The Development of Ethics

Ethical philosophers have derived a number of ways of approaching ethics. The word ethics comes from the Greek (θικός) meaning “the theory of living” [1] or “a system of value and custom instantiated in the lives of particular groups” [2] that articulates the morality of the group or organization. Therefore, in many ways, it goes beyond the individual to the group or organization to which the individual belongs. It does not dismiss individual ethics, but incorporates individuals within an ethical framework of a group setting.

The Beginnings

Ethics has a long history, dating back to the first ethical transaction in the Garden that spread before the City of God – the Garden of Eden. This was an ethics based on faith. This faith recognized that God knew better concerning how men and women should live than they did. A breach of ethics claimed its first victims who came under judgment and received the sentences of expulsion from the protection of the City of God and the pronouncement of death. Although the Judge of the earth delayed the sentence of physical death, the first man and woman received an instant judgment of spiritual death, which passed to their offspring through all generations.

From that point forward, the citizens of the City of Men struggled to develop means of living with his fellow men under the judgment of God. The priests and thinkers of their generations imposed their own codes of ethics on the peoples in various forms of government so that civilization could develop. However, as people began to multiply over the earth so also did their unrestrained evil. Their separation from God proved overbearing, leading to continual violence, lusts of all sorts, and darkness of heart (Genesis 6:5). God decided that the City of Men needed cleansing and did so with a great flood (6:7). However, moral bankruptcy remained in the offspring of Noah although God showed favor to him by sparing him from His cleansing.

The Dawn of Societal Ethics

One of the first cities came into existence. The citizens of this city said to one another, “Let’s combine our resources and do business together. Let’s form a corporation, give it our name, and enter into a large construction project to laud our efforts. In addition to numerous building projects, let’s construct a large building that reaches to the heavens and proclaim ourselves to be masters of the universe stopped by nothing.” Therefore, the people of the City of Men became united economically, governmentally, and in their language (Genesis 11:1-9).

However, God had a different agenda. The City of Men was not to His liking, for it ignored His moral authority, and they failed to comply with His code of ethics. Consequently, He confused their language so that they divided into numerous dialects and unity became division. Their corporate communications mechanisms failed, and they eventually dissolved without completing their building projects.

As time marched forward, the Babylonian Empire saw another great ruler, Hammurabi (circa 2342 B.C.-2010 B.C.), who established his kingdom and left a witness to the earliest written ethical expression of the times. His name means “the kinsman is a healer.” [3] He left a legacy to his code of ethics on an “obelisk-like block of black diorite measuring 7’ 41/2’’ in height and 6’ 9” in circumference at the base.” [4] This large stone provided the laws of his dominion covering both legal and criminal code along with an inscription to his honor that read, “When Marduk sent me to govern men, to sustain and instruct the world, right and justice in the land I established, and brought about the happiness of men.” [5] His code encompassed matters concerning bans and witchcraft, false witnesses, theft, kidnapping, burglary, landowner and tenant, damages to crops, shepherding, and the care of orchards. [6]

As generations passed, another man arose from Egypt, whom the Pharaoh trained in the arts, language, religion, and government affairs. He arose from a small basket in the Nile to become among the greatest in Pharaoh’s government. Several political miscues cost Moses his position beside Pharaoh and he escaped death and lived in the desert for forty years. However, God lifted him up once again to become the leader of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. God gave Moses His code of ethics embedded on tablets of law (The Ten Commandments). Torah became a legacy of his encounter with God on ethical behavior in civil, religious, and criminal affairs. It guided the society of the children of Israel in the land they inherited. In living by YAHWEH’s code of ethics, they would prosper, but departure would bring them all the curses the Law degreed. Their personal lives and their way of conducting business fell under the same law.

As judges and kings arose in Israel, they ruled over the people according to the Law of Moses. However, not all of them fell in line with that Law. Saul departed from following God and fell on the battlefield because of his unethical behavior before the nation. King David produced offspring within a tumultuous and dysfunctional family. However, from that family surfaced one who came before God and sought His wisdom as first priority. This king, Solomon, produced one of the greatest books of ethics in history – Proverbs. Later Solomon departed from God and his own wisdom, falling into the folly of sexual promiscuity and sunk into the clutches of idolatry. However, the book Solomon left was a book of ethics for both individual and society.

[1] ______________, Ethics in Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics.
[2] Crisp, Roger (1998). Ethics. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved July 07, 2006, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/L132.
[3] _______________, Hammurabi in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hammurabi
[4] Souvey, Charles L., Hammurabi in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI, Online Edition (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 2003.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.

It's Not Really Wrong As Long As It Doesn't Harm Another

The adage of “a behavior is not really wrong as long as it does not harm another” is a widely accepted phrase in today's American culture. Even if we apply this relative statement to the situation, do we obtain a clear answer concerning ethical boundaries? This kind of situational ethics cast a thick cloud over the issue of public or social versus private ethics and renders any solution unclear or without a broad application to society.

