BIBLE AND MORAL ISSUES

NOTES PREPARED BY REV. C.W.Y. MAPALA BD (UNIMA), MTh (UoE-UK)

COURSE CODE: ECHL 3501
Aims of the Study:
A) Master the theological and biblical principles of morality
B) Apply the principles learnt in the course in dealing with the ethical and moral problems
facing the African Christian.
Objectives of the Course:
a) List the different methodological approaches used in making ethical decisions.
b) Describe the methodological approaches used in making ethical decisions.
c) Evaluate the different approaches and their relevance for making decisions in life.
d) Identify some theological and biblical principles helpful in dealing with and responding
to the different ethical issues and challenges.
TOPICS OF STUDY
Introduction: The course is designed to equip students with knowledge of how to make moral
judgement in their everyday life. Hence, each student is required to participate in this study by
writing assignments on topic given. Also each student is required to present a paper during class
seminars as part of continuous assignment.
1. Definition of Ethics: In most cases the word ethics and morality appear synonymous yet
they are not. What requires to be established is to provide the distinction between the
two. Ethics ‘reflects morally significant supra-individual behavioural norms within a
systematic frame of reference’1 whereas morality focuses on the practical part, judging
the action whether it is right or wrong as stipulated in a particular religion. Moral
theology is more of choice in decision making between right or wrong. However, this
distinction is to some extent is based on compartmentalized attitude towards morality and
ethics but both are no different at all. Of course, the definition of morality and ethics is
more controversial. The definition is determined by how each society defines it. This is
the basic reason we say the definition of ethics or morality varies from society to society
and it is not time-bound.
Etymologically, the term ethics is derived from the Greek term ethos. Aristotle was the
first person to use and defines ethics. Ethos can either mean custom, character, habit
prevalent tone or sentiment or use or usage. Majority scholars say that ethos means
custom or habit. Can we assume that ethics is all about customs or habits or conversions
which have become fixed and stereotyped? But the architect of ethics, Aristotle defined
ethics as a discipline related to character. It is based on this understanding some scholars
thinks ethics is the ‘science of behaviour’.2 But is ethics restricted to human behaviour?

1
K. Hilpert & H. Oberhem, “Ethics” in Concise Dictionary of Christian Ethics edited by B. Stoeckle, (London:
Burns & Oates Limited, 1979, 74
2
W. Barclay, Ethics in a Permissive Society, London: Fontana Books, 1971, 13
 Ethics ‘aims at developing a conception of the ethical life where all humans could
participate and could have access through the use of human reason.’3 This leads to define
ethics as ‘the the study of how humans, ought to live as informed by the [Scripture] and
convictions.’4 This defines fails to do justice because it assumes if ethics is confined to
Christian circles alone. Ethics is beyond this assumption. Categorically, ethics can be
defined as ‘conformity of human activity to the will of God’. Again this does not the
definition going beyond the wall of religion. Ethics has several dimensions of which
some of them are religious, philosophical and theological. Often those who look at ethics
a moral philosophical discipline tend to deny the religious dimension of ethics. This is
where William Barclay and Stanley J. Grenz differ. Barclay defines ethics from the
religious perspective. This is the reason he contends that ethics, to a lesser extent, could
be defined as a system of the religion which deals with ‘how people ought to behave.’5
For Grenz while he does not entirely divorce the religious aspect of ethics, assumes that
ethics relies more on human reason or capability. Of course, ethics is concerned with
determining whether the actions are right and good or on making choice between what is
right or wrong but it would inappropriate to ignore the religious dimension because there
is moral decision can entirely be described as nonreligious. The core question in ethics is
to explore the basis of the wider principle of justifying the correctness of our moral
judgments. To rule out that ethics should solely depend on reason is to betray the same
principle it exists for. Hence, it would be appropriate to contend that ethics is embedded
in several faces.
The second problem is to distinguish between Ethics and Morality. As already alluded to
that it can hardly be established as to whether there is a distinction between Ethics and
morality. Of course, Hilpert and Oberhem contend that ethics is different from morality
on grounds that ethics ‘reflects morally significant supra-individual behavioural norms
within a systematic frame of reference.’6 Although Fair-weather and McDonald concur
with Hilpert and Oberhem, defines morality as a discipline that is ‘concerned with action
and behaviour, character and dispositions, lifestyle and pattern of living, states of affairs
and human goals, and when there are right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous and vicious.’
And they define ethics as a ‘reflective enquiry into morality and moral issues...it is
concerned with reflecting on what reasons justify particular forms of action and
behaviour.’7 Both definitions bring in superficial distinction and ignore the
communitarian aspect of the concept because ethics can be defined as system of moral
principles governing the appropriate conduct of an individual or a group. The word
morality is derived from the Latin word mos with its adjective moralis. The meaning of
the word mos is custom and habit. The adjective moralis has been anglicized and it is
morality. Based on the English meaning for etymological words for both Ethics and
Morality, it can be contended that there is no significant difference. Based on the
definition provided above, Ethics or morality can either be defined as an aspect of
religion concerned with proper patterns of action in situation and circumstances of human

3
S.J. Grenz, The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics, Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1997,
23-24
4
S.J. Grenz, 23
5
W. Barclay, 14
6
K. Hilpert & H. Oberhem, “Ethics” , 75
7
I. C.M. Fairweather & J.I.H. McDonald, The Quest for Christian Ethics, Edinburgh: The Handsel Press Ltd, 1984,
x
 life cycle and social relations or an inquiry into justification of particular moral actions
and in search for good or virtuous traits of moral character. The basic obligation of Ethics
or Morality is to pose questions about how we ought to act and how we should live.
Ethics are either drawn from the religious scriptures or traditions as people reflect on
them in quest of how individuals or a society ought to behave. The core question is to
distinguish what it is from what it ought to be. This is the basic question, it is said that
ethics is more concerned with moral choices about actions and plans of actions. One has
an obligation to do what is right or wrong. However, it ought to be established that some
actions are intrinsically right while others are intrinsically wrong, and that any appeal to
the goals they may achieve or the results that may follow from them is irrelevant to the
question of their rightness and wrongness. Hence, they need special consideration.

2. The Fields of Ethical Inquiry

2.1 Philosophical approach (the Greek Tradition): as per the definition provided, each
society has its own ethics. Much of the ethical discourses dominate Christian circles
are not only Judeo-Christian ethics because much of are drawn from Greek moral
philosophical teaching by different philosophers. For the sake of this course our
discussion shall focus on moral philosophy as presented by Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus,
the Stoics and Plotinus. For Plato we shall concentrate on his ethic of ordered
integration. And for Aristotle we shall discuss his ethic of well-being. In discussing
the ethic of Epicurus we shall re-examine on how they examine the peace of mind.
For the Stoics were primarily interested in self-control. Finally, we shall discuss how
Plotinus constructed his ethics of ethical life in connection with the divination or of
becoming one with the deity. We shall examine each independently.
a) Plato: Plato was a student of Socrates one of the Greek great philosophers. He
was born and brought up in Athens. After attaining his higher education, he was
employed in public servant. In Athens, those employed in public service were so
corrupt that degenerate into total disorder. Being disappointed with the disorder
and corrupt life in the government, Plato decided to find the best way of
eliminating this disorder and corrupt life in the government and the city of
Athens. Based on the inquisitive techniques of his mentor, Socrates, he began to
explore how moral upright of life could be actualized.
He developed an ethic of ordered integration and soul. In accomplishing his goal,
he set forth an ethic of self-realization. In his view, the goal of life is to actualize
our true nature together with our innate potentialities. To the other hand, we can
say that Plato proposed a teleological ethic. Teleological is an adjective of
teleology is derived from the Greek teleos which means ‘purpose’. But the best
term for the ethic developed by Plato is ordered integration or harmony. Plato
believed that the highest good in a person or group life is a well-ordered whole to
which each part contributes according its own capacity. It is the search for the
ordered integration in the individual human life prompted him to understand the
importance of a virtue in ethics. So following the Greek ethical thought, he
decided to distribute each virtue against component of the human mental life. So
each virtue had its corresponding virtue. A virtue in Ethics is defined as ‘moral
 excellence, settled attitude which conduces to habitually good action in some
respect.’8
These components are as follows: the rational or power to reason. The rational
can be defined as the ability to think properly, and to know the truth and
goodness. The corresponding virtue for reason is wisdom. The second component
was non-rational or passionate aspect of human life. And this was subdivided into
spirited and appetitive or sensuous parts. (i) The spirited part refers to the power
of the will (emotional part thus including anger in presence of the vice.) Vice in
Ethics is defined as the ‘root sins or sinful dispositions, which endanger and
nurture acts of sin.’9 The corresponding virtue for spirited part is courage.
Courage helps to determine what to do and what to fear. (ii) Sensuous part is the
emotional part of human body. Its corresponding virtue is temperance.
Temperance is the ability to control one’s desires. Another integrating virtue is
justice. Plato believed that justice is a virtue of harmonious action that forges a
link between the individual and social spheres of life. He emphasized that justice
is not only an individual’s virtue but it is also a pre-eminently social virtue.
In Plato’s view, if the appetitive part is subordinated to the spirited, and both are
subordinated to the rational part, the resultant could be harmony. He strongly
believed that justice is a harmonizing virtue. He defined justice is the correct
balance between power and obedience. What he meant by justice is that those
who rule should recognize the rights of the ruled. Otherwise, the imbalance of the
two is deemed as injustice. Justice entails the harmonious functioning of wisdom,
courage and temperance as ordered and ruled by reason. The four mentioned
virtues are so interrelated and inseparable because they are integrated virtuous
life. For instance, wisdom and justice are mutually related because it is in a wise
person in whom all elements act together harmoniously. And harmonious activity
requires a person to demonstrate authentic wisdom in directing all various basics
(elements). In return to this, courage and temperance are deemed as components
of the wisely coordinated actions of the soul (mind), which arises as reason
schools the will and sensuous. It is both reason and will that control the appetites.
Plato’s view on source of evil actions: he envisaged evil action as the result of
the disorder within the soul. Given that virtuous life arises as reason controls the
passions and thereby brings about harmonious action, then evil comes in when
non-rational impulses prevail over reason. This implies that evil action happens
when one stops thinking. Evil can be controlled when wisdom and reason are used
concurrently. This is the basic reason Plato stated that the chief cause of evil
actions is ignorance. He ruled out that no one can do evil voluntarily. He
contended that if we do not act, which is evil and not good, the problem does not
lie elsewhere but it lies with our judgment. Based on this understanding, evil is
nothing else than the error of judgment. In a nutshell, a virtue is the exercise of
wisdom while vice is the product of stupidity.

