Harvard Justice: A Christian Perspective

Harvard Justice is a series of lectures recorded at Harvard University on the subject of the philosophy of ethics.  If that sounds stuffy, academic and uninteresting then I urge you to suspend your judgement and take a look.  The series is free on Youtube and it would be worthwhile to at least view the first couple presentations. The professor is Michael Sandel who is engaging in his presentation an excellent facilitator for the student interaction.  The scenarios and thought experiments did make me think and think in a constructive way.  Sandel presents the various ways of approaching ethics such consequentialism, libertarianism and others.  Again, if this  series sounds stuffy but I assure you it is not boring.  One thing I like is the Sandel presents each philosophical approach objectively and clearly.

While I definitely recommend this series, from a Christian point of view there is something missing.  The students engaged in some good interaction offering a variety of perspectives however the basis or foundation of the opinions was missing.  It is true that all the students have  a strong sense of moral values even if they did disagree on various points.  However the basis for those values was just one’s experience and feelings.  In the opening lecture, one goal of the was to examine the presuppositions for ethical values however, in the end, it was each individual’s feelings of right and wrong which formed the basis for those values.  Without a set of transcendent moral values and duties, it appears we are left with various opinions.  Who is to determine whose opinions shall prevail?  From a Christian perspective, every person has a set of moral values written on their conscience.  It is revealed to us in the Bible that God has written his law upon each human heart.  But the origin of those ethical values is not individual feelings and experiences which leads to relativism but rather these values and duties are objectively true (i.e. true for everybody) since the origin is from God.  Without the foundation, each person’s opinion (or each person’s ethical philosophy) is just one of many.  From this observation comes one of the strongest arguments of God’s existence and it goes like this.  It is called the Moral Argument.  1)Without God, there can be no objective moral values and duties.  2)There are objective moral values and duties (based on foundational human knowledge).  3)Therefore there is a God.  It is a deductive argument so to deny the conclusion, you must deny at least one the the premises.  So if you disagree, which premise do you disagree with?