It does not consider long-term effect. It fails to regard the consequence it has on a host of other issues, such as integrity in business dealings, being truthful in all relationships, or attempts to cover up one’s behavior in other areas. If an employer engages in an extramarital affair with someone not within his or her company, are there not a number of behaviors involved, such as deceit, lying, cover-up, clandestine activity, avoidance, or denial of harm, wrongdoing, or a standard for behavior? Is there also not a disconnect between the behavior and its internal catalysts, such as lust, selfishness, sensuality, envy, or greed?

Jerry White addresses this latter question in his discussion concerning the underlying causes of sexual sin. He asserts that people engage in preparation and names a number of preparatory motives among which are sensuality, lusts, and cravings. [1] He writes, “The real battle in pre-sexual activities begins in the mind.” [2] Although the context is sexual morality, this holds true in all other areas of life. Philip Towner affirms White and adds another variable. He writes,
“In a very real sense, willing to act, thinking, and deciding all come under the category of the human power of the mind. People must make a decision about God, and volition is clearly involved.” [3]

He suggests that the primary issue and basis when addressing ethics is God. Two factors become evident within the realm of personal and social ethics. First, Christians accept the presupposition that men and women are created in the image of God and thereby become his image-bearers (Genesis 1:27; 9:6).

Second, as He is holy so also must we be holy (Leviticus 11:44; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:15-16). This distinguishes Christian ethics from secular ethics. Carl F. H. Henry explains the connection between being made in the image of God and personal ethics:

“The Bible does not discriminate humanity from the animals in terms of morphological considerations, but rather in terms of the imago Dei. Humanity is made for personal and endless fellowship with God, involving rational understanding (Genesis 1:28-29), moral obedience (2:16-17) [emphasis mine], and religious communion (3:3). [4]

In this statement Henry covers three areas of humanity’s response to God: the reasoning man (rational understanding), the ethical man (moral obedience), and the spiritual man – the man connected to God (religious communion). Each expresses the Imago Dei and forms the framework for personal and social ethics. They are not separate and compartmentalized entities. Henry asserts that the Scriptures teach “humanity as a unitary personality of soul and body.” [5] As such his ethical framework is also unified and found in God Himself. This applies not only to the individual but also to the community.

Third, what a person expresses in behavior is first conceived in the heart. The Apostle James states this truth relative to temptation and sin:

“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death” (James 1:13-15).

Embedded in James’ discussion on temptation and sin is the process that temptation takes. Temptation begins with a drawing away (or out of). The source is desires or lust. Lust is an internal principle that drives motivations and interacts with the heart to bring about the undisciplined passions. These passions entrap or delude the heart in believing the confronted temptation. When these undisciplined passions break out, they produce behaviors contrary to God’s way. The truth James teaches and then applies to temptation and sin is that behavior has its source in the motivations residing in the heart. Motivations affect the intellect, emotions, and will. Either lust or the Spirit of God drive the motivations (1:17-18) and produce destructive (1:15) or life-fulfilling behavior (1:19-21).

[1] White, Jerry, Honesty, Morality, and Conscience (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1978), 192-193.
[2] Ibid., 206.
[3] Towner, Philip H., Mind/Reason in Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 529.
[4] Henry, C. F. H., Image of God in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 593.
[5] Ibid, 594.

Public vs. Private Ethics

It has often been said, “What happens in privacy does not hurt anyone.” The motto for Las Vegas resonates this private versus public philosophy, “What happens in Las Vegas stays in Vegas.” Or does it? Does it get carried out by other means? Is anything truly secret? The implication of the two mottos above suggests that any indiscreet behavior that transpires in the privacy of a hotel room will not become publicly known and bring irreversible harm or affect that individual or the community. Accordingly, a person can be assured that there will be no public exposure of private indiscretions.

This raises the issue: Do private ethics have no bearing on public life or social ethics? Does what occurs in the privacy of a public official’s home or office have no influence on public or social policy decisions? Can private ethical behavior be separated from social ethics without consequences? Can there be public or social ethics without underlying personal ethics? Is there a legitimate bifurcation between private and public ethics? These questions go to the heart of law, the extent of morality, relationships development, the inner life and its outward expression, and public and social policy development.

Private Lives and Public Policy

David Gill of the University of Southern California cuts to the heart of the matter concerning private and public ethics with a brilliant assessment of the relationship between social and personal ethics,


“It is impossible to maintain a clear and precise distinction between social ethics and personal (individual) ethics. No individual behavior is without social implications. No social situation or problem is without individual repercussions.” [1]

According to Gill, public policy and social ethics are intertwined. He again writes,

“Public policy, politics, economics, war, poverty, education, racism, ecology, and crime: these are examples of the subject of social ethics.” [2]

All of the social institutions he identifies encompass a vast range of issues in every segment of society and cannot exist apart from individuals. Business, education, the church, professional associations, and government all involve people as they interact, exchange ideas, trade goods and services, and make decisions. They influence one another during these interchanges and affect the structure and moral environment of society.