8
Ronald Preston, “Virtue” in A Dictionary of Christian Ethics edited by John Macquarie, (London: SCM Press Ltd,
1967) 354
9
R.E.C. Browne, “Vice” in A Dictionary of Christian Ethics edited by John Macquarie, (London: SCM Press Ltd,
1967), 353
Plato’s view on Governance and Democracy: he believed that those entrusted to
run government must be those who are able to listen the grassroots (ignorant
populous) rather basing on their wisdom or intellectual capability. He wanted to
balance power in order to bring harmony. This is the basic reason he believed that
egalitarian democracy was more ideal as compared to other democracies. Based
on an ordered integration ethic, he classified the society into three classes
according to their functions. The first category was of the legislators, who in this
system are pictured as rational component of the soul. The primary task of this
class is to manage the public matters. The second category is the spirited
component is corresponded with soldiers and academicians (educators). Their
primary task is to protect the society against external and internal enemies. While
the third category is appetitive component which corresponds with workers, thus,
merchants, traders, business people etc. Their primary job is boost the economy
and provision of daily needs for the society. He concluded that if this pattern is
followed there will be order because each person has natural abilities and
interests; hence, each citizen has to be a member of each class to which she/he can
contribute according to the purposes of each class. This was designed to address
the disorder.
Plato’s view on Good: as already pointed Plato defined ‘good’ as the life of
ordered integration, albeit he investigates deeper into it. At first, he asserted that
pleasure is the ultimate good. Later on he discovered that pleasure was not
essentially good because it is transient. He even denied that pleasure is not good
at all. As a result, he advocated for an exhausting morality of strict virtue.
Eventually, he opted for a balance position. He realized that pleasure cannot be
ultimately good but some form of pleasure has legitimate elements which are
basically good. This position does not deny or accept that pleasure is good but
seeks the middle way. He argues that the highest standard lies beyond pleasure
because it is immorality, with which the activities of this life are to be judged.
Plato’s view on good and the forms: although we have discussed Plato’s view
on good, his understanding is a product of his famous theory of the forms or
ideas. The position he took moves from hedonism to a particular metaphysical
hypothesis. He conceived that the reality is composed of two spheres. He
conceptualized that, on one hand, it is composed of the sphere of the perception or
sense of experience, which is also the realm of change or becoming, and on the
other hand, it is consist of the realm of ideas or forms. The later is the form of
eternal, unchangeable essences. This is exemplified by many individual objects
we encounter through our own senses or we see and touch. It is the realm of
being. Hence, knowledge is primarily concerned with the shapes (forms). What
we seek to know are these unchangeable realities. Therefore he can conclude that
knowledge is absolute, universal and objective. We need to recall that it was Plato
who contended that the goal of anything is to actualize its own nature. Hence,
each individual thing is to exemplify the corresponding form. In his view, Plato
the good meant to exemplify the corresponding form. As a result a good person is
the one exemplifying the humanness. By this illustration, it means the reality of
every object does only exist in our thinking. What we see is what we have in our
thinking but it does not exist at all. Hence, all objects often remain only imperfect
 representations of their corresponding form. It can be argued that no perfect circle
exists in the material realm.
b) Aristotle and his concept on wellbeing: his ethical thought was deeply embedded
in metaphysics. He believes that metaphysics is the basis for scientific enterprise
because it supplies the first principle of sciences. Although this was his view, he
was not distinguishable from his predecessor, Plato, whose ethical view was that
the unchangeable and eternal forms are more perfect than changeable objects. He
also believed that the goal of every natural thing is to exemplify perfectly its own
corresponding form.
He also declared that contemplation of unchangeable essence is the highest
human activity. Although he shared with his mentor on forms, this did not mean
that he agreed with him on the existence of the forms outside the specific object.
He believed that individual objects are a unity of forms and matter. It was his
understanding of causation led him to this conclusion. He understood causation as
an important aspect in understanding human activity because he believed that
cause provides the first principle which he wanted. In his understanding
everything exists because of the four causes namely, the material, the formal, the
efficient and the final.
In the philosopher’s view the material cause meant the elements of which the
object is compounded. Although this was the first step, like atomists, he was also
determined that the more important among the causes was the formal cause. The
formal cause was defined as the form or pattern that shapes the material into the
objects. For instance, it is the formal cause what makes a clay bowl a bowl rather
than the lump of the clay (material). This is the basic reason the formal cause was
recognised as an important stage. The efficient cause is perceived the actual agent.
In the illustration used above, the efficient cause could be likened to the potter.
The actual purpose of the potter is to produce the object, in this case is the bowl.
The final cause determines its purpose or teleos. This is the basic reason Aristotle
believed that every object exists because of this cause-final. The basic question is:
what caused it to happen? In examining each human activity or behaviour based
this theory, we can trace the cause of that act or behaviour.
Aristotle also distinguished the substance of an object from its accidents. In his
view the substance is the permanent substratum underlying the changeable
qualities such as colour or textile. All these refer to what we can see with our eyes
or feel by our senses. Any object exists because of the presence of what is called
its form. A form is the purposive element that shapes an object and brings it into
actual existence. Hence, every object is composed of the form and matter.
Matter can also be understood by distinguishing potentiality from actuality. This
led Aristotle to believe that all objects are potentially capable to become what it
wants to be. Based on this understanding, an egg can be perceived as a potential
hen even if it has not yet developed into a chick because the chicken is the goal
latent in the egg. It is the actuality of which the egg is a potentiality. In this
understanding, abortion at any stage will be deemed as prohibited because the
fusion of a sperm and an ovum will be deeded a potential person.
The Human Teleos: Aristotle based on his understanding of metaphysics,
rejected Plato’s assertion that moral reflection presupposes an independently
existing good. As a result, he believes that good inheres in the activities of daily
living. He developed a teleological ethic that is called ‘a goal-oriented ethic.’ As
already pointed out, Aristotle believes that everything in existence is made for a
purpose because each exists due to a final cause. The core question is what is the
purpose or function of human being. What is the self-sufficient goal of our
desires, that which if attained we could desire nothing else.
After carrying out an empirical investigation, he concluded that the ultimate goal
of human being is not pleasure as held by his predecessors and contemporaries
but happiness (eudemonia). He regarded happiness as the best, noblest and most
pleasant thing in the world. Aristotle did not consider happiness as the inner
feeling or transitory mood of being happy but as a well being. Happiness ought to
bring what a person desires as the ultimate satisfaction in life. Hence, he
conceived that happiness is living or behaving well and faring well. This does not
imply that happiness can bring absolute joy because it does not mean a static state
of being but an activity. It is the perfect activity that can produce perfect
happiness. The highest happiness arises through the activity, which is linked with
our highest good. What is the highest good? Aristotle defined ‘good’ as ‘an
excellence in the performance of whatever activity is essential to the nature of the
performer of the activity. For instance, a good teacher is the one who teaches
excellently because the activity that is important to the nature of a teacher is
teaching.
The philosopher described humans as rational animals because it is only human
being contemplates or reflects on issues. Human purpose lies in the exercise of
rationality or reason. Aristotle believed that the supreme happiness emerges
through the blossoming of our rational nature. Hence, happiness can only be
understood is perspective of rationality. It includes the full realization of our
human rationality. In this context happiness involves fulfilling well our proper
human function as rational being.
Virtue of Excellence: following the teleological ethic (purpose-centred ethic),
Aristotle declared that human happiness or human good is the activity of the mind
(soul) exhibiting excellence (virtue). He defined the virtue as a quality that allows
whoever has it to function well or perform its proper function effectively. It is this
help to gain well-being and happiness. This means that a virtue does not carry a
strict moral sense but it involves all the virtuous good qualities of character such
as humorousness, cordiality or friendliness and traditional virtues, thus, courage,
temperance and truthfulness.
