How to "check religion at the door" for Ethics class?

[GratefulFred]

Many community college courses are lower division general education survey courses - first exposure to large areas of knowledge.

I thnk that most published Codes of Ethics - “I will not lie, cheat, or steal nor tolerate those who do” an old West Point standard for ethical behavior - are based on Christian values whether “Christian” is formally recognized as the basis or not.

We tend to jump to the conclusion that a college instructor is clearly trying to separate us from our religious upbringing, hoping we will not return to our core values. That is an unfounded fear. Especially when we go in realizing the course is just 51 to 54 hours in class and we just need to read and repeat. Reflection comes in time.

There are many published Codes of Ethical behaviors. If society could at least follow them they would be closer to God’s expectations for us, not further away.

 

[bingbang]

I’m sure he is, but just because people have made horrible arguments doesn’t mean no argument can be made. I’ve heard exceptionally horrible arguments for atheism, and I’ve heard them for religion. Abusus non tollit usum, my friend. Just because a bunch of religious people don’t know what they’re talking about doesn’t mean that religious arguments are not worth hearing out. I know plenty of atheists who don’t know what they’re talking about either, but I don’t say that they invalidate atheism. I examine the claims it makes and go from there.

-ACEGC

I agree with what you are saying, and if this class was not an introductory course at a community college and was a masters level course at a well renowned university I doubt this professor would put these types of restrictions on the course. Basically, in this course, the guy probably realized that something like 90% of the papers based on religion were garbage and it was best to just eliminate religious arguments from the course…even if it messed up the 10% that wrote good papers that involved religion.

 

[Spirithound]

I’m taking an Ethics class at the local community college and our instructor advised us to “check your religious beliefs at the door.” I’m also supposed to write a term paper where I pick a divisive topic and strongly defend my ethical viewpoint. Any advise on how I can do both?

2 resources for you. First, Peter Kreeft’s “A Refutation of Moral Relativism”. This will be indispensable in surviving a modern, secular, ethics class. Second resource is more specific: in the Summa Theologica, the First Part of the Second Part, Questions 18-20. These will lay out a good Catholic morality based on the object, intention, and circumstances of an act.

A big problem for me is that Im a convert to Catholicism and I was an atheist/humanist before. (Bertrand Russell was my hero.) The ethical arguments I’m most familiar with would put me in direct opposition to the Church. Can I defend a position that goes against my religious beliefs b/c it’s easier?
facetiously Is that ethical?

No…not ethical and in the end, it would only cause you to turn in inferior material
You will hopefully be actually learning more about ethics in this class than just Russell, and so you can draw on those other sources, and if St. Thomas is not included in the required reading, you’ll be showing extra initiative.

Anyways, I enjoy a good ethical discussion, so if you get lost in St. Tommy, I’d be happy to help out.

 

[invocation]

I’m taking an Ethics class at the local community college and our instructor advised us to “check your religious beliefs at the door.” I’m also supposed to write a term paper where I pick a divisive topic and strongly defend my ethical viewpoint. Any advise on how I can do both?

this doesn’t even violate your Catholic faith. The Catholic Church definitely recognizes the difference between moral philosophy and moral theology and believes the former is a perfectly fine discipline. You are taking a course in philosophy, not theology; you should not use arguments based on revelation.

The Papacy itself quite often does this when, for instance, it addresses “all persons of good will”. Catholic ethicists likewise do this when they make proposals on ethical standards for hospitals or doctors, etc.

Philosophy has a very important place within the Catholic tradition.

 

[Newbie2]

I agree with what you are saying, and if this class was not an introductory course at a community college and was a masters level course at a well renowned university I doubt this professor would put these types of restrictions on the course. Basically, in this course, the guy probably realized that something like 90% of the papers based on religion were garbage and it was best to just eliminate religious arguments from the course…even if it messed up the 10% that wrote good papers that involved religion.

this doesn’t even violate your Catholic faith. The Catholic Church definitely recognizes the difference between moral philosophy and moral theology and believes the former is a perfectly fine discipline. You are taking a course in philosophy, not theology; you should not use arguments based on revelation.