A Case Study of Ethics in Government: Bill Clinton

In writing for the Associated Press, Richard Ostling states that many allies of former President Bill Clinton did not consider Clinton ineffective in spite of his moral sexual failures while in the White House. However, Ostling cites ethicists who contend otherwise: “that there is a necessary linkage between private character and public performance.” [3] He quotes Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary as saying, “A leader's personal "integrity and promise keeping" are especially important in the international arena.” [4] James B. Nelson of the United Theological Seminary also links private ethics with public influence and ethical leadership: “Clinton's deeds are clearly a public matter because they produce "disillusionment, further erosion of trust in officials, and dreadful distractions from pressing matters of public business.” [5]

However, not all ethicists or theologians share their view. The Reverend Joan Campbell of the National Counsel of Churches comments, "The private lives of our public leaders are best left private or we will have none allowed to lead." [6] Still another ethicist, Don Welch of Vanderbilt University law school adds what appears to be a middle ground, “If an employer is involved sexually with a private citizen outside the workplace, he says, "arguably that's none of our business." On the other hand, he says, sex with a subordinate that occurs at the office becomes a public matter.” [7]

However, is this truly a middle ground or simply a compromise based on situational ethics? If that private citizen is not his or her spouse and this employer is a high profile public figure that is head of a university, charitable organization, or influential corporation, does that change the argument? On what basis does the matter become the business of public ethics? What is the line between a private issue and a scandal? When does this sexual involvement cross the ethical line?

Any number of variables could be added to the situation concerning an employer and his or her sexual encounters. For example, is the employer married or single? However, without a moral base from which to distill an ethical judgment, morality becomes moot if approached from a situational stance.

[1] Gill, David W., Social Ethics in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Edition, Ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapid: Baker Book House, 2001), 1116-1117.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ostling, Richard N., Ethics experts say president’s private life is necessarily public in Online Athens, Athens Banner-Herald, September 20, 1998, http://www.onlineathens.com/1998/092098/0920.a3clintonpublic.html.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.

How Shall We Then Lead?

What is reasonable to expect from our leaders in society? This small essay does not address expectations from the perspective of those led. Rather, it focuses on a much higher guidance for leadership - what God expects of us. Leadership spans beyond the smallest to the largest organizational unit, from the family to the largest corporation. It can only do so when there is a reference point higher than oneself.

Two sets of leadership qualities exist for the leader – a) internal and b) the expression of those internal qualities. Ranking high on the list of leadership qualities are: integrity, truthfulness, unselfishness, humility, patience, and wisdom.

Integrity expresses itself in consistency (and not perfection), equal treatment of people, practicing one’s moral core, blamelessness, and faithfulness. People do not expect perfection from their leaders, for they realize they will make mistakes. Rather how a leader responds to mistakes sets an example of genuine leadership. Recognizing and taking action rather than denying or covering up mistakes or shortcomings shows courage and strength – positive qualities people find attractive and willing to emulate.

Truthfulness expresses itself in speaking and acting truthful. One can only speak and act when there exists an inner moral core. Such a moral core does not rest on a “my truth versus your truth” mentality. Rather, as Chuck Colson recognized, truth is normative. [1] There are indeed absolutes, and people look for a moral core for guidance in their personal and professional lives rather than for chaos, confusion, and anarchy.

An unselfish leader does not seek his own way first. Rather a leader’s thoughts and motives are toward those led. Unselfishness does not neglect care for oneself or self-reflection. Such care and reflection means attending to moral, emotional, and physical fitness. In attending to these, one can lead others well.

Humility shows itself in self-control and not attempting to flaunt oneself before others. Flaunting reveals insecurities and an over estimation of oneself that tends to polarize rather than attract people. Humility does not assume a doormat mentality – permitting people to wipe off their shoes on you. Rather, humility integrates inner strength, love and care for people, and standing up selflessly for what is right. Self-control speaks to the inner discipline that recognizes when and where to speak and act.

Patience is humility under control. An impatient leader finds declining followers. An impatient leader tends to vent an uncontrolled set of emotions toward others rather than assuming responsibility for those emotions when confronted with the undesirable. Patience is a fruit having its roots in a tamed spirit. Tame does not assume lack of assertiveness but wears the clothing of self-control during confrontation or disagreeable circumstances.

Wisdom is the cup that draws from all of the above springs of ethical leadership. It rests on the foundations of truth and integrity, does not drink at the well of self-seeking, and finds its home in humility and patience. Above all, it feeds on the fear of God. This fear is a deep respect for Him and all He is and does. When wisdom latches on to the fear of God, it unlocks the door to a strong and abiding faith and hope in His providence. This produces strength of character and leads down the path of spiritual rewards beyond any earthly ones. It also provides an ethical core without which a people will soon do “what is right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25) while taking the road to chaos and anarchy.

[1] Colson, Charles W., The Problem of Ethics in Christian Ethics Today: Journal of Christian Ethics, Spring 2004, Online Edition.