Aristotle also included rational aspect of the soul, which has scientific dimension
(contemplation). Within the rational soul, he involved the calculative dimension
(deliberation) with its corresponding virtue is practical wisdom or prudence. He
defined prudence as the ability to choose proper means to attain right goals. The
non-rational aspect of human being consists of the appetitive or emotional
dimension where the virtuous dispositions of character are to be operative and
vegative dimensions without corresponding virtue. Rational soul is also called
calculative dimension (deliberation). Aristotle’s way of dividing the soul leads us
into that virtue is the core to our attainment of the goal of our existence and to our
well-being.
He also believed that the source of evil or bad behaviour is ignorance. He
emphasized that ethical life requires more knowledge because we are not there to
know what is right but also choose to do what is right. He was convinced that the
power of the will can develop humans into virtuous persons. As a result, it can be
contended that humans are capable to act voluntarily. To do something voluntarily
simply means that a person does not do something out of ignorance or under
compulsory but s/he does so with full knowledge of what is happening. For
instance, it would be wrong to argue that a boy and a girl engaged into conjugal
relation are ignorant that the resultant of the act would result into pregnancy,
because they voluntarily chose to do so. Hence they are answerable.
Categorically, our moral states are done voluntarily. Therefore, virtues and vices
happen out of will.
Based on this premise, humans have right or power to act appropriately or not to
act as determined by individual ability. According to the philosopher, humans,
apart from the will, have a natural capacity toward virtue to develop themselves
into virtuous beings. This capacity is the only potentiality to actualize our
potential requirement in order that we may exercise our will properly. That ‘will’
can be directed to a right end by rational moral principles. It is this understanding
lead Aristotle to develop this principle, which states: “Do the right act, in right
manner, to the right person, at the right time, to the right extent and for the right
purpose.” However, the right act does not necessarily produce a virtuous life.
Conversely, the habits developed over time dispose the will in one direction or
another. Based on this understanding the life of happiness requires the cultivation
of virtuous dispositions of character. This can be realized through rigorous
training of building good habits by doing the right acts. In this case, moral virtues
are the positive habits. In a nutshell, a virtue is a habit that arises from the natural
capacities of our mind (soul) and that is established as we voluntarily act under
the guidance of rational moral principle. But in accordance with Aristotle’s view.
Disposition is essential in making ethical judgment about a person. He contends
that a right act obviously can be done by non-virtuous person but it the act alone
cannot make a person virtuous. Categorically, it is also possible for a virtuous
person to commit evil act without becoming a non-virtuous person. Hence, we can
be argued that such an act cannot brand a person non-virtuous. Based on this
premise, the unfaithful husband or wife who committed an isolated act of adultery
would not have been deemed as fundamentally virtuous. This was reached to
avoid prejudice over moral decisions on particular cases which are perceived as
unique. Aristotle like Plato considered a virtue as mean between two extremes- a
vice of deficiency and a vice of access. Both of these extremes can lead us to do
wrong thing that would eventually contribute to happiness. For instance,
temperance is the mean between insensibility (vice deficiency) and immorality
(vice of excess). If this is made, the end product could be unhappiness.
But it ought to be established that justice is the sum of all virtues and not the
mean between two extremes. The absence of justice is the sum of all vices. How
did Aristotle define justice? Contrary to Plato’s definition of justice, Aristotle
defined as the harmonious ordering of the individual soul (mind). He believed that
justice is social virtue. This means that justice is voluntarily doing what is good
 for all and avoiding what is harmful to others. In this context, justice includes
fairness and lawfulness. This could mean that an individual life’s virtue is
embedded in the social dimension of human existence. This prompted the
philosopher to conclude that if individual member of the community are good,
then the whole would be perfect. He also asserted that humans are intrinsically
gregarious. It is this nature enables humans to fulfil their human potential as they
live within communities. Hence, the ethical life must be social, and the virtues
involve good behaviour directed towards others.
This led the philosopher to conclude that the highest expression of social or
interaction is the state. He defined the state as, ‘an association of people dwelling
in the same place, established to prevent its members from committing injustice
against each other, and promote transactions.’10 In this case the state is there to
enable every citizen to live well and enjoy equal rights. The ultimate purpose of
the state, in this context, is to provide a perfect and self-sufficient life that holds
the ethic of actualization of well-being that was embedded into teleological ethic.
However, his ethic was also eudaemonian (happiness). In a nutshell, Aristotle
ethic was that the ultimate goal of human existence is happiness.
However, some scholars have argued that there is no clear distinction between
pleasure and happiness. Arguably, this argument underplays Aristotle’s
understanding of happiness. He did not see the praised happiness as the object of
our human search. Rather he saw happiness as a by-product. It is this reason led
him t explore what leads to the well-being we all desire. So his answer to this
question did not lie somewhere else apart from exploring the purpose of human
existence. He finally concluded that it is a life of happiness that would define the
purpose of human existence. Nevertheless, this again is not problem-free.
Happiness cannot save as goal for human existence as it is beyond this.
c) Epicurus and Peace of Mind: Epicurus (341-270 BC) was naturally an introvert.
He was convinced that all knowledge arises from our senses rather than from any
innate ideas as advocated by Socrates and Plato. He was an Athenian.
(i) An Austere Hedonism: He perceived pleasure as the product of
satisfactory appetites. He declared it as the highest good. He did this to
maximize the bodily pleasures of the moment without considering the past
or the future. Hence, he defined a virtue as a servant to the pleasure
principle. In this case, a virtue is the capacity to choose the right pleasure.
He was sure that pleasure is the only ultimate good and pain to the sole
evil. The significant aspect of pleasure is the duration and not necessarily
the intensity of the pleasure. Although this was his belief, later on he
reversed his decision and concluded that the pursuit of pleasure could
eventually lead to frustration. He argued that physical pleasures always are
accompanied by an even greater amount of pain. As a result, he rejected
Aristippus and appealed to what is the most intense sensual pleasure of the
moment as the means for judging what is good. While agreeing that the
body is the source or cause of all pleasure, he contended that the pleasures
and psychological pain are more important as compared to those of the
body. His preference is the resultant between duration and intensity. This
10
S.J. Grenz, 75
 led him to conclude that bodily experiences are for the meantime and
temporal but the power of memory and anticipation elongate psycho
experience. Hence, physical pleasure may provide momentary enjoyment
while psycho pains surpass the pleasure itself. This led him to advocate for
passive or negative over active or positive pleasure. He felt that the
removal of pain was much better than the stimulation of sensual pleasure.
He thought that our ultimate goal can hardly create a stead succession of
intense physical pleasure, which is unattainable or unachievable. In place,
our search should be for serenity or peace of mind.
According to Epicurus, peace of mind means freeing from trouble in mind
and pain in the body. For instance, Epicurus would advise that the best
way to escape the trauma caused by psychological or socioeconomic
problems is to commit suicide. I wonder whether this really does solve the
problem.
In Epicurus thought that future considerations can help in the development
of severity in the present. If anyone is faced with a moral dilemma, he
would advise: “When bodily experiences produce more pain than pleasure,
the true sage should be able to compensate by means of mental pleasure
that outweigh the pain.” When making a moral decision calculate
prudently as to which option would do less harm in order to make your
future certain. This judgement could aid in lessening mental pain that can
supersede the physical pain. For example if the man or woman is
psychologically affected by the behaviour his or her spouse, then divorce
is necessary is such situation.
(ii) Radical Materialism: Epicurus observed that the most worrying
anticipation of the future emerges from our terror of death and fear of the
displeasure of the deities (gods). In order to escape from this dilemma, he
began to study the true perspective of the universe. As a way of
accomplishing his objective, he engaged Democritus’ philosophy.
Democritus believed that a person can only have a clear perspective of the
universe in terms of the material without referring to sacred world or
deities. He theorized that the universe is consisted of the uncreated and
atoms (indestructible bits of matter), which assemble or reassemble to
build all that exist. This theory is called atomism.