The Papacy itself quite often does this when, for instance, it addresses “all persons of good will”. Catholic ethicists likewise do this when they make proposals on ethical standards for hospitals or doctors, etc.

Philosophy has a very important place within the Catholic tradition.

If the OP has questions about the instructor’s statement, he or she should speak with the instructor. We’re speculating on why the instructor made such a statement.

With that in mind, I agree with Bing on this one (I’m speculating too, of course). I too think that perhaps the instructor wants his students to avoid defaulting to “because it’s in the bible” or other simplistic arguments…perhaps because those arguments are automatically disqualified for those who are not Christian.

One can make excellent ethical arguments that mesh with Catholic Moral theological principles, but it takes a little work to avoid using the terms we do, such as “Natural Law”.

For example, arguing against homosexuality is relatively easy by stating that biological design (code for “Natural Law”) goes against homosexuality, that humans are rational creatures and have cognitive control that animals do not (countering the argument that there are some examples of “homosexual behavior” in the animal kingdom), etc. etc.

Bone up on societal “goods” and “goods” for the individual from the Catholic perspective, and one will have plenty of ways to discuss Christian Ethics without ever referring to God or his word.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi all,
If I were in the OP’s shoes, here is what I would do.
I would compose a polite but firm letter to the instructor. In it I would explain in the most unambiguous terms why I am absenting myself from his class.
If he wished to talk with me privately on the strength of said letter then I would have no problem outlining in more detail where exactly I stand on this issue.
His apparent fear seems to be the problem; not any inconvenient or sloppy argument he may get from a kid.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Captain_America]

Wow! Say OP, your instructor is a blockhead.

I’m currently teaching an Intro Philosophy. There is absolutely NO WAY I would want to push students away from any direction they wanted to pursue on a paper. It is particularly egregious to see an Ethics instructor try to block religious belief from informing an ethical decision.

Pretty stunning!

 

[invocation]

One can make excellent ethical arguments that mesh with Catholic Moral theological principles, but it takes a little work to avoid using the terms we do, such as “Natural Law”.

For example, arguing against homosexuality is relatively easy by stating that biological design (code for “Natural Law”) goes against homosexuality, that humans are rational creatures and have cognitive control that animals do not (countering the argument that there are some examples of “homosexual behavior” in the animal kingdom), etc. etc.

Bone up on societal “goods” and “goods” for the individual from the Catholic perspective, and one will have plenty of ways to discuss Christian Ethics without ever referring to God or his word.

Natural Law is not a theological position. It is, in most uses, a philosophical one. While it is primarily Catholics who continue to embrace the Natural Law tradition, there are some non-Catholics and even people who are not really religious at all who continue to argue for Natural Law. Because it is an account of “nature” it can be known by natural reason without any appeal to revelation. Natural Law is not a term you should have to avoid; it is, almost by definition, a non-religious form of argumentation (even if the people who continue to use it are mostly religious).

This, I presume, is not a Christian Ethics course, which would take as its starting point and as given, revelation (though you might have to argue over how to interpret revelation). I presume, from the OP, that this is a philosophical Ethics course, in which case the professor would be quite right to say that the students should not be arguing in such a way that they take their starting point in some revelation.

Again, this type of distinction is perfectly legitimate, and even necessary, on Catholic grounds, and framed this way does not pose any direct challenge to Catholicism.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

I wonder if others were advised tofor instance “check unproven/unprovable liberal humanist assumption at the door”

 

[invocation]

What is interesting about this thread is that it is not this professor, if the OP’s report is correct, but several Catholics who are attacking the distinction between faith and reason, and as a result actually (at least by inference) trying to hold positions counter to Catholic teaching (which holds, as necessary, the distinction between faith and reason, theology and philosophy).

 

[colmcille1]

What is interesting about this thread is that it is not this professor, if the OP’s report is correct, but several Catholics who are attacking the distinction between faith and reason, and as a result actually (at least by inference) trying to hold positions counter to Catholic teaching (which holds, as necessary, the distinction between faith and reason, theology and philosophy).

