CHS-3 REVIEWER
roles of moral language or knowledge of the meanings
CHRISTIAN ETHICS AS A DISCIPLINE
(George F. Thomas)
In the study of Christian Ethics these two sided must be
present: the clarification of the fundamental principles of
the Christian life, and the interpretation of how the
Christian community needs to make ethical judgment
and to act in the light of its faith and convictions. In
other words, the study of Christian Ethics as an
academic discipline has two general aspects: the
theoretical and the practical. The theoretical aspect deals
with the definition of the discipline, its nature, its
criteria, its methods, and its problems and prospects.
Moreover, it deals with the clarification of the
foundations and basic principles of Christian Ethics. The
practical aspect deals with how the Christian community
ought to decide and act in the face of an obligation or
responsibility. This particular study stresses how the
Christian ought to decide and act in the light of his own
Christian faith and convictions to fully develop himself
as a human being.
A. Definition of Christian Ethics
The term “ethics” and “moral” are closely related. The
term “ethics” is derived from the Greek word “ethos”
which originally meant customs, habitual conduct,
usages, and much later, character. The term “moral” is
derived from the Latin word “mores”, which signifies
customs and habits. But customs, habits and practices
evoke approval, hence ethics and moral have reference
to the things which people approve as good, right,
desirable, obligatory, worthy, and so forth.
On the other hand, the term, “Christian Ethics” may be
used in four different senses depending on the emphasis
a user is making. These four senses are:
1. As a moral code. A moral code is a specific
standard of human behavior designed to meet
the need of a particular group of people. The
best example of this is the professional code of
ethics. Hence, we have “Medical Ethics”,
“Business Ethics”, “Teacher’s Ethics”, etc. A
code specifies how a member of a group relates
himself to (a) profession or work, (b) his fellow
workers, and (c) his community or the general
public. Take the case of “Medical Ethics”. In a
Christian context this code spells out how a
Christian doctor ought to regard his own
profession, how he ought to relate himself to his
fellow doctors and how he ought to relate
himself to the patients. In this case, Christian
Ethics means medical ethics as a moral code.
2. As a metaethics. This is a branch of philosophy which
is primarily concerned with the discussions of the
meanings or uses of moral terms and utterances about
the nature of moral concepts. In other words, it is “a
study of the words and concepts that we use for
making decisions, advising, warning, and appraising
conduct”. The direct object of this study is not practice
but knowledge: knowledge of the distinctive uses or
of moral concepts. Metaethical statements are about
the uses or meanings of normative ethical statements,
utterances, or terms about the logical status of moral
claim, about the nature of moral arguments, or about
what constitutes a morality. Two examples of
metaethical statements: “Moral utterances are neither
autobiographical statements nor statements of non-
natural fact but expressions of emotion”. “Good” is the
name of a simple, unanalyzable, non-natural quality.
Metaethics has been referred to as an analytical ethics,
critical ethics, theoretical ethics, the epistemology of
ethics, the logic of ethics, or semantics of ethics.
Christian Ethics may be used in this sense.
3. As a way of life. In this context it is “way of life”
exemplified by Jesus Christ. As such, it is both
general and particular. General because it embraces
the whole of life. Particular because it is a “way of
life” specifically seen and patterned after the life of
Jesus. It is the Christian way of life. An ethicist puts
it this way: “Christian Ethics is a systematic study of
a way of life exemplified by Jesus and applied to the
demands and decisions of personal and social
existence”. In this sense, Christian Ethics is not a
study of rules and regulations of life itself as
conceived by the Christian. In the same way one can
speak of “Buddhist Ethics” if one means a way of life
exemplified by Buddha, or of “Muslim Ethics” if one
means a way of life patterned after the life of
Muhammad. In brief, Christian Ethics in this sense is
a particular ethical system.
4. As a disciplined study. This is the academic sense of
Christian Ethics. As a discipline it organizes itself; it
has its own field of concerns, its methodology, its
criteria, and its practitioners. As one practitioner
puts it: “It is a disciplines study of obligation, its
nature, its justifications, its consequences, and its
strategies”. In this context Christian Ethics is a
disciplined study of what a Christian ought to do in
the face of responsibility and how he ought to do it.
In brief, Christian Ethics is a systematic reflection
on Christian duty.