Based on the atomism theory, Epicurus divorced the belief that some
divine providence governs the world. He concluded that even gods are
made of atoms. Finally, he argued that gods do not have power to reward
or punish human beings and that they cannot control human affairs or have
interest in them. In this context, all that happen does not have a theological
explanation. Rather it is can be explained rationally. Hence, he concluded
that a person can speak about good and evil without referring to the
metaphysical concepts such as gods or divine laws such as Decalogue or
Sharia Law or divinely imposed ideals of human duty.
His ethic focused on concern for what we must do to live the good life
rather than one’s duty. The most crucial question is what must I do to live
a good life? It is this ethic termed as radical materialism because it dispels
 human fears of what would happen to them. It is this thinking led him not
to believe in the life-after-death. He thought body and souls will dissipate
at death because they are made of atoms. To those who think in this line,
the message of Gehenna cannot shape their behaviour because it just
terrifies them.
(iii) Prudence and the Value of Friendship: Epicurus’ view on hedonism
was composed of the quest for a peaceful and pain-free existence. This can
only be attained on the following premises. (a) Prudence: Epicurus
advocates that through study and personal effort a person could acquire
the essential virtues of the peaceful life. Prudence was perceived as the
most crucial virtue because it was the source of all virtues. Prudence is
merely the application of a true understanding of the world to the personal
life. The prudent person knows that we control our personal happiness. It
leads the sage to avoid besetting pain and choose the right pleasures. Right
pleasure is that facilitates serenity and peace of mind. (b) Cultivation of
Friendship: this concept in the mind of the philosopher was perceived as
the crown of the perfect life, albeit the friendship he meant was complete
and inconsistent. This friendship is not based on mutual trust but self-
interest or mutual utility. It is purely based on the philosophy kachande-
katherere-kakoma-nkuyenderana. Secondly, his friendship was not
communitarian but rather a fellowship of the small of philosophical
fraternity (elitism or cadres). This group should withdraw from public and
live in isolation and live a simple life where they can pursue calm vacation
and peace of mind. In nutshell, Epicurus ethic was centred on this
principle: seek the life of serenity and peace of mind, and enjoy the
company of a few good friends, possibly of the same interest.
d) The Stoics and Resigned Self-Control: the word ‘stoic’ refers to ideas
disseminated by Zeno (335-264 BC) of Citium. He was a Semite, the son of a
Phoenician merchant and came to Athens by chance after shipwreck. The word
stoic is derived from Greek, “stoa poikile”- a designation for the painted porch on
the north side of the marketplace in Athens where philosophers used to meet. So
the name expresses the kind of philosophy shared by these philosophers who used
to meet here. This philosophy can be summed in the words of Henry Sidgwick
who says, stoic theory “bound the common notions of duty into an apparently
complete and coherent system by a formula that understood the whole human life,
and showed its relation to the ordered process of the universe.”11 This philosophy
is centred on these premises:
1. Living According to nature/ Living According to Reason: Zeno taught that
the ultimate goal in life is wisdom. He defined wisdom as living according to
nature rather than contemplating the eternal forms. He believed that nature is
governed by the laws of reason, and human lives area guided by providence.
He strongly believed that the wise person willingly submits to providence.
Foundational to Stoic thinking was a deterministic understanding of reality.
Stoics were also materialists. To the narrow sense of the word, they can be
described as the materialistic monists because their understanding was that
11
H. Sidgwick, Outline of the History of Ethics, 71
 everything in existence was made of physics (material substances). They
perceived at earth, air, fire and water as four basic elements but they
considered fire as the most and ultimate substance. Also the basic substance to
the foundation was not atoms but it was fire.
He also held that all things that happen are directed by rational purpose and
that they are ordered according to an underlying determining rationality. Fire
was perceived as their designation for rational moulding principle (the Logos)
which is penetrating everything. The Logos also carried the idea of fate or
providence and was linked to divine. The view of the universe was fashioned
by permeating force of the divine spirits and ordered by divine law. Hence, it
can be concluded that it is made up of both material and divine. Despite of
their worldview, stoics were rational determinists. It is the basic determinism
that led the stoics to understand the human ideal in the way they conceived.
They taught that the key to good life lies in conformity to universal reason.
This means good life is composed of living according to the principle of the
universe bound up with fire or fate or according to nature. Living according to
nature could mean allowing human reason to govern our lives.
2. Resignation of the True Stoic: stoics envisaged reason against the non-
rational or irrational aspect of the human soul, which they saw as focused on
the desires and the emotion. The effective dimensions of human soul, thus,
pleasure, sorrow, desire and fear, are irrational and incompatible with human
nature. Hence, the rule of reason involves the strict control of our desires so
that we might be free from irrational aspects and even eliminate all of them
(irrational aspects). It was this rejection of irrational dimensions of the human
soul led the stoics to disregard the pursuit of pleasure in order that they may
good persons.
Stoics considered a virtue as it is something that controls our human reactions
or helps to practice self-control. A virtuous person keeps the emotions in
check. In their view, stoics living a good life mean accepting without any
stirring of our emotions or desires whatever comes on our way. Hence, we can
conclude that living according to reason in a deterministic world means
seeking to be contented within oneself. This means that one should be a
master of his/her passions/desires and emotions. The only way to master the
desires is through resignation or withdrawing from the society.
3. The Duty of World Citizenship: stoics also saw humans as people belonging
to one nation. It appears were the first ethicists to have introduced the idea of
universal law to govern the whole cosmos and human as it is the case with
international law in the contemporary world. It is this thinking led the stoics to
develop the ethical idea of duty. Hence, humans are morally obliged to
conform to universal reason. In the nutshell, their ethic can be summarised
into this sentence: all humans belong to one global village with one common
law as citizens of one village. All humans ought to fulfil the duties to each
other, which common citizenship requires. This shall include discharging the
obligations of one’s station in life and society. It is this understanding led
stoics to evaluate duty.
4. Self-control and natural Law: the Roman stoics shifted from focusing on
good and virtues to be concerned with duty and observance of the law. This
philosophy was perceived as a healing force for human moral weakness. On
the influential stoic ethicists was Epictetus (50-138 A.D). He distinguished
between what does and what does not lie within our control. He thought is
likely for humans to control our attitudes toward events but not the events
themselves. Only what is within our control is relevant to ethics. The
difference is made between our basic inner freedom we have and the outer
situation over which we control. There are things within our power and those
which are beyond our power. Within our power are opinions, aims, desire,
hatred and whatever affairs are our own. Under this belongs freedom,
unrestricted and unhindered actions.
Beyond our power, we have body, property, reputation and office while some
are not properly our own affairs. They belong somewhere. In this category, we
have weaknesses, dependence, restriction and estrangement. This made stoics
to assert that for the will to govern rightly, there is a need to gain a proper
perspective on the universe. This proper perspective involves the
acknowledgement of the divine providence directing the world. This helped
Epictetus to see life as a spiritual exercise ordained by God. Having such
knowledge, it leads us to face life without anger, envy or pity. Instead of
succumbing to these emotions, the virtuous person lives in resignation to life
realizing that in the end the worst that life can afford is death. It is this
understanding led Epictetus to emphasize the importance of self-sufficiency.
He believed that the key to life of resignation lies in detachment from material
goods and physical pleasures, because they lie beyond human control. This
thinking is enshrined in the philosophy which stipulates: human beings
become angry because of what other are robbing them. For instance, if one
feels my husband or wife is handsome or beautiful respectively, he or she
resorts to protect that thing attracts you. If one dares to date for him/her, you
feel robbed and you can become angry. In this context, adulterer has no room
in things which belong to you. Hence, adultery is deemed as evil or
undesirable practice. In the philosopher’s mind the solution to the anger
caused by the illustration made above could be that a person who sees his/her
spouse handsome or beauty should not see it in them. If one does not beauty in
something, there is no way he/she can become angry. Hence, you cannot do
evil. Also the best moral option of eradicating the irrational aspect of our soul
is to practice self-control.