If that is the case, why did the prof feel the need to put his qualifying statement to the students? Is he going to balance said statement by having a “religion only” class? Somehow, I doubt it. I think what we may be seeing here is fear of religion.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Spirithound]

If that is the case, why did the prof feel the need to put his qualifying statement to the students? Is he going to balance said statement by having a “religion only” class? Somehow, I doubt it. I think what we may be seeing here is fear of religion.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

Perhaps exactly for people just like our OP who have not yet considered the distinction between philosophy and theology.

I also recommend Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Faith and Reason”.

 

[kamaan]

(gonna play devil’s advocate for a moment)

I see what you guys are saying, but I don’t think that the professor was necessarily exhibiting a fear of religion (though he might have been). He could have just wanted the students to avoid using religion as their argument (like using Divine Command Theory). Truth is, if you don’t share the person’s religious views, then a argument using the Divine Command Theory is meaningless. Trying to defend the views of the Church without bringing in the Bible or things like that is a good exercise and can help you better understand our faith.

 

[invocation]

If that is the case, why did the prof feel the need to put his qualifying statement to the students? Is he going to balance said statement by having a “religion only” class? Somehow, I doubt it. I think what we may be seeing here is fear of religion.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

A “religion only class” in a moral philosophy course: this simply misses the point. Moral theology/Theological Ethics and Moral Philosophy/Ethics are entirely distinct disciplines, with each possessing distinct methods.

Moral theology should be taught in theology departments, and you should not expect to find it in philosophy departments.

The professor gave the instruction because it was correct. The instruction the OP received from the professor could very easily have been given by a dyed-in-the-wool Thomist in a philosophy department at an orthodox Catholic university. And even if the professor is an atheist, the instruction is still correct. Moral philosophy deals with the moral life insofar as it can be described using the natural light of reason (e.g., for a Thomist the Trinity, Incarnation, life of Jesus are not appropriate philosophical bases for making truth claims). A person’s religion simply does not matter. The only thing that matters is the quality and rationality of the argument, judged by natural reason.

Moral theology on the other hand is, of its essence, a sectarian discipline because of the unique methods and sources that vary depending on the religion (or even depending on which group within a religion) under consideration. Again, these things belong to theology departments.

P.S. Spirithound’s recommendation of JP2’s Fides et Ratio is a good one.

 

[colmcille1]

Hi Spirithound, Kamaan and Invocation,
Thank you for your posts and explicating that for me.
I will certainly check out Pope John Paul II’s treatise.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[otjm]

An ethics course is based on some system (there are numerous systems). Each system is formed based on certain “givens” or prerequisites.

For example, law will have an ethical system (actually, depending on the law, there may be different systems: e.g. law in the U.S. is based primarily on English law and will have one system; law in Saudi Arabia will be based on the Koran and have a different ethical system). Medicine will have an ethical system, and it will differ from the ethical system of lawyers.

The professor does well to tell the students to “check their religion at the door” if the basis of the system they will be studying is not based on Christianity and Revelation, or what we generally refer to as a Christian ethical/moral system. One needs to be able to understand how an ethical system is created (that is, understand the prerequisites) and then determine, based on them, what the proper ethical response is, or what would be unethical based on those prerequisites. In short, one needs to learn how to think through something logically.

That does not make studying another system morally wrong in and of itself. Any danger comes from several directions: 1) not knowing or “owning” the religious moral/ethical system; or from failure to thoughtfully and carefully examine the system being taught to understand how and why it may differ from the Christian system. In short, not using enough mental horsepower to discern the underlying premises of the system being taught, to be able to understand how it may differ from the religious system.

Arguing from a moral/ethical system without being able to distinguish the underlying principles of it and how they differ from the one being taught in class should rate at least a D if not an F. It is not enough to simply argue that another system is better; one needs to be able to show either that the underlying principles are false or illogical, or not consonant with observable behavior before arguing that the moral/ethical system based on Christianity provides a better answer.