Primarily the last two definitions combined together
constitute the sense in which Christian Ethics is used in
this study. Thus, Christian Ethics is a systematic and
disciplined study of the style of life and obligation of the
Christian in particular, and, all human kind and the
entire creation in general.
B. Its Nature as a Discipline
As a disciplined study Christian Ethics possesses the
following unique characteristics:
1. It is a normative discipline. It is primarily
concerned with the establishing of norms or
standards of conduct to be followed by a group.
Ethical discourse involves at least three levels:
descriptive level where we find the sciences
which primarily deal with the description of
what “is”; the normative level where we find
 ethics which deals primarily with what ought to
be: and the justification level where we find
theology which gives the justification for doing
what we ought to do. Thus, when we speak of
norms in this case we do not mean “operating
norms” (descriptive ethics) but we mean “ideal
norms” (normative ethics) which serve as our
moral beacon. In short, it is normative in the
sense that it is a search for ought.
2. It is inclusive. It is inclusive in the sense that it
includes all of man’s moral experiences for its
data. It includes the experience of telling a lie or
being lied to, of stealing or being stolen from, of
cheating or being cheated, etc. It includes also
the experience of being forced to do something
which one does not want to do either by the
authority of the state or the church or the family.
It includes all aspects of human life. In short, it
includes the whole moral ethos. The moral ethos
is a “subtle web of values, meanings, purposes,
expectations, and legitimations that constitutes
the operating norms of a culture in a relationship
to a social entity”.
3. It is interdisciplinary. It is interdisciplinary in
the sense that it “commits practitioners to
undertake joint, supplementary, or
complementary theoretical and empirical
studies” in theology, Bible, philosophy, and the
sciences. Christian Ethics cannot stand alone as
a discipline. It needs the secular wisdom coming
from the sciences and the religious wisdom
from the theological, philosophical, and Biblical
studies. In turn it gives the practitioners of the
sciences the moral guidance and insights needed
in the use and application of the scientific
findings. Ethics and theology are interrelated
both in terms of content and methods. As one
writer puts it, “Ethics is theology sent on an
errand”.
4. It is reflective/critical/open. It is reflective
because it seeks to set forth a system or standard
of human conduct. It tries to show how that
system of human conduct and certain
fundamental normative statements can be
rationally pursued and supported. It is critical
and open because it takes into consideration all
available data needed to make a decision. It
critically looks into all standards of human
conduct and chooses the most appropriate one to
achieve its goals. The difference between “being
moral” and “being ethical” lies in the fact of
“being reflective and critical”. The moral person
obeys the laws before thinking or even without
thinking, but the ethical person thinks critically
before obeying. In brief, Christian Ethics is a
rational, critical, and open-ended search for an
emergent coherence (unity).
C. Its Criteria of Obligation (Ought)
Various criteria have been used by Christians throughout
the history of the Christian religion. But for our purpose
in this study we use the following major criteria of
obligation.
1. Criterion of right (or wrong). The assumption of this
criterion is that there are universal and fixed moral
imperatives or laws which are binding upon all persons.
The fundamental question is: “What is the chief duty of
a person?” the chief duty of the person is to obey the
laws. To do right is to follow the law, but to do wrong is
to violate it. In other words, whatever is said or done in
obedience to the law is right; whatever is said or done in
disobedience to the law is wrong. The law provides
precise moral guidance. So, this criterion is used by
many Christians because of its preciseness.
Nevertheless, criticisms are leveled against the criterion.
First, this tends to be legalistic, giving very little
freedom to those who use it. There is a tendency to
follow what is written only in the law and oftentimes the
spirit of the law is forgotten. Second, there are laws
which are unjust and obsolete, and so, they must not be
followed. If we do become unjust or e become irrelevant.
A third criticism is that sometimes what is just or good is
prohibited by an established law. Jesus found himself in
this situation in his time with regard to the laws of
Judaism so that He was prompted to remark and said:
“The Sabbath is made for man and not man for the
Sabbath”. Because of these weaknesses of the criterion
of right some Christians prefer to use another criterion,
that of good.
2. Criterion of Good (or bad/evil). This criterion
assumes that there is the “highest good or purpose” in
life. Thus, the fundamental question is: “What is the
chief end (telos) of life?” The answer to this question
depends upon one’s philosophical and religious
orientation. For some, like the Greek philosophers,
happiness is the highest good in the life. For others, like
the Christians, to love God, to worship Him, and to serve
Him is the highest purpose in life. Still for others, life
itself is the highest good. Therefore, one has to know
one’s highest good or purpose in life in order that one
can achieve it. To achieve one’s highest good a person
has to employ virtues, or maxims, or principles. A
principle is a statement of general truth which has to be
interpreted in the light of needs and situations. Thus, a
principle gives more freedom to those who use it than a
law does. Given a principle, everything that a person
does which helps fulfill his highest purpose in life is
good; whatever he does that hinder its achievement is
bad or evil.
A basic criticism against the criterion is that the
definition or location of the highest good or purpose is
controversial. Now, where does one find the highest
good? Some find it within themselves. Others find it in
the world outside themselves. Still others find it in the
Eternal God. Still many others claim that it is
indefinable. In short, there is no agreement as to what or
where is the highest good located. This criterion is vague
and confusing, so many Christians prefer to use another
one that of criterion is fit.
3. Criterion of fit (or unfit). This criterion assumes that
there is a most fitting situation in which to perform an
act. This further assumes that there are no fixed
universal laws. There is only one principle, that of love.
So, the fundamental question is “What is the most loving
thing or act a person can do in this particular situation?”
To answer this question most appropriately the person
must know the situation very well and must take into
consideration the wisdom of the community. But he
makes the final decision himself as to what and how he
ought to decide in a moral situation given the principle
of love.
Many criticism are leveled against the criterion. For one
thing, this is your subjective and gives too much
freedom to the individual Anyone can and may decide to
do an act which appears to him most loving when in
reality it is most selfish. Maturity and wisdom are
required on the part of the individual or in order for him
to evaluate most correctly the most loving act in a most
fitting situation given the principle of love alone. For
another thing, this is too concrete and situated and
cannot be employed in a national or international
decision-making where a more complicated situation is
involved. Finally, this will lead to chaos because
different persons will interpret differently the principle
of love even if given the same situation. Therefore, many
Christian not satisfied with any of the three criteria
above, prefer another criterion, that of meaning.
4. Criterion of meaning (or meaningless). The
assumption here is that life is meaningful. Whatever one
says or does has or should have meaning. But what is the
basis of meaning? Meaning is based on authentic
existence which in turn requires freedom. In other
words, a person must have a freedom to say, to do, and
to live in a way that makes sense to him or her. Thus,
whatever contributes to a meaningful, coherent life is
what really counts. One may follow a law, or a wise
counsel, or use a principle or maxim, or depend upon a
situation or on God’s revelation, to achieve a meaningful
and coherent existence. The point is one must to be free
to make and act on one’s decision effecting one’s life.
A basic criticism against this criterion is that this is too
broad and gives a person too much freedom to interpret
the meaning of life. This will certainly lead to
conflicting decisions, actions, and style of life.
Furthermore, this can be sustained only in a pluralistic
society, not in totalitarian or an authoritarian (martial
law) society.
D. Problems/Prospects/Challenges
There are certain factors in human life which pose as
both problems and challenges. Some of these factors
may be pointed out as follows:
1. Divergent perspectives
People, including teachers and students have different
assumptions or estimates of life and reality. There are
those who look at life and reality from the religious
perspective and there are those who look at the same
from the scientific perspective. The first one emphasizes
the activity of God in human affairs and dependence
upon God; while the second one emphasizes the activity
of man in shaping his own destiny and his dependence
upon himself for his own welfare and salvation. When a
person is strongly influenced by either one to the
exclusion of the other, the problem of understanding
Ethics emerges. In short, we have our own “filters” or
“lens” through which we look at life which may either
help or hinder our understanding of what is right, good,
fit, or meaningful.
2. Contextual or situational differences
For one thing, this means differences in the context or
situation of those who study Christian Ethics. This also
means the difference between the context in which the
Bible (our basic source for Christian Ethics) was written
and the context in which it is now being taught.
The first case spells out the difficulty in teaching a class
of people who come from different situations in life both
in terms of culture and of social status. Some have upper
class values: others have middle class values; still others
have lower class values. Thus, there arise a conflict of
values and it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at a
standard of human behavior acceptable to all.