5. Resignation to a perfect world: stoics were determined to accept the world

as it is now with firm detachment. They looked at the world as the product of
divine reason, which to some extent is perceived to be perfect. This made
stoics not seeing a better world in the present or future because they did not
see any hope of overcoming inequities. For them, inequities are not good or
evil because they are simply what they are. Hence, the objective of a stoic
view was to live within the world as it is and not to change it. Politically,
based on this understanding, it is morally inappropriate to change the
 governing political party even if it is oppressive and exploitive because no
political power can offer the ultimate solution to citizens’ plight.
e) Plotinus: he was born in Lycopolis in Egypt in 205 and died in 270 A.D. he was
educated in Alexandria, Egypt. Later he went to Rome where he spent time
teaching philosophy and served as spiritual counsellor. He lived during the most
troublesome and confused era of the Roman rule to the fact he was ashamed
having a body. He was one of the mystics of his day. He spent much in
meditations.
Contrary to Plato’s philosophy, the Neo-Platonism philosophers linked the divine
and their form of the Good. Platinus, who was one the Neo-Platonism
philosophers, exemplifies the slight yet it was a far-reaching alteration of Plato’s
indicative of Neo-Platonism as an entity. The product of this philosophy of reality
carried theological and to some extent, mystic connotations. The Neo-Platonists
believed that good life entails a flight from the material world and intellect
experience to an increasingly closer relationship to this ultimate principle. Plato
himself taught that good life consists in turning away from the sphere of the
senses to contemplate the eternal forms. His sensible objects belonged to the
realm of becoming which cannot perfectly reflect the forms. However, this
thinking in the Neo-Platonism era changed completely because matter was not
only seen as lack of goodness but it was also evil. This led Platinus to speak of the
formless matter as the primary evil to which emerges the second evil as the body.
Hence, he believed that the influence of the body is the cause of all the evil in the
soul’s existence.

1) HUMAN PREDICAMENT

: Platinus’ mysticism can only be understood if we have clear perspective of

how he comprehended metaphysics. The basis of his ethic is the way he
understood the One. He spoke of the One as the point of reference. He said it
was absolutely indescribable because it is transcends all predicates. The One
is not an essence (nous) but it is beyond essence and being. To some extent, it
is divine and source of all beings as well as the standard of all things. All
reality is the product of a series of logical production from the One. The first
emanation is intelligence (nous) which is followed by Soul (psyche). The
latter is believed to be the life principle animating whole physical world where
humans participate through personal souls. The last emanation is the Matter
because it is devoid of form lies closest to nonbeing. He contended that our
true being does not lie in the material dimension but in the intellectual or in
spiritual realm. He was convinced that human beings are really intellectual
being but he questioned whether our true fulfilment can come as we satisfy
our intellectual curiosity. He concluded that true object of our souls is the One
who also happened to be the source of our souls. Arguably, since humans are
caught within the material bodies, the soul does not necessarily look upward
to the higher realm but they are oriented themselves by looking downward to
the evil areas of matter.
2) THE RETURN TO THE ONE:

the philosopher looked at the creation as a cyclic movement from the One to
the One. He understood the soul as a microcosm of the universe. This cyclic
rhythm perceivable throughout the universe is embedded in our own
ontological structure. In this view, the soul was designed to return to the One
and it includes a turning inward. It is an introspection journey to the centre of
the soul.
It involves three stages. The first stage is a negative movement which involves
the separation of the self from the sphere of multiplicity. This means moving
from the sense of experience to intelligible realm. What we mean here that the
soul leaves behind the world of the matter for the interior world of thought.
However, this stage is inadequate because the soul does not return to the One
through the pursuit of knowledge alone. The second stage involves a
separation from an even loftier multiplicity. This involves moving from
reason itself. At this stage the soul moves deeper within a realm where even
thought disappears. Even this stage is not satisfactory because they are
preparatory to the third stage. However, this soul at this stage has reached the
point of the highest simplicity within itself. The third stage involves the union
of the soul with the One (inebriation). This union includes the intellect which
goes beyond itself into the non-intelligible. This can be summed into one
word, that is, ecstasy. At this stage the last veil of multiplicity is winched up.
And the soul returns to its true home, the abode of the One where it came
from. According to the philosopher, this last movement involves the
overcoming of the subject-object dualism where experience is closer to seeing
a presence rather than engaging in an act of knowledge. At this level the soul
becomes divine.

3) THE VIRTUE OF THE MYSTIC:

the philosopher advocates for cultivation of virtuous life. He saw the purpose
of this enterprise as related to the soul’s returning to the One. This was
perceived as the flight of the soul from evil-matter. At this level the soul
attains the divine whereby it can be described as prudent, just and holy. In a
nutshell, we can say it reaches the virtuous. At this stage, the philosopher
makes moral search subservient to the intellectual and the external conduct
becomes the servant of the interiority. It is this led the philosopher to
acknowledge the significance of cultivating the ‘civil virtues’. He believes
that qualities like prudence, courage, temperance and justice are necessary for
human beings to live well in a society. He was convinced that humans can live
better by moderating and limiting our desires and passions as well as by
delivering us from erroneous opinion. He was further willing to concede that
in a sense, the possession of civil virtue makes a person ‘godlike’. But
because the civil virtues facilitate living in the world of multiplicity, they form
only substratum of the ethical life. Hence, the main concern of the soul is not
to live well in society but to move beyond its evil mingling with the body.
 This made the philosopher to be interested in the virtues as far as they are
linked to the purification of the soul in order that it may become truly divine.
With this understanding, the mystic seeks to cultivate these virtues from the
perspective of their role in facilitating union with the One.
This understanding does not only look at prudence as the ability to judge well
in the practical matters of life but also as the contemplation of the eternal
forms. Similarly, temperance does not only confine to the control of pleasure
but it also leads to the isolation of the soul from the body and its desires. In
nutshell, likeness to virtuous people is likeness of the image to another image
that comes from the same model. Also likeness to God is the model itself.
This summation is not absolutely different from the biblical understanding of
how people need to treat each other well (C.f. Genesis 1:26-27).

2.2 THEOLOGICAL APPROACH:

this approach is influenced by theological concept shapes the practitioners. What

Roman Catholic sees as morally right, some Evangelical Christians see it as morally
wrong. For instance, the CCAP Synod of Livingstonia believes that alcoholic
consumption is morally wrong while the Roman Catholic believes differently. The
variance in thought comes in because of difference in theological thought and
tradition to which Christian church is inclined to. The way the Presbyterians looks at
the question of abortion or contraceptives is not the same as the Roman Catholic.

2.3 CHRISTIAN APPROACH:

the discourse about Christian approach is somehow ambiguous because there is no

one way Christians look at ethical issues. They differ from thought to another not
only between denominations but also within each denomination. For, the Anglican
Communion or the Church of Scotland is divided over the issue of homosexuality.
However, the Christian approach is centred in imitating Christ. It must always take
account of what God has done in human history in Jesus. So all moral standards are
derived from what the Bible and church tradition say on how individual members
should behave. Christian ethics identifies the primary questions of ethics as, “Who am
I as a follower of Jesus Christ? What life is worthy of one who recognizes the
authority of Jesus? What sort of people should those who confess Jesus as Christ be?”
Although these are the general questions, Christian approach to ethics is largely
influenced the tradition adopted by each denomination.

3. LEVELS OF ETHICAL REFLECTIONS

3.1 EMPIRICAL (DESCRIPTIVE):

this kind of ethics uses tools borrowed from other social sciences to understand a
moral dilemma. The most important areas of moral thought where one finds
significant use of empirical sciences are: (i) The understanding of the nature of
persons as moral agents; (ii) The understanding of the circumstances where decisions
 and actions happen; (iii) The prediction of potential consequence of various course of
action; (iv) The development of moral norms. Secondly, there are major problem
involved in the use of empirical sciences in moral thought. These all affect the
selection of empirical materials: (i) the judgment about what data and concept are
relevant to the moral issue involved; (ii) this first raises the issues of the principles of
interpretation in the empirical studies, of what are involved in the section and
significance of the data used; and (iii) it also raises the issue of the normative biases
built into the empirical studies.
In the recent studies, it has been revealed that psychology, sociology and
anthropology have been helpful on the understanding of persons. Using the
disciplines mention one can understand why the person is behaving in this way.
Explanation to such questions is not only offered to the account of a particular act but
also for the kind of the individual person has become. The more problematic use the
empirical science in the development of moral norms. It is problematic because it
raises the philosophical questions of the relations of the fact to value, of the is to the
ought. What it is, is always what it ought to be.

