ADBC: 08 – Can You Be Good? When Is It Right To Kill?

This is a further entry in the ongoing blog conversation with my eminent and admirable brother, David. Here’s the premise.

Previously in the conversation: David took a question on racism and really, really, really brought out some outstanding thoughts on it. Just when I thought he was already hot, the man took the heat up another notch by scorching through a question about equality. I really cannot encourage you enough to read that entry. Seriously, there are some terms and concepts that are bandied about in regular conversation that are not really explored. My brother is not one to bandy things about and won’t have the bandying business take place. Read that entry, share it with friends and give it a good thinking through yourself. An aspect of these conversations is to think a bit about some of the things we don’t always pay attention to and can easily take for granted. David’s piece is a great example of that and he’s only beginning to challenge our approaches. Read it. Go on.

It was not enough for David to hit home runs with the answers, he also had a couple of questions to ask me that sent me out of the ballpark:

Q: Can a person who is ignorant of morality and critical thinking be a good person? Can anyone be a good person? By “good” I do not mean “perfect.”

Can anyone be a good person? Let me start there with an immediate – ‘yes’. Being a good person is possible for anyone. I think that’s important because if it wasn’t available to anyone then it would be tough to have something worth pursuing in life and being a good person is something I think is worth pursuing.

This leads to the issue of how you pursue being a good person. Therein comes the ignorance of morality and critical thinking. I don’t think it’s that incredible to suggest that right and wrong or good and evil are aspects of life that most people experience or engage with. What the good/right or wrong/evil is, forms the engagement of exploration. What is it? Why is it? How can it be discovered one way or the other? The ignorance of these issues is when we simply accept what we have and never check them as to why we believe what we believe when it comes to those areas. I’m not saying that you should be wracking your brain every day agonising over whether the decision you made was the right one. It’s good to have some idea though where you get your thinking from or else what can happen is if you don’t have a basis, then it won’t take long for what you think to be rendered as nothing more than at best a whimsical opinion. And really can you afford to leave a matter of right/wrong or good/evil to just a whimsy? I feel like this is bad, so it’s bad, but it’s just how I feel at this time. Come on, now, it really diminishes what in essence is something that should be cherished as of great value. It’s one of the reasons why I find the relativist approach to morality – that there’s no such thing as objective truth and thus no such thing as objective right and wrong – problematic.

Your question, however, is can someone ignorant of morality and critical thinking be good? No. Exercising a degree of morality in a knowing way suggests that you know what you’re doing, you’ve thought it through and can be held responsible for it. In that way, you can either be good or not.

There is of course the issue of what makes a good person and someone might refer to how Jesus responded to a teacher who called him good and stated that no one is good. I believe that this is more a reference to that idea of perfect that you state in your question. A good person is one who genuinely does seek to know what it is to be good and live in the light of that. From my perspective, as it will come as no surprise to hear me say this, being a good person is only found in Jesus and that means knowing Him, which is where the critical thinking is particularly required because Jesus expects us to know Him for who He is and then live out that in a way that engages the thinking faculty.

Q: Are there any guidelines that you know of that can help you judge whether the cost of life was worth it and whether to morally condemn or approve of the acts of those who give the commands for the death-dealing deeds to be done?

Excuse me for abbreviating your question, my brother. I did appreciate the reference to those who are affected by injections authorised or by those sent out to conflict on the orders of the same authority who issued the directive for the injections to take place  I wonder if anyone else saw the connection you were making between the two?

The cost of life can be an emotional subject and some of that emotion can cloud the issue at hand. That issue to me goes to the heart of what is right in God’s sight. So where guidelines are concerned I refer to God’s word to see what He says on the matter of when it is justified to take a life. God is righteous and just to judge the situation where the taking of life is concerned. He will call for it where He sees it as right, usually for matters of gross iniquity or evil. He has put into law justified occasions for the taking of life for example where murder has taken place.

When it comes to matters of warfare or instituting a scientific injection that directly causes casualties under the explanation that it ‘saves lives’, those kinds of decisions are tough to get clear guidance on them. I believe a Christian philosopher looked to come up with a Just War theory that legitimised the taking of life in the war scenario. To be fair I haven’t rigorously interrogated it.

I know that there are indications in New Testament scripture that authorities should be a scourge against evildoers and some might see that as a justification to implement death-dealing deeds. Beyond that, however, actions and decisions to take lives should be considered morally reprehensible and abominable exactly because of the value God places on human life.

It saddens me a great deal that even in my lifetime, a number of actions and decisions by authorities have conducted the taking of life in a manner that would be considered, as I understand God’s standards, as morally reprehensible and abominable. I say sadden and also have to add the word angers. Those feelings, however, I’m advised to take to the Lord in prayer and look to Him for counsel and guidance, trusting Him to do what’s right as well as give me wisdom on the stance I should take.

I hope that’s answered your question, here, bro. It’s certainly a deep subject to consider and one of necessity to grapple with as we look to establish what matters in life.

---

Well, my brother, that’s my take on the questions you asked. If you want to respond or engage with those points, you know you can do so.  As you do that, however, answer me these, please, David:

Q – Following your perspective on the issue of racism as a whole, what are your thoughts on the take-a-knee sentiment operated at the moment by Premier League footballers?

Q – You mention how important it is to base things on their relevant qualities and merit for a just and righteous society. Do you think meritocracy is a worthwhile quality to underpin society? Explain your answer.

Q – What television programmes or online video channels would you recommend people watch and why?

In the meantime, for this opportunity dear brother, thank you.

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden