Introducing Christian Ethics: A Short Guide to Making Moral Choices

by Scott B. Rae

There are two somewhat different forms of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. The former evaluates the utility of individual actions, and the latter provides moral rules based on a predictable track record of consequences.

A final problem with utilitarian reasoning is that the maxim “The greatest good for the greatest number,” by definition, makes it difficult to protect the rights and interests of minorities.

It is simply not true that self-interest and altruism cannot coexist. Though it is true that following Jesus involves denying oneself, taking up one’s cross, and following him (Mark 8:34–35), the Bible also calls people to balance self-interest with a concern for the interests of others (Phil. 2:4). In addition, the Bible mandates that individuals pursue their self-interest so they can take care of their financial needs and those of their dependents, without being dependent on the community (1 Tim. 5:8; 2 Thess. 3:10).

The baby is actually a separate entity with an entirely separate genetic code, and in roughly half of the pregnancies, a different sex. From very early on in the pregnancy, the baby has its own circulatory and nervous systems. It is true that the baby is dependent on the mother’s body. But being dependent on the mother and being part of the mother are two different things. This rationale for abortion confuses the fetus being attached to the woman carrying it and being a part of the woman carrying it. It does not follow that just because the fetus is attached to its mother by an umbilical cord that the fetus is a part of her in a way that denies its own separate identity. Here’s something else to think about with this rationale. Only on the assumption that the fetus is not a person does this argument of “my body, my choice” make sense. That is, if the fetus is not a person, it makes sense for the mother’s right over her own body to take precedence. But if the fetus is a person, it makes no sense to insist that the mother’s choice should take priority over the fetus’s right to life, because life always takes precedence over the exercise of freedom when they conflict. Further, only by assuming that the fetus is not a person can a woman justify ending its life simply because she chooses to do so. Philosophers call this “begging the question,” that is, assuming your conclusion at the very start. This rationale assumes that the fetus is not a person, for if it is a person, the a...

The young woman is defending her abortion choice because the baby is unwanted for the hardship it would likely cause her and itself later on as a child. But again, only with the assumption that the fetus is not a person does this argument have any merit. For if the fetus is a person, then surely “hardship does not justify homicide,” as philosopher Frank Beckwith puts it. In addition, if the fetus is a person, then the argument based on unwantedness justifies taking the lives of many adults who are widely perceived as unwanted, including the homeless and the severely mentally challenged. Unwantedness is ultimately a commentary on the mother, not the fetus. Whether

that at birth there now exists a full person? The problem with taking birth as a decisive moment is that birth is primarily a change of location,

Some people hold that implantation is the phase of pregnancy at which you have a full person.

The young woman in our scenario might also make the case for viability as the moment that matters for the determination of personhood.

Our young woman might suggest that the onset of brain activity is the best decisive moment, though at her current stage of pregnancy, about forty-five days into it, the fetus inside her is close to having brain waves.

A final decisive moment the young woman considers is called sentience. This refers to the ability to experience sensations, namely, but not limited to, pain.

From this discussion of the various decisive moments that could be used to determine when a fetus becomes a person, we could make a case that goes something like this: since we all can agree that all human persons are the result of a process of development that begins at conception, and since there is no break in the process that has moral or ontological significance for the status of the fetus, then it follows that we have a person from conception forward. Because of this, and to insure that our language matches our view, the embryo does not develop into or

become a fetus. Rather embryos mature into fetuses, which mature into newborns, toddlers, adolescents, and adults. A human being doesn’t gain or lose personhood moving from one stage to the next. He or she simply matures.

Our first fence post involves the place of medical technology. In the Genesis account of creation, God gave human beings the task of exercising dominion over the world, making human beings his trustees over the created order, to use it responsibly for their benefit while protecting the resources at the same time.

A second fence post about which the Bible is clear is the sanctity of life from conception.

A third fence post comes out of the above mention of embryo adoption. The Bible holds adoption in high regard, a part of the overall biblical teaching on the obligation to care for the vulnerable.

A fourth fence post comes out of the Genesis account of creation and is not always easy to apply. Genesis 1–2 upholds the sanctity of marriage as the context for procreation.

Although most of my seminary students get this right and answer that work was ordained in Genesis 2, lots of businesspeople and professional men and women live as though work were ordained in Genesis 3. They live as though their work were their penalty, and I suspect that the vast majority of people in our churches, if they won the lottery, would quit working tomorrow.

When the Lord returns, you will still be working. When the Bible describes the kingdom being consummated after the Lord returns, the prophets use imagery like “they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” (Isa. 2:4).

To be more specific, work was ordained in Genesis 1 and 2 as one of the primary means by which human beings were to exercise dominion over creation. God also ordained procreation because Adam and Eve alone could not accomplish the task of dominion.