The second case brings to us the fact that the Bible is
silent on many ethical issues that are urgent and
important to us today. For example, the Bible, in general
and Jesus in particular, is silent on the issue of pollution
and population explosion, to cite two cases. This is so
because there were not pressing social issues in Jesus’
time and world. If these were, Jesus would have said
something about these matters, and we would have a
clearer guide on how to handle such problems. What
Jesus left us is a style of life centered on love for God
and love for neighbors. So we have to do the best we can
to reinterpret Jesus’ teachings for our day and time. This
is both a problem and a challenge to us.
3. Knowledge explosion
The explosion of knowledge owing to scientific
discoveries complicates the teaching-learning process of
Christian Ethics. The more we discover scientific
knowledge about reality the more the traditional
Christian teachings are threatened and challenged. For
example, the Darwinian anthropology, which
emphasizes the evolutionary origin of man, has
challenged our traditional view of the creation of man as
told by the Bible. Modern anthropology has also
declared that man is by nature polygamous. The
Freudian psychology has challenged our basic Christian
affirmation that God is our creator because it has
declared that the emergence of God was due to man’s
psychological needs. Modern psychology has also
affirmed that man has tremendous inner mental powers
that are not yet fully discovered and developed.
Although modern science does not deny the existence of
an Eternal Reality (God) there are certain scientific
discoveries that bring to mankind grave ethical
difficulties. For example, the discovery of the atomic
power poses a moral dilemma for man. What ought man
to do in the face of such a power available to him? In
medical science, to cite another example, the discovery,
and practice of transplanting human organs (i.e., heart)
poses the ethical question whether man is or is not
playing God while doing this thing. Indeed, knowledge
explosion in science is accompanied by the explosion of
ethical issues. Thus, Christian Ethics can only suggest at
best a tentative ethical standard of human behavior. Its
task is an ever ongoing (continuous) process. Its field of
main concern is open-ended.
4. Advent of movement
A movement such as nationalism or patriotism can either
enhance or hinder the teaching-learning process of
ethical standards. Narrow-minded nationalism or
patriotism, contradicts the Christian teaching of
universal concerns. It creates in people a feeling of (anti-
ism), not only against foreigners but even against our
people who do not subscribe to the brand of nationalism
or patriotism we hold. Such bigoted nationalistic spirit
would hinder our search for a common standard of
national discipline and conduct. Such a spirit needs a
corrective that is allowance for some degree of liberality
and tolerance for others who differ from us for mutual
enrichment and enlightenment.
Ecumenism, as another example, could be destructive, if
it’s the only kind within the church. It tends to be
exclusivist, characterized by rigidity and intolerance,
disrespect and denial of God’s revealing unobtrusive
approaches in his love for others of other living faiths.
Also it tends to be inclusivist, for it preempts Jesus
Christ’s finality and uniqueness, and affirms a priori the
superiority of Christianity over all other religious,
evaluates other religious traditions “not in themselves
but in relation to Christianity,” which is religious
arrogance, triumphalism, and imperialism. Still another
wholesome tendency is to be relativist, a kind of
“strategy of playing down differences”. It believes that
each religion is equally true in its own way and essence,
and that religious ‘peace’ is achieved by ignoring
differences and contradictions. But this is artificial,
shallow, and dishonest. Thus, it is not a solution, rather,
it only ignores the problems that it claims to have
solved.
And yet, ecumenism, if it goes beyond the church, could
be creative. This is the pluralist model. It upholds a
theology of religious dialogue and pluralism, which
“holds that God has manifested and revealed himself in
various ways to different people in their perspective
situations”. The Biblical message insists on the
“previousness” of grace: God’s acceptance of us before
our acceptance of Him. In this sense, the “people we
meet of whatever religion, race, or age, are all God’s
people”. It means the other person is as much of a child
of God as I am and you which should be the basis of our
relationship with our neighbors. That attitude is at the
heart of being in dialogue --- which is also at the very
heart of the cross --- the consequences of Jesus’ teaching
on love. The message which Jesus gave was good news:
that God loves us first and that this is unchanging,
unfailing, and always available.
Hence, the incarnation is “God’s dialogue with the world
– an expression of how God always stands with the
human community”. The central message of the Bible is
deeply incarnational and dialogical. It implies that
people of other faiths are not outside the saving activity,
initiative, and loving concern of God. For the God of the
Bible whom Jesus revealed to us and called Father, rules
overall and is in all. His love embraces all humanity and
the entire creation.