3.2 NORMATIVE (PRESCRIPTIVE):

the word normative is derived from the term norm which in this context means
principle or standard. Hence, normative ethics refers to the formulation of standards
or principles for living or that would guide human lifestyle and behaviour. Or it can
be defined as the attempt to identify norms, or standards, of right or good behaviour.
It involves assertions as to what is or is not worth pursuing and what is or is not to be
done. Often normative ethics are engaged when we form opinions or judgments about
is right, good or obligatory as well as when we provide reasons for such judgments.
Also we engage normative ethics when persons, acts or things are described as good
or evil and commendable or disgraceful. Normative ethics attempts to respond to
Socrates’ questions: “How should I behave? What should I do? What sort of a person
should I be?” In these ethics. These questions are answered by presenting arguments
and explanations, by appealing to certain norms, or standards, and explaining why the
appeal to these particular norms is appropriate. Usually, the concerns of normative
ethics are found in these questions: ‘What norms are relevant in this situation and
why? What types of appeals are reasonable for us to make in these circumstances?’
The practical question in normative ethics is: “Should I ponder primarily about what
is likely to happen to me (Yawaka) and Esther if we marry and compare this to what
is likely to happen if we do not marry and choose the better outcome?” Such question
attempts to identify and illuminate standards or norms for a good life, are concerned
of the moral philosopher or theologian when engaging with normative ethics.

3.3 ANALYTICAL:

Analytical ethics is an ethical discipline that aims at analyzing moral issues. The
word analytical is derived from the verb ‘analyze’. To analyze means to take things
apart or to look at the constituent pieces of something. In nutshell, analytical ethics
could mean taking ethics apart. This discipline explores the nature of morality. It
 attempts to develop a theory as to what value judgments mean and how they can be
justified. This discipline usually pursue questions of definition such as: How can one
distinguish moral from immoral or between good and bad? What usually are we
asserting when we say that a person is free or responsible or is right or wrong? This
helps us to determine how ethical judgments could be reached or justified. It raises
the question of what is the basis of formulating the value judgments. For example
what was the basis of shooting protesters of 20 August, 2011 in Malawi by Malawi
Police who have both moral and legal obligation to protect the same people they were
killing?

4. Approaches to Normative Ethics: there are several approaches to ethics but for the sake
of this course we look at ethics of doing, teleological, deontological, situational, ethics of
being and Christian vision of integrity.

4.1 ETHICS OF DOING:

ethics to a certain extent can be described as an attempt to develop standards of

human actions (behaviour) although it is always the case as per definition provided
above. Based on this understanding, some think that ethics is more concerned with
determining what we must do. So those who advocate for the ethics of doing sharpen
the tools of their vocation by seeking the resolution of ethical dilemmas. They often
look for boundary situation that appears to present the decision-maker with no
ethically justifiable course of action. It is these situations provide the crucible in the
midst of which ethicists can sharpen their skills, which is also called casuistry. A
typical example of this is Socrates who argues:
 that ethical questions must be settled by reason alone.
 that ethical questions are to be answered according to standards of the person
involved and not by consideration for what they think.
 that the result of an act is irrelevant and the only consideration is whether it is
intrinsically right or wrong.
If one has to base moral decision-making, we would call deontological approach. In
seeking to make judgements about the moral propriety of acts, under ethical
approach we asked not to look beyond the standards set or no farther than the acts
themselves. The morality of any act resides entirely in the act because it is intrinsic
and essential to the act. In this understanding, the morality of an act is in no way
dependent on the intention or motive of the doer. It is the intrinsic nature of each act
determines its moral rightness or wrongness. Hence, ethics of doing is more
interested in the act determined by the prescribed standards.

4.2 TELEOLOGICAL REASONING:

the term teleology is derived from the Greek telos which can be translated as purpose
or goal in English. Teleological reasoning focuses on the consequences of the act.
The duty of those entrusted to make a moral decision is to do that act which will bring
 about the greatest amount of good and the least amount of evil. It is more based its
moral decision-making on the doctrine of lesser evil. It values the act which would
bring the greatest balance of good over evil. It is the circumstance will determine the
course of action. This is the reason this approach is also referred to as consequential
ethical approach. This approach does not treat morality as autonomous or an end in
itself but rather as means to something else.
In this approach, the good is treated as the primary concept in ethics while the right is
subordinated to it and defined as what is conducive to good. Rules or principles under
this approach have to be examined to whether they are promoting good or not because
there is no such thing as intrinsic rightness or wrongness applied to actions. Actions
are right only in so far as they promote or are likely to promote good. In such
situation the duty of those involved in moral decision is always to act so as to
promote the greatest possible intrinsic good.

4.3 DEONTOLOGICAL REASONING:

Deontology is derived from the Greek deon which means what is due or what is
necessary or imperative. It only asks what is intrinsically right or wrong.
Deontological reasoning is the ethical theory that holds that actions are right or wrong
in virtue of some quality or characteristic of the action itself, and not in virtue of the
good. This approach refers to something intrinsic/important to human action. It arises
a foundational question: how can we know what aspects of the intrinsic nature of an
act determine whether it is right or wrong? Ethical life is constituted in obedience to
rules while unethical conduct is what violates them. Often the one who follows this
approach meets an ethical dilemma armed with laws as standards of course of action.
The premise stipulates that abortion or murder is wrong there is no way its
interpretation can be changed because it is intrinsically so. In this case abortion will
maintained as morally wrong regardless the situation the victim of circumstances
finds herself.

TYPES OF DEONTOLOGICAL APPROACH

 Rule-deontology/ rule-ethics
 Act-deontological/ act-ethical

Deontological approach has two types namely, rule-deontology or rules-ethics and

Act-deontology or act-ethics. Rule-deontology holds that the rule is the norm or
measure of right and wrong. Right action is an instance of a moral rule, law, maxim
or principle. Although the terms used are different in meaning, they belong to rule-
deontology. Rule-deontology holds that the standard of right and wrong consists of
one or more rules, and these rules may be either fairly concrete one, such as ‘Always
tell the truth’, ‘Do not murder’ or rather than abstract one such as ‘Treat like cases
alike’ (working precedence) or Kant’s imperative which says, ‘Act in such a way that
you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other,
never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end, for which the term
 principle is more appropriate than rule. Also this type can be classified into narrow
and wide rule-deontology approaches. Narrow rule-deontology states that right action
is action in accordance with a moral rule or rules which specify the class of actions
that are right or wrong and the outward behaviour demanded such as ‘direct abortion
is wrong’. In other words, all actions belong to a certain class or classes are described
as right while those belonging to the opposite are described as wrong. However, the
difficulty part of this approach is how the rule or class is defined. In Christianity like
other Judeo-Religions this approach applied where people involved in moral decision-
making believe that what right is what is commanded by God such as the way
shari’ah law is sometimes interpreted or applied. However, the problem lies in the
definition of the course of action or it is determined. Is it whether depicting the divine
mind or humans? Often this approach does not distinguish between what is murder
and what is man-slaughter. It does not look at the motive or intention that leads to that
act. This is the basic reason some argue that it is not different from legalism, which
holds that the necessary and sufficient condition of morality is action in accordance
with law, usually conceived in terms of rules and regulations. Often this approach is
punitive rather than being remedial.
Wide rule deontology: this provides a wide way of looking at moral decision-making.
In contrast to narrow rule-deontology, this approach posit principles of which the
more concrete rules are merely expressions and applications, and to make these
principles the standards or measure of right and wrong. Principles are more elastic
than rules. Rules are intended to specify the behaviour being commended or
prohibited while principles allow for exceptions or not in certain moral decision-
making. Principles express the intention of the rules better than the rules themselves.
Usually, principles are centred on these premises: (i) justice or equity. (ii) Prudence
or rational egoism which say, ‘We ought to seek our own welfare’. (iii) Utility that is,
‘We ought to seek the greatest balance of good over evil.’ (iv) Beneficence, that is,
‘We ought to do good and prevent doing harm.’ The advantage of this is that it stands
between deontological approach and teleological approach.
Act-deontology or act-ethics: no class of actions are always right in themselves. The
act that is right to do is always this action in this particular situation. In other words,
there are no rules which are applicable in every situation.

