What determines if a person’s actions are good or bad, and if that person is morally praiseworthy or morally blameworthy? Is it the act itself which establishes the rightness of a situation? Or does it maybe depend on the sincerity of the person who is acting? I’d like to suggest several factors that need to be met before we can say that an action is moral. Example One:
Consider an example. Suppose a man were to make love to his wife. Has he done a good thing? Well the act itself is good for God gives sex as a gift within the bounds of a monogamous marriage between a husband and wife (Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 7:3-5). But we need to know more. What about his motive? Suppose he made love to his wife in an unselfish act of cherishing her and with the desire to have greater intimacy with his spouse. Is this a good thing? The act itself is good and so are the man’s motives. However, I still think that we need to know more. A third consideration is the circumstances of the act. Suppose that his wife had a physical condition with which this act would place her life in danger. Has the man done a good thing? The answer seems to be no.Â
So, in this scenario we realize that a thing is not moral simply based on (1) the act itself, or (2) the motive, or (3) the circumstance of the activity, but based on all three of these criterions being met. Given the above discovery about morality, let’s apply these criterions to another example:
Example Two:
Imagine two people in a committed homosexual relationship. Their bond is genuinely characterized by a self-giving love and concern for each other’s wellbeing. We might then be asked if this couple doesn’t have a healthy relationship. After all, don’t they have wonderful virtues in their relationship? I think that we can defiantly affirm that such characteristics as commitment, self-giving love, and concern for the other are fantastic assets in a relationship. However, we must also consider the act itself. As we’ve seen in example one, though an act may be engage in with laudable motives, it is not the only ingredient for assessing and knowing if a thing is moral or not. So, for example two, while we can approve of many of the motives of this couple (1 Cor 13:4-7; Gal 5:22-25) we cannot affirm the morality of the act of homosexual practice itself (Mk 10:6-7; Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11).
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. Besides the above three criterion for assessing moral worth, can you identify additional factors in a possible scenario?
2. Can you think of an example in which it would be clearly wrong or even morally dangerous to only take into consideration motive or circumstance when assessing the moral worth of an activity?
3. Do you think that some people emphasize one of the above criterion to the neglect of the others when making moral decisions?
5 Comments on “What makes a person morally praiseworthy?”
While the Bible does not explicitly affirm the morality of homosexual practice, I think this post clearly explains why the cited verses, Rom 1:18-32; 1 Cor 6:9-11, do not demonstrate that homosexuality is immoral either. The passage from Romans condemns people who were “inflamed with lust” and “committing indecent acts.” Certainly their acts were immoral in intent and circumstances. It is a stretch to apply this passage homosexuality practiced in the way Brent describes above. (The passage also refers to them worshiping, but we would hardly condemn worship on account of this passage.)
It is important to realize that in Paul’s culture homosexuality was generally practiced with young boys, slaves and prostitutes. When Paul condemns “homosexual offenders” in Romans, we need to remember that he is referring to homosexuality in this context. Certainly sex with prostitutes, slaves and children is immoral in intent and circumstance. We do not have any reason to believe that he was criticizing monogamous same-sex relationships. In fact, there’s it’s not clear that the concept would have even crossed his mind.
Since same-sex marriage is not adequately addressed in Paul’s passing comments on homosexuality, it seems appropriate to consult his discussion of marriage instead. In 1 Corinthians 7 he gives a carefully argued and logical discussion of marriage, the longest discussion of marriage in the New Testament. Paul recognizes that for most people celibacy is unrealistic and could lead to promiscuity [7:9]. Therefore, he recommends entering into marriage [7:2] and emphasizes the importance finding sexual fulfillment in marriage [7:3-5], again because of the dangers of temptation [7:5]. Same-sex marriages are not specifically mentioned, but this does not give us license to ignore Paul’s advice when considering the risks of expecting homosexuals to either remain celibate or enter unsatisfying, opposite-sex marriages. Marriage is the appropriate place for our sexuality to be expressed, so it is logical to conclude that same sex marriages are the appropriate place for homosexuals to express their sexuality.
Does a person who does an immoral act with good intentions ultimately get credit for being moral or immoral?
I agree that the intention of our heart is important, but so is the act in and of itself. The bible states that the husband’s body belongs to the wife and the wife’s body belongs to the husband, and they give themselves to eachother in love. But in Pastor Brent’s example, if the husband were acting in a way that would place his wife in danger, he would not be acting out of the love that he is to show his wife. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the Church”…Christ would never place his church in danger for his own self-gratification.
As far as same-sex marriages, the bible is clear that marriage is to be between a man and a woman, both in the Old and New testaments. If people proclaim Christ as their Savior and follow the mandates of God, they should follow this accordingly. If they do not follow the mandates of God, they are given the same free will that we all are given. They will have to answer to God on the day of their judgement, just as we all will.
I won’t deny the Bible’s consistent use of marriage to refer to the union of man and woman. However, when considering same sex-marriage I don’t want to ignore Paul’s advice in 1Cor 7 (for example, “…better to marry than burn with passion.” [1Cor 7:9]). Telling homosexuals that they can’t marry seems completely against all of Paul’s advice in this chapter. When my wife and I fell in love, we married. How can I explain to my friends John and Mark that their love for each other can’t be fulfilled in marriage? What should they do?
Gavin,
Quality of love cannot be the only yardstick by which to measure what is good or right. Though it is certainly necessary for a good/right relationship is it not sufficient. If it were a sufficient criterion there would be nothing against polygamy, or, as I’ve heard expressed to me on several occasions, a married man who has fallen in love with another woman. No man is justified to break the covenant of marriage with his wife on the grounds that the quality of love for someone else is deeper or richer. I don’t deny that a homosexual relationship can be deeply loving, but that alone does not justify their homosexual union. True love seeks the objective good and welfare of the other. And if our highest good is found in conforming ourselves to God—His purpose and law—then true love will not be in revolt against them. A bland concept of love can justify nearly anything.
Brent,
Of course love cannot be the only yardstick by which we measure what is good or right. Did someone suggest that?
You bring up an interesting point about breaking the covenant of marriage. Why does the defense of marriage legislation never addresses the issue of serial monogamy? We seem to be content recognizing marriage after marriage for heterosexuals, in spite of Jesus calling this adultery [eg. Mt 5:32]. Isn’t this a much bigger threat to marriage?