This pluralist paradigm affirms the most striking fact in
the Synoptics: that Jesus’ own life is entirely God-
centered, God-dependent, and God-ward. It is a telling
argument that the center of God’s saving design for
humankind belongs to God alone, having manifested and
revealed himself in various ways to different peoples in
different cultures, also embodied each in their own way,
such as divine self-revelation. This model sets
Christianity in a new and alarming light where there can
no longer be any a priori assumption of overall
superiority; rather, the Christian tradition is now seen as
one of a plurality of contexts of salvation --- contexts, . .
. “within which the transformation of human existence
from self-centeredness to God . . . is occurring”. This is
the most human and humble way, to set aside, the unity
we are seeking, and give a chance for the unity which is
seeking us from God. And this could be the birth of the
new Ecumenical Movement --- the answer to Jesus’
prayer “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:21)”.
To sum it up, the word “ecumenical” or “ecumenics”
comes from the Greek original “OIKOUMENE” which
means “household” or “the whole inhabited earth”.
Ecumenism creates an atmosphere of universal
understanding and unity. It emphasizes that human
beings are all members of the same household of God.
As members of the same household they should treat
each other with respect and understanding. It creates
among people the desire for unity in diversity. It
encourages open and frank discussion of differences and
conflicts. It is characterized by the spirit which allows
themselves to differ but resolves to love.
In concluding this unit of study it is fitting to underscore
the importance of the discipline of Christian Ethics.
What is said above stresses the fact that Christian Ethics
is an academic discipline comparable to other disciplines
in the sense that it has its own nature, its field of
concerns, its criteria, its methods, a unique academic
discipline because its primary aim is to criticize
standards of moral decision, actions, and behavior with
the end in view of finding one which is most acceptable
to the Christian community and most helpful in its
thinking, decision-making, and practicing its own faith
in this present complex world. The importance of
Christian Ethics cannot be overemphasized. Man is a
social and ethical being and as such he needs a guide ---
an ethical system and a Person. Jesus, as the Christ.
DIGEST OF DEFINITIONS OF ETHICS AND
CHRISTIAN ETHICS
1. Ethics is the study and evaluation of standards of
human conduct (Moral Philosophy)
2. Ethics may be defined as a study of a particular
system or ethical standards (i.e., Hindu ethics,
Muslim ethics, Christian Ethics, etc.).
3. Ethics is the disciplined study of obligation, its
nature, its justifications, its consequences, its
strategies. It is in simplest terms, reflection on
ought (Stackhouse, Max).
4. Ethics may be defined as critical study of
morality. It consists of a systematic analysis of
the nature of the moral life of man, including
both the standards of right and wrong by which
his conduct may be guided and the goals toward
which it may be directed. (It is) . . . concerned
with practical moral choices . . . and . . . with the
ideal goals and principles . . . The study of ethics
rests upon the assumption that man is both free
and responsible. (Garner, E. Clinton).
5. Christian Ethics is the science of human conduct
as it is determined by Divine conduct. (Brunner,
Emil).
6. Christian Ethics is a systematic study of a way
of life exemplified and taught by Jesus, applied
to the daily demand and decisions of personal
and social existence. (Harkness, Georgia).
7. Theology is reflection on the action and nature if
God; ethics is reflection on the response of man
to the action and nature of God. (Neihbur, H.
Richard).
8. Ethics is often used to refer to the task of careful
reflection several steps removed from the actual
conduct of men. It is theoretical task; reflection
on the ways in which moral action occurs, the
assumptions and presuppositions of moral life.
Moral is often used to refer to the actual conduct
of men. It is a practical task: giving directions to
human behavior in the light of what one believes
to be right, or good. At the level of morals one is
asking, “What ought I do in this place of
responsibility?” or this, “Is what I am interested
in really good?” At the level of ethics one is
asking, “What fundamental principles are
involved in determining an answer to the moral
questions?” “What is the nature of the goof?”
(Gustafson, James).
9. Christian ethics is a history, statistics, and politic
of the Kingdom of God (Rothe).
10. Christian ethics is the science of living well with
one another according to Christ.” (Rom. 15:5)
FOUNDATIONS OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS
PHILOSOPHICAL ETHICS
➢ Origin and development of philosophical ethics may and
can be attributed to the Greek thinkers like Plato, Aristotle,
Epictetus, Zeno, Epicurus.