4.4 SITUATIONAL ETHICS:

Joseph Fletcher is the father of situation ethics. Like those who followed his view, he
enters into every decision-making situation fully armed with the ethical maxims of his
community and its heritage, and he treats them with respect as illuminators of the
problems. Unlike legalists, situationists are prepared in any situation to compromise
decision makings or set them aside in the situation if love appears better served by
doing or saved as the best option.
Situation ethics goes part of the way with natural law, by accepting reason as the
instrument of moral judgment, while rejecting the notion that the good is given in the
nature of things, objectively. It goes part of the way with scriptural law by accepting
revelation as the source of the norm whereas rejecting all revealed norms or laws but
leaving one commandment, thus, to love God in the neighbour. Situationist follows a
 moral law or violates it in line the need of love. It is love that determines as what
action or decision to be reached. For instance, if the husband’s action threatening the
life of the wife who is hiding under your roof, you are entitled to violate one of the
ten commandments, possibly the 9th by lying in order to save life. Loving the
neighbour forces you to protect both lives. This could be the reason Emile Brunner
argues, “The basis of the Divine Command is always the same, but its content varies
with varying circumstances.”
Although this could be the case, our obligation is relative to the situation but it can be
contended that obligation in the situation is absolute. We are only obliged to tell the
truth if the situation calls for it. In situation ethics there is an absolute element and an
element of calculation. The absolute element is the norm while an element of
calculation is the method to reach the moral decision. Reinhold Niebuhr once said,
“Situation ethics aims at a contextual appropriateness- not the ‘good’ or the ‘right’
but the fitting.” In this understanding the best, there is no one way of interpreting a
particular norm or law as it stands but it is determined by the nature of the situation
and its implication. No one would enter into a situation armed with laws but s/he
should consider how love is maintained and saved. So it is the situation determines
the moral decision or judgment.
5. Community Based Ethics:
6. Theological and Biblical Foundations for Morality:
7. Challenges of Teaching Ethics in African Christianity:
8. Examination of Specific Moral Problems facing the African Church
8.1 Tribalism:
8.2 Abortion: by definition abortion is the expulsion of a living human foetus or fetus
from the womb before it is capable of surviving outside the womb. There are two
types of abortion, namely spontaneous and induced. A spontaneous abortion takes
place naturally without any external intervention. Induced abortion takes place by
external medical means under the influence of its mother. It is the second that is
debatable. There are various positions taken by different scholars to whether abortion
is permissible or not. There are two important areas that determine whether abortion
should be done or not. Firstly, it is based on condition of or surrounding either the
fetus or the mother. Secondly, it is determine when the fetus is considered a human
being. Listed below are grounds that would necessitate the woman to determine
whether abortion could be done or not.
 Therapeutic reasons: it may happen when the life of the mother is at risk at the
time when she carries the child to term.
 Eugenic grounds: it may happen where the unborn baby is retarded or
handicapped.
 Psychiatric reasons: it can be done when the mother’s mental health may be
damaged.
 Socio-economic grounds: it is possible if the birth of the child would thrust
economic hardships on the child.
 Rape or incest: if the girl or woman was raped and avoid traumatizing her,
some would recommend abortion as the best way of healing.
 An abortion may be allowed if the mother’s life is at risk, as it the case with ectopic
or tubal pregnancies.12 This happens when the fertilized egg becomes lodged in the
fallopian tube. The physician has two options only. S/he can either intervene by
surgically removing the fetus in order to save the life of the mother or do nothing and
allow both the unborn baby and mother to die. What would you do in this situation as
a Christian ethicist? By adopting the first option you fulfil the one of your Christian
obligation saving the lives of other and at the time committing murder, which
contradicts Christian values.
On time of abortion, some argue that fetus in early three weeks to a month is not yet
a full human being. Hence, abortion cannot be deemed as murder. But it has been
argued that at conception the fertilized fetus is genetically a human being.
Exodus 20:13 explicitly prohibits murder. Murder is an intentional killing of human
being. If the fetus is a human being, then abortion is murder. However, pro-
abortionist argues that the mother has right over the fetus. Whether this is murder or
not, the crucial is to ascertain whether the act committed is morally right. Following
deontological approach induced abortion is prohibited because it is murder in all
circumstances, but if one handles from teleological approach in some circumstances
like cases cited it cannot be deemed as murder. So the outcome of which is morally
right depends on view the doer holds.
8.3 Ethnic conflicts:
Corruption: Corruption is perceived as a way of life today. The significant question is
whether the Christian church has a moral and theological obligation to mitigate or
eradicate corruption. If she has, what mandates her to do so? Further discussion relating
to how the church should address corruption will be discussed after giving a brief
background to the question. Corruption became visible in Malawi soon after commencing
the multiparty era. However, to say that before the inception of multiparty politics in
Malawi there was no corruption then we are not doing justice to ourselves. Corruption
existed in Malawi even before 1994, but what led to the birth of Anti-Corruption Bureau
(ACB) was the rampant of the malpractice in Malawian society. By 1996 the Malawi
government established the ACB with an objective of mitigating or reducing or
eradicating corruption. In order for us to understand corruption and why the Malawi
government was geared to stamp it out, it is important to begin by defining it.
The Black’s Law Dictionary defines corruption as an ‘act done with intent to give some
advantage inconsistent with official duty and rights of others’ or as an ‘act of an official
or a fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his [position] station or
character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and
rights of others.’ The definitions suggest a dishonest use of one’s position for self gain or
an act done to manipulate the truth for personal benefit on the expense of depriving the
rightful and lawful persons who deserved to benefit from what you have taken. However,
it ought to be understood that corruption has different facets which comprise bribery,
12
It is the pregnancy where gestation takes place the uterus in the fallopian tube.
fraud, embezzlement, intimidation, extortion, nepotism, favouritism, lack of competition,
inside trading, abuse of power, conflict of interest, illegal contributions and receiving of
unlawful favours. This list just mentioned points to acts that aim at depriving the
otherness to serve the self. This action is against the law of loving the neighbour and
God. Hence, corruption is not only legally and morally wrong but it is also sinful before
God, the Creator and Judge of the whole earth.
This is the basic reason God through the prophets like Amos vehemently condemned the
malpractice. In Amos 5:12 the prophet said, “You oppress good people by taking bribes
and deprive the poor of justice in the court.” Similarly in New Testament the malpractice
was also condemned as undesired practice. Jesus urged his audience to properly use the
resources to benefit other (Luke 16:9). This exhortation was made because justice is at
centre of being a child of God. A Christian God is a God of justice. Anything that betrays
the spirit of justice which is an attribute of Yahweh was and needs to be condemned as
sinful. Hence, a Christian is morally obliged to restrain or refrain from being corrupt and
they have to make an outright condemnation of the malpractice at all cost.
Christians are not only urged to condemn corruption because it is morally wrong but
because it also has social implications on the society where they are called to witness the
risen Christ. Corruption disturbs personal relations which are fundamental for human
existence. The Christian church is called by God to be prophetic and His watchdogs.
Hence, Christians have an obligation to expose and condemn the malpractice in the
society she is called to witness and proclaim God’s kingdom. However, corruption cannot
be address if causes are not identified. Therefore, the church needs to identify the causes
within her structures and societal structures. After identifying the causes, the church
should start civic educate her members before taking the message to the society on evils
of corruption.
8.4 HIV& AIDS: the pertinent issues raised on the HIV pandemic are how the questions
of stigma and discrimination are dealt with within the Christian circle. Often HIV &
AIDS pandemic is associated with promiscuity or immorality. As a result, all that
contract the virus are described as sinner. The moral question is this quest is to
ascertain whether it is morally appropriate to describe the HIV person as immoral
being. Do all persons who are HIV positive get the virus through promiscuity?
To establish the case here there is a need to understand how the virus is transmitted.
Scientifically there are only three mode of transmission of HIV. These are: (i) Sexual
intercourse with the person infected with HIV; (ii) Blood contact with contaminated
blood with HIV; (iii) Mother to Child transmission. If we were to examine (ii) and
(iii), there is no way we can link them to promiscuity. However, they are possible
ways of how an individual can catch the virus. Although the major who got the HIV
through (i) could have got it through promiscuity, it would be inappropriate to
generalize it because one party could have not been involved in promiscuous
behaviour. Hence, no one who is HIV positive should be described as promiscuous
and be discriminated on the same grounds.
8.5 Homosexuality: it is a personal condition, not a type of conduct. It is composed of a
general propensity towards members of the same sex and is found in both women and
men. It is believed as a human inclination to others and it has more to do with sexual
 orientation. Although its causes are ambiguous, it is believed that there are
psychological indications that it is perhaps a form of inadequacy because of
environmental conditions in the early childhood such as lack of harmony in father-
mother relationship or child-parent relationship. Some have alluded to genetic or
harmonic connection although it is not clearly established. Homosexuality disposes
the subject to self-expression in physical acts with others of the same sex.
Homosexuality is generally deemed as inconsistent with natural, cultural and legal
laws of most countries in Africa. There is enough scriptural evidence to describe
homosexual as immoral and sin before God although it is disputed. Leviticus 18:22
and 20:13 states that anyone found engaging in homosexual act shall be punished by
death. Also Roman 1:26-27 condemns homosexuality (I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:9-10).
Although it is argued that the issue that
8.6 Civil Disobedience :
8.7 Divorce and Remarriage:
8.8 Masturbation:
8.9 Domestic Violence:
8.10 Child Labour:
8.11 Pornography:
8.12 Prostitution: this practice has been there all cultures of the world. Some cultures
have legitimized it while others have condemned it. Generally prostitution is the
offering of one’s body for sexual purpose in return of money or other favours.
Usually it refers to the practice of women offering themselves to men for sexual
intercourse in exchange of money albeit it needs not to be confined to this practice.
Male prostitutes exist where a man does the same thing to satisfy the physical desires
of either a fellow man (homosexuality) or woman.
Prostitution is widespread practice in all parts of the earth. It either carries no social
or moral stigma or not in some societies. Theoretically, the practice of prostitution
has been condemned by the Christian church but there is been time in history where it
has received a degree of toleration. Some moralists like Thomas Aquinas have held
that prostitution could be tolerated where it was necessary to avoid greater evil. It was
thought that unless women were allowed to practice prostitution there would be an
increase of rape, adultery and homosexual practices. If men are engaged in
prostitution, they will have time to rape or engage in homosexual practice. Controlled
prostitution was regarded as a means of keeping within limits an evil which could not
altogether be removed. This attitude has been maintained through history in some
societies worldwide.
Although in Malawi like other African countries prostitution is illegal, it appears that
the major concern has nothing to do with moral considerations but it is about healthy
issues. It is generally believed that prostitution carries with it the danger of infection
from sexual transmitted infections but it is not prohibited on grounds of morality.
What is the Christian stand from the perspective over the practice? From the Christian
perspective, prostitution is altogether to be condemned as a misuse of the most sacred
human attributes that of sex. It is selfish and egocentric because it involves using
another person’s body for personal gratification without regarding for the personality
of the person being used. It demeans the person used as a playing object rather than
 being a person who requires the same respect. The body as Paul says is the temple of
the Holy Spirit. Hence it requires to be respected.
8.13 War:
8.14 Rape:
8.15 Drug and Substance:
8.16 Ecology: the entire creation is subjected to anthropogenic pressures of which one of
them is global warming. Global warming has become one of the cross-cutting issues
in the modern world. However, it is not an isolated issue because it is connected to
environment deterioration. Environmental degradation refers to deterioration of
natural resources through human activities. All these resources were given to humans
for their use. However it has been discovered that there is substantial evidence from
ecologists and environment scientists that living and non-living beings created by
God are at risk or at stage of being extinguished. The areas observed by these
scientists are as follows: (a) Global warming and climate change which is attributed
to excessive carbon emission through human activities. It is product of this human
activity that is disrupting the natural and eco-system. This results in inadequate
rainfall and dry spells which threatens the existence of living things which rely on the
availability of rainfall. (b) Also perpetual deteriorating of stratospheric ozone and its
resulting impact on human and planetary health. Human beings rely much on the
welfare of his environment. Any sudden change of his environment affects his health.
(c) Deforestation, especially of tropical rain forest through chitemene and chisoso
farming are enhancing soil erosion, extinction of some living things and other
activities which depend on the existence of the forest. The collapse of the
biodiversity is a threat to human life (d) Deforestation in many cases is followed and
worsened by pollution of the earth’s system (land, water and air) through human
activities such as creation of toxic, hazardous waste from factories and carbon
emission. The sea is rising at about 1.5 cm annually. The factors mentioned are at the
verge of reducing the land for farming and living through the rise of the sea and soil
erosion. Although this is the case, human population is burgeoning and posing
another challenge to our environment. The recent estimation of world population is
projected at 6.8 billion people. This poses a big challenge on the sustenance of
human beings and other living creatures.
Looking at the areas discussed above, it is self-evident that environment degradation
is a reality and a real threat to our Godly given resources and to our existence. We
need to admit that Christians have a moral obligation to address the environmental
deterioration. The important question is whose responsibility is to address this
deteriorating of the environment. The Christian responsibility is concerned with how
a people relates to God and His creation. What a Christian requires to bear in mind is
that the whole created order originates in the sovereign, creative and sustaining
power of God, the Creator. God did not only create the world and all that inhabits in
it but He is still creating and sustaining His creation. As the Creator, God is the
 primary author of the meaning and value of creation. He is the one who controls and
owns everything that dwells on the earth.
Why human beings are required to take care of the environment? One of the
fundamental moral facts is the creation of man and woman in Genesis 2. The writer
of Genesis 2 urges us as Christians to recognize that human beings share the same
organic source with the rest of living creatures. All living creatures- animals, trees,
birds- and human beings trace their origin from the ground and they were created by
the same God. It is this common bond between humans and the entire creation
necessitate humans to take care for the rest of the creation. Secondly both Genesis 1
and 2 indicate that women and men were created to take care of fellow human beings
and the rest of the creation. In Genesis 1:28 God commanded man and women to
have dominion over the creation. However, the word dominion should not be
interpreted to mean a divine mandate to deprive and exploit the creation. Dominion
in the writer’s view means exercising care and demonstrating responsibility for
God’s creation. If we fail to manage the world where God, the sovereign ruler and
judge, has entrusted us to take care of, then He will hold us accountable.

