Living Gray

I think that sometimes in areas that are not well-defined, I consider those I love the most (my husband, my son, my mother) and wonder “Would they be proud of the decision I’m making?” or “Would I want them to know I did this?” I behave as if my son is always watching and modeling my behavior.

So what determines what is right and what is wrong (for the purpose of this blog, lets [sic] focus on things which are not prohibited by law, and which God through Scripture has not spoken clearly on).
First, it might be worthwhile to explore the two things you mentioned: things which are prohibited by law and things on which God, through Scripture, has “spoken clearly.” The reason I’m starting with something that you expressly said we should avoid is because these things are fundamental to the way some people view morality.
Some people, as strange as you might think this point of view is, see the law as a sort of moral standard. For those people, if it’s legal, it’s not necessarily morally wrong – though it could be offensive. Even an elementary understanding of ethics provides one with all the requisite tools for discovering the moral bankruptcy of this idea. It is easy to imagine all sorts of things that could be morally wrong, yet not illegal. The people that I have heard advocate for certain behavior simply on the grounds that it is not illegal generally have been reluctant to take a stand on the moral quality of the actions they’re advocating, usually – I believe – because they instinctively know that their argument is, at best, very weak.
Similarly weak is the argument that because God, through Scripture, has “spoken clearly” about something, it has a particular moral quality – right or wrong. This argument is logically weak, because the evidence that God speaks through Scripture is weak; there is much evidence that man has, at least, strongly influenced the structure and composition of The Bible as we have it today. The belief that God speaks through Scripture, while important and powerful, is not very strong ground on which to stand, when making an argument that it is Scripture that should dictate morality.
So, if we abandon the law as a standard for morality, and if we accept that Scripture is, at best, shaky ground on which to build our moral house, where does that leave us? I think it leaves us with a lot of options, actually. There is a plethora of metaethical theories that seek to define what “good” is, and there are many ethical systems that seek to define how one can live an ethical (morally positive) life. The good news is that many of them do not require adherence to a specific religion. This is a good thing, because it means that atheists and those who do not share specific religious views can lead ethical (morally positive), if not righteous, lives. This is important, because our laws are founded, to a degree at least, on our notions of goodness and fairness, and if we cannot agree about what is good and fair or even agree that certain kinds of people can be ethical people, our view of society and our ability to regulate it in a fair, ethical way is diminished and tainted with an inherently unjust point of view.
One option that is very attractive, and has been promoted over the years is utilitarianism, which has been defined a number of ways, but could be expressed as being an ethical system that seeks the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. So, under utilitarianism, whatever action provides the most happiness for the greatest number of people is the best action.
This is a kind of moral relativism, because only actions that have a “net happiness rating” that is lower than the one achieved by doing nothing are “not good,” and all other actions are either morally neutral or good to varying degrees. Many people subscribe to some form of utilitarianism, but it is, I believe, a flawed ethical system. Utilitarianism equivocates between “goodness” and “happiness,” and even if you substitute “happiness” for “contentment” or something else, you still commit the same logical fallacy.
Goodness is goodness, trite but true. Goodness is not happiness, because happiness is happiness. If you restate the utilitarian system as being an ethical system that expresses that goodness is whatever provides the greatest goodness for the greatest number of people, you end up with a circular argument, instead of one that is logically sound. So, we must abandon utilitarianism, too.
There are problems, too, with trying to use one’s conscience as a clear indicator of morality. People will not agree on what we call the “gray areas” of morality. Some people think watching porn is immoral, others disagree. Some people think that drinking any alcohol is wrong, others say it’s just wrong to get drunk, and still others will say that even getting drunk isn’t necessarily wrong, unless you do something to hurt someone. Some people think swearing is morally wrong, others say that the standards of what is and is not “appropriate speech” are arbitrary, and that no words can be inherently bad; yet those same people might turn around and advocate against “hate speech,” because they feel it is morally wrong to express hatred for others. The list of moral squabbles humanity has over petty issues like these is endless, and trying to use your conscience to sort them out is just arrogant, because you’re essentially saying that YOUR conscience is right, and, in cases where others disagree with you, something is wrong with other people’s consciences… or you end up contradicting yourself saying that the same action has opposing moral values, but that they’re both correct. If you’re going, “HUH?!” then you get the idea. It’s just a mess.
At this point, it’s a good idea to remember back to our discussion of why Scripture is a bad indicator of what should or should not be considered moral behavior. Using your conscience to figure out what’s good and what isn’t is a lot like trying to determine what, in Scripture, is the “clearly spoken” Word of God. If you need evidence of this, just look at the ridiculous number of so-called “Christian” denominations out there. Each one of them believes that their interpretation of Scripture is correct… and there is still squabbling on certain theological points WITHIN DENOMINATIONS! So, if you think the Bible is crystal clear on ANYTHING, well… you might be right, but there’s probably someone who will disagree with you, and- more importantly – be able to disagree with you based on a reasonable reading of the Bible coupled with an intermediate understanding of history and textual construction.
So, no law, no Scripture, no “greater good” utilitarianism, no conscience… what does that leave us? Still A LOT, actually. In fact, there are more metaethical theories out there than you could spend the rest of your life researching. Among some of the strangest are emotivism, projectivism and ethical naturalism. Again, if you’re having a, “HUH?!” moment, that’s normal; just go with it.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is something very, very simple. Do you believe in God?
If you believe in God, a simple way to state what is good is this: “Good” is whatever is compatible with the nature and character of God; if God would not do it, it is not good.
If you do not believe in God, however, you are almost certainly doomed to some kind of moral relativism based on either your own approval or disapproval of a given action or on a similar approval or disapproval by society of a given action. Either you trust your own judgment or you trust the judgment of a group of people – perhaps, but not necessarily, including yourself.
The really tricky question for the believer is: what do you believe is compatible with the nature and character of God? What evidence do you have for your belief? What part does Scripture play in that evidence? Have you tempered your faith with reason, or are you a “blind believer?” If you’re a blind believer, do you feel that you can have a strong, rational argument for your moral beliefs that would be persuasive to nonbelievers? If not, have you lost credibility with them? If you have lost credibility with them, how can you fulfill the Great Commission?
All of these questions are connected, and they each require a great deal of introspective analysis and humble truth-seeking. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I encourage you to think for yourself, and at least ask yourselves these questions. The answers might surprise you, and might lead you down a path of growth and spiritual enrichment that blind faith could never give you.

