseparable; together they comprise one integrated virtuous
life. If reason controls the passions and thereby brings about harmonious action, then evil emerges
when nonrational impulses prevail over reason. Ignorance is the main cause of evil actions. Evil is an
error of judgment.