8.16 Capital Punishment:

8.17 Euthanasia: the word euthanasia is derived from two Greek words eu (easy or
gentle) and thanatos (death). Literally it can mean easy or gentle death although there
is no such death. In Christian era euthanasia has been practised in some societies. It
can be defined as the voluntarily taking of one’s life with the owner’s permission or
closer’ relatives’ permission on different grounds. It has been defended as a crudely
utilitarian ethic as sensible means of disposing of those members of the community
who, because of diseases, mental deficiency or physical disorder, are considered as
burdensome to other members of their families. It is argued that if a person’s life
becomes a burden to him/her as a result of incurable and painful illness, death should
be anticipated by some painless method approved by science to shorten his/her
suffering or plight. There are two types of euthanasia. It is compulsory or voluntary
euthanasia. Compulsory euthanasia is the termination of one’s life by someone
acting in a private or official capacity without the knowledge or consent of the sick
person. This has been described as mercy killing with special reference to seriously
deformed or mentally defective children or adults who are believed to be incurably ill
and perhaps in greater pain. It is argued that to give them a speedy and release would
be act of merciful kindness both to them and to other, particularly family members.
However, it can be argued life is sanctity. No one has the right to take life except God
alone. It is not within man’s mundane or moral competence to deliberately and
directly to take the life of an innocent person with or without his/her consent. Doing
so is committing an act of injustice to the sick person and an act of impiety towards
God who gives life. Of course, there is true compassion but the act is incompatible
with justice and piety. Indeed we have duty to relieve pain or suffering but it should
not be done on expense of any price. Categorically, it can be argued that to take with
deliberate intent the life of any innocent person whether incurably sick or in good
health, with or without the help of medical scientists, is to commit the grave sin of
murder. Arguably, from the human right point of view, a person has a right to choice,
even to choose the way of life s/he wants to be. If a person does not see any reason
whys/he continue to live in presence of unpredictable circumstances s/he is at liberty
to take his life.
Voluntary Euthanasia is the request by an incurably sick person to terminate his/her
life in an easy and gentle way. It is argued the law should allow the person in certain
circumstances to terminate his/her own life or request medical doctor to do it on his
behalf. Some Christians have no problem with this way of terminating one’s life for
s/he is responsible for her/his life. They contend that a good person may conclude that
s/he has already reached a stage when s/he can no longer do anything more to serve
God or her/his fellows by continuing living. However, this argument underplay the
fact a person does not own his/her life. Life belongs to God, the giver of it. Indeed a
person the right to preserve and prolong it but not the right wilfully to destroy it.
What should a person if s/he is in moral dilemma where the necessary and good
option remaining is to take life, what should s/he do? Such moral decisions are not
easily reached. It requests God’s intervention through prayerful and patience.