A system may be logical, consonant with observed behavior, and still cause an ethical/moral dilemma because it conflicts with another system. That does not mean that the first system is wrong (it is constrained to only determine behavior within an enclosed system of acts) per se, but rather that it is not sufficient to determine the ethics of all behavior. And if that doesn’t make sense, I can give a construct.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m taking an Ethics class at the local community college and our instructor advised us to “check your religious beliefs at the door.” I’m also supposed to write a term paper where I pick a divisive topic and strongly defend my ethical viewpoint. Any advise on how I can do both?

Tell him…you could sooner leave your liver at the door than your Faith…

(or better yet your head…for such is more easily separated from “you”…)

(though if you need this for graduation etc…be prudent… )

Though in studying say ethics …one does need to be able to start from the ground and work ones way up via reason …but this does not mean one just jetison’s Faith …or leaves it at the door…but that one for the time does not reference it per se in thinking through a certain matter …in making a particular argument as an exercise say…but you are right in that one can not live that way of course…and faith and reason go together…but not being there…I can not say I know per se what is he suggesting etc.

You are able though as a Catholic…to defend say life …or the evil abortion (and any host of other things) …via reasoning without direct reference to any Religion…

A topic you could choose…is the importance to “bring your beliefs” into the public square… (Lots on this subject is out there…for example from Pope Benedict…say the address to the UN)

 

[tafan]

I’m taking an Ethics class at the local community college and our instructor advised us to “check your religious beliefs at the door.” I’m also supposed to write a term paper where I pick a divisive topic and strongly defend my ethical viewpoint. Any advise on how I can do both?

Have you thought about writing the paper on why it is stupid to check your religion at the door when dealing with ethical questions. Apparently, that would be controversal.

 

[colmcille1]

Have you thought about writing the paper on why it is stupid to check your religion at the door when dealing with ethical questions. Apparently, that would be controversal.

What an excellent idea, tafan! Now that would put the Catholic among the pigeons!!
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Wowbagger]

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that, when he says he doesn’t want students relying on “religious” claims in his class, the professor is not prohibiting all theological claims. He is only prohibiting revelatory claims from the classroom. I would guess that theological claims will still be acceptable provided they can be derived from natural reason. This is important, because many pivotal ethical systems are premised on the existence of a good God, including divine command theory and our own modern ethical system of natural inalienable rights.

Thus, the claim, “The fundamental dignity of each human person arises out of each person’s direct, willed creation by God, and the will of God is always the highest good” could be legitimate, because the premises (while extremely complex), are theological, but defensible on the grounds of natural reason alone. However, I would not recommend trying it in an intro-level ethics course without a lot of guidance; reaching down to the fundamental origin of ethical principles is unbelievably difficult, and the theistic account of the origin of ethics is only preferable, despite its immense complexity, because the secular account of ethics is totally incoherent and has been for centuries. You would have to defend, at minimum, the propositions, “God exists,” “God is good,” “the will of God is the highest good,” “each human is directly willed by God” and, critically, “humans should do what is good” – a far more difficult proposition than most people give it credit for, because most people just assume it. (The proposition, “There is only one God” is optional, but if you don’t pursue it you had better refer to “god or gods” or “divine power” throughout your paper, rather than assuming the One God that actually exists.)

By contrast, in this class, the claim “The fundamental dignity of each human person arises out of their individual creation in God’s ‘image and likeness’ (Genesis 1:26),” would not be legitimate in this class, because the claim now relies on a divine revelation, rather than a theological argument about the divine. Since the logic of the revelation cannot be directly examined, the use of the revelation is a bald appeal to authority (a very weak form of argument), and the truth of the revelation cannot be proven (at least not in a four-page intro-level ethics paper), it is not appropriate source material for Philosophical Ethics, a field which seeks to apply natural human reason to practical knowledge through the use of argument and discussion.

These revelatory claims are, I assume, what the professor means by “religion.”

There are absolutely no grounds for a complaint here, much less a civil rights greviance. You might ask the professor via email for clarification about his policy if it worries you as much as it seems to. I’d be curious to find out what the professor writes back.