➢ Philosophical ethics is based upon a very high regard for
man’s rational capacity.
According to Greek thinkers man is composed of three-fold
elements:
1. Reason (rational soul)- this usually prevails
2. Emotions (spirited soul)
3. Animal Passions (appetitive soul)
➢ Philosophical ethics is theological.
Achievement of telos – end/purpose – happiness,
pleasure, well-being.
Platonism (Plato)
➢ the well-being or happiness of man lies in the attainment
of a well ordered and harmonious life.
➢man may and can't control his emotions and appetites
(which tend to create conflict within) by the use of wisdom.
➢ gun is the highest virtue
➢ wisdom is the quality or condition of all virtues and the
crown of moral life
➢ the quest for this virtue or wisdom enables man to
harmonize his conflicting “souls” within himself.
➢ people also give us importance to eros (intellectual love)
which means mutual love directed the request for the
highest good in life.
➢ “harmonious adjustment personality in a well-rounded
life is the highest end of the life of man.”
Aristotelianism (Aristotle)
➢ happiness (well-being of the soul or daimon) as the
highest good in life.
➢ happiness does not mean sensual pleasure or even the
pursuit of honor but “activity of the soul in accordance with
reason”
➢ it’s basis is to be found in the healthy activity or the
exercise of natural capacities and energies.
➢ happiness is Harmony with human nature through aid of
the virtue of moderation (temperance).
➢ to be happy is to be moderate in living.
➢ one must fulfill his function for which he spit in to do by
nature. If one does the things he is not capable of doing by
nature he will be most unhappy.
➢ Harmony with human nature by living a life of
moderation is the highest good in life. Moderation means
knowing what impressions or passions to control or
extinguish.
Epicureanism or Hedonism (Epicurus)
➢ affirms that life is governed by two principles; pleasure
and pain.
➢ pleasure is the only good to be sought right people while
displeasure (Fain) is undesirable and is to be avoided.
➢ why are you stop sensibility the task of life is discovered
and its accomplishments tested but the execution of task is
done by reason.
➢ pleasure is the alpha and omega of life.
➢ my pleasure it’s not here the absence of pain from the
body in trouble from the soul.
➢ the good life is the life of pleasure. It is in egoistic
pleasure. Pleasure has a measure of truth is a doctrine
which handling some of the followers of Epicurus to justify
even sensual enjoyment.
Stoicism (Zeno, Epictetus)
➢ I think I’ll create a story kissing accepted virtuously
highest in life.
➢ all virtues are of a piece, impossible without the others,
however, courage was the most important virtue (a virtue is
basically an attitude, not just an action)
➢” to live consistent with nature” what is a familiar
maximum among the Stoics.
➢ human conduct should be brought into agreement with
the loss universal nature, therefore, a person must
courageously put aside passion, unjust thoughts, and
indulgences, and must
cheerfully confront all kinds of vicissitudes coming from
outside universe.
➢ to live according to the benevolence and orderly Ness of
the universe is the highest good in life.
➢ no consequence of such life is apatheia on euthymia
(spiritual peace and well-being)
➢ another term for this alternative desideratum is
eudaimonia, do you have the condition of the daimon (soul)
➢ when this ultimate goal is achieved by the aids with
courage, once life becomes as autonomous, as uniform, and
as benevolent us God (universe) himself.
Transition from Classical to Medieval ( Augustine)
➢ popularly known as Augustine, also called Aurelius
Augustinus.
➢ key figure in the transition from classical to the Middle
Ages.
➢ in him the ancient Church has reached its highest
religious attainment since apostolate times.
➢He views history biblically and maintains that it has a
beginning and a culmination – an interpretation of the
entire human drama.
➢His subject his God’s dealings with a man and what
happens to man.
➢His concerns are historical man and human society and
the issue of man’s free will and the manner in which God’s
grace operates.
➢ he believes that God’s grace begins the work of
salvation and that would grace has initiated it a man
through his will cooperates.
➢ in view of this, he is acknowledged as the father of
medieval Catholic Christianity. Yet he is the spiritual
ancestor of much in the reformation - that of Protestant
Christianity.
➢ both passionate and sensuous and eagerly high minded
and truth seeking but intellectual questions, Augustine’s
spiritual pilgrimage has caused him “to desire to seek truth
as that alone of value.”