Wow, I really wish I could’ve formatted the above comment in a way that would make it a little easier to read. Sorry about the massive wall of text.

Noel,
There are so many different directions that I could go with my reply, and all of them fall short of the response that is needed. You’ve opened up lots of cans of worms, and I don’t think that my reply to your comment does it justice. So, suffice it to say that any belief, right or wrong, at some level, requires a step of faith. Not a blind leap into the darkness, mind you, but a step of faith. There’s no way to completely ensure logical and rational success with your every belief, because not all decisions are a “2+2,” black & white decision. Following Christ requires faith (belief without sight). So does following anything. Following reason alone…well…I don’t think anybody does that fully, 100% of the time.

In following Christ, I like to think that I have an informed faith. Faith, nonetheless, but not blind, dumb, uninformed, naive faith. It’s faith built on the promises of God. It’s faith resting on the work of Christ and the legacy left by our forefathers in the faith, who have left us truth to follow down through the centuries. The Gospel is not reasonable. It doesn’t make sense that the God who created the universe would also send His Son to die for His enemies. That’s not logical, reasonable, or “right,” according to our standards. Thankfully, though, God doesn’t work on our standards.

Sorry that this response doesn’t fully address your concerns. You bring up valid concerns, and I’m thankful to have guy like you that think much harder and deeper than I tend to think.

I love it, Kim. I think you’re absolutely on target.