Medieval Scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas)
➢ the Prince of the School of Men is an appropriate
designation Aquinas truly deserved. In him we come to the
High Point in the achievement of scholasticism. He applies
the methods of the school to theology. He employs a recital
in such manner that eventually he has produced the
Catholic Church is standard formulation of theory.
➢ his task is the reconciliation of a recital and the Christian
faith. His profound conviction is that Christianity is closer
to Aristotle than Plato
➢The Aquinas, as to Aristotle, knowledge is based upon
what the senses perceive. The data provided through the
senses when interpreted by recent are a road to knowledge.
He also contains that faith is also a road to truth.
➢ Aquinas says that man can know nature through his
senses and reason.
➢Here, Aquinas agrees with Augustine in saying, “without
grace men can do no good whatever” – and that by its light
they know what to do and by its help do what they know.
➢ hi in his concept of grace – that it’s prevenient –
previously presents even before one’s awareness of it. It
stirs a man to repentance, and, a new birth which enables
him to will and to work in such fashion as to please and
glorify God.
Utilitarianism (Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill)
➢ utilitarianism is modified form of egoistic Hedonism
➢ the central doctrine of utilitarianism may be stated thus:
“a thing or an act is good if it produces the greatest amount
of pressure (happiness) for the greatest number of people.”
➢ in other words, utilitarian standard it’s not the agents on
greatest pleasure but the greatest amount of pleasure
altogether.
Kantianism (Kant’s Ethics of Duty)
➢ the highest good is good will.
➢ good will means sincere practical purpose or the
summoning of all means in our power to do our duty
➢ one must do what he ought to do. This is the kind of
imperative that Emmanuel Kant is talking about.
➢ Kant’s ethics emphasizes the fact that an act is good if
you do it and at the same time you can will that everyone
does it, thus it becomes a universal thing.
Existentialism (Soren Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre,
Rudolf Bultmann)
➢ existentialism is based on the doctrine that existence
takes precedence over essence.
➢ man is totally free and responsible for his acts and that
his responsibility is the source of the dread and anguish that
encompasses him.
➢ in other words, man forms the essence of the life that he
chooses to leave and he affirms his personal freedom,
decision, and commitment and yet he is scared of such a
responsibility.
➢ the good act is one that gives substance and meaning to
a person’s life now; it is one that is authentic or done in
good faith.
➢ the good life is one in which people acting in good faith
are open to one another and all that they do, no matter what
they may be.
➢They take responsibility for one another, and they act so
as to provide for the freedom of one another.
Social Adjustment Ethics (John Dewey)
➢ there is no fixed absolute value in life.
➢ good moral conduct is measured according to one’s
ability to adjust to the change in standards of society or to
take one space as a good citizen in a d, democratic
society.
➢ moral experimentation is necessary. All ideals and
values are to be treated tentatively.
➢In short, the good life is a life of constant social
adjustment. The good person is the pragmatic and socially
adjustable one.
Attitudes towards philosophical ethics:
1. Incorporation of philosophical ethics without any
discrimination.
2. Total rejection of philosophical ethics for they are
not grounded on the Bible.
3. Sympathetic but critical understanding of
philosophical ethics.
BIBLICAL ETHICS
The Linear Perspective – there is a beginning and end
The Cyclical Perspective – there is a cycle
The Spiral Perspective – has both beginning and end, and
cycle
Ethics of the Old Covenant Community
➢ covenant is a most distinctive idea in the Old Testament,
affecting the total religious and moral outlook of the
Israelites.
➢ what is a personal God has chosen people with whom he
could relate himself.
➢ the Israelites as the “elect” or “chosen” people to
become “a light to the nations”
➢ God has promised to do something for them and in
return Israelites must obey God’s command.
The covenant demands for an unconditional
commitment and obedience and limiting moral
responsibility on the part of human.
With God, is the guarantee of salvation and the
ground for divine judgment.
➢External Signs of the Covenant:
• Circumcision of Abraham’s descendants
• Obedience to God’s Commandments
• Telling forth of gods message to others
• Giving of land to Israel by God
• Making of Abraham father of many
• Protection given to Israel by God
➢The Covenant and the Law (Moses’ Ethical Monotheism)
1. Covenant Code (Exodus 20:22 – 23:33)
2. Deuteronomic Code (Deut. 12 – 26)
3. Holiness Code (Leviticus 17 - 26)
4. Decaloque (Exodus 20: 1-21)
➢The Covenant Prophecy (Prophets’ Radical
Monotheism)
• Prophets as spokespersons of persons of God
• Moral teaching was derived from their
understanding of God who had revealed himself to
them as a righteous God
• Prophets emphasized radical monotheism
• The good and righteous God absolutely demands
for all to practice justice, righteousness, love,
humility
• Prophets as messengers of God and speaking not
an abstract but in concrete terms and situations
➢The Covenant and Judaism
The morality (ethics) of the old community may be
characterized as:
a) God-centered (theocentric) b) Mandatory
c) Persons Concerned d) Equilitarian e) Salvation-
oriented
Ethics of the New Covenant Community
A. Ethics of the Kingdom of God (Jesus)
➢ the term kingdom of God is not found in the Old
Testament but is this and in many expressions -kingship all
Yahweh, rule of God, holy commonwealth.
➢The Kingdom of God is conceived in three different
ways in the Old Testament:
a. Assumption is that God is already king, for he created
the world and governs it with righteousness.
b. Gods kingship is present in a special way in the lives
of those who do his will.
c. Kingship of Yahweh is pictured as future reign in
which his rule will be completely manifested over all the
earth.
➢ Jesus’ Teachings of the Kingdom of God
a. A sovereign, righteous, active rule of God in the hearts
of human beings and in a redeemed society. It is both local
and universal in scope.
b. A precious power in human life as well as future
reality. It is already here and yet it is still to come.
c. A precious gift of God to be sought above everything
else in life. The preciousness of the kingdom of God is
likened to a hidden treasure.
d. A good news of God’s reconciling, forgiving and
redeeming love.
- stressed on divine acceptance which God has already
had extended to all persons prior to their repentance.
➢ Jesus challenged men and women to get involved in the
continuous revolutionary activity of God toward radical
renewal and new life are the individual, the society, the
world and the entire creation.
➢ Jesus admonished them for:
a. Repentance b. Faith c. Obedience
2. Theological Ethics provides Christian ethics with a
perspective of the faith and understanding for human
conduct in a new depth and in new light
a. A theological perspective of the Christian faith
b. A theological understanding for human conduct

➢ Ethical Demands of the Kingdom of God.

1. Demand of Love. 2. Demand for perfection.
3. Demand for Inward Morality.
4. Demand for the Supremacy of Spiritual Values.
5. Demand for Respect of Human’s Worth and Dignity.
6. Demand for being concerned with the present as well as
the future life.
➢ the ethics of kingdom of God may be characterized as
follows:
1. Integration of religion and ethics
2. Unity of motive and action
3. Respect for individual persons dignity and worth
more than four group tradition and institutions
4. Centrality of the Kingdom of God
B. Ethics of the New Creation (St. Paul)
➢ Human beings has fallen into a way of life and saw that
runs contrary to his true nature and destiny.
➢ Sin is rebellion against and within God’s rule.
➢ Jesus Christ is the only one who can help sinners out of
the captivity to sin.
➢ Faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is the starting
point of this life of transformation
➢ A person who is in Christ is no longer rebellious but
submissive to the will of God.
➢ A person’s life is characterized by:
1. Freedom in Christ. (Gal. 5:1, 13)
2. Freedom to be responsible (Gal. 5: 1-25;Rom 11:
13-24)
a. Preaching the good news of salvation (kerygma)
b. Serving the widows, orphans, the poor people as
a whole (daikonia)
c. Building a fellowship among the church
members between them and the larger
community (koinonia)
d. Teaching all human beings the word of God or
nurturing church people in the tenets of the
Christian faith (didache)
3. Transformation of the Self (2 Cor. 5:17)
➢ ethics of the new creation may be characterized as
follows:
1. It is Christ-centered (Chirsto-centric)
2. It is primarily an ethics of redemption and
transformation
3. It is also an ethics of responsible fellowship in the
living “body of Christ”, which is the Church

THEOLOGICAL ETHICS
1. Theological Ethics provides the discipline of Christian
ethics with theological postulates:
a) The postulate of a good God who is thought of:
1) a Creator 2) s Redeemer 3) as Judge and
Councelor
b) The postulate of basically a good man and purpose of
life:
1) He is a created being 2) a fallen being 3) a potential-
saint
c) The Street basically a good and friendly world