Graded Absolutism

Graded Absolutism is the recognition of a hierarchy of moral absolutes. In this system, if there is a conflict between two absolutes, the duty to obey the higher one exempts one from the duty to the lower one.[1] The general order is duty to God, duty to fellow humans, and lastly duty to property. The Great Commandment is the cornerstone of this moral system. Jesus said the first and greatest commandment is love for God, and the second is love for man. In the use of these modifiers of priority, Jesus establishes that laws are graded.

The application of this is seen as Peter and John stand before the proconsul in Acts chapter 5. There is a conflict between two Christian ideals, obedience to God and obedience to civil authority. Their response was, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29.) Clearly the apostles understood which law was to be adhered to in the moral dilemma.

There are three criticisms alleged against Graded Absolutism. It is often mistaken for situational ethics, which it is not. It differs in that Situationalism is an antinomian ethic that is anchored to no absolutes; the morality of an act depends on the context of the act. Secondly, Graded Absolutism is often viewed as only a variant of conflicting Absolutism. To the contrary, they differ in that Graded Absolutism sees keeping the higher law not as a “lesser evil” but as a good; moreover, God is honored by the observance of the higher moral law. Thirdly, Graded Absolutism is criticized of being arbitrary in the prioritization of moral law; however, in this paper I will prove that moral laws can be ranked objectively. So then, Graded Absolutism is uniquely different in that it posits absolute moral laws; it does not condemn a person for breaking the lesser law but exempts him; it recognizes an objective hierarchy in the design of moral laws.

In this paper I will apply the premise of the graded absolutist ethic to three hard case scenarios. It is my goal to bring a satisfactory remedy to each case that resolves the conflict between moral laws. It is not the goal of the resolution to make all parties in the situation happy, but to only render as much appreciation as possible to God’s moral law in these difficult situations. I will proceed by laying out the details of the situation. Then I will state the moral laws that are in conflict. Next we will apply the graded ethical model and determine the higher moral law and state the resolution. In doing so, I will demonstrate that the hierarchy is neither arbitrary nor ambiguous and give biblical precedent for it.

Edward Bilton is a 31 year old computer analyst. He has recently married his long-term girlfriend and they are expecting their first child. Both of them work fulltime and lead a very active life pursuing outdoor activities that include windsurfing, mountaineering, and cross-country skiing. Edward's parents are in their early 60's. His mother was a solicitor, and his father is a retired school teacher. Three weeks ago, Edward was involved in a road traffic accident on his way to work. He was on a motorbike. He has sustained severe head injuries and his right leg has had to be amputated. He is still in ITU. He is not brainstem dead. There has been one unsuccessful attempt to get him off the ventilator. Although he is brain injured, Edward is expected to regain consciousness but with severe neurological impairment. Edward and his wife both made living wills when they got married. Edward's will says that in the event of an accident he does not wish to be artificially kept alive should he be fully dependent and disabled. After one week, his wife brings the will into the ward. The ITU team wants to keep Edward on the ventilator. His mother feels he should be kept alive. However, the wife feels strongly that he should be allowed to die. The main ethical issue: the young persons advanced statement that he did not want to be kept alive in the face of severe disability.

The subject at hand here is the issue of Euthanasia. The term derived from the Greek means “happy death” or “good death.” It traditionally conveyed the idea of keeping terminally ill patient free from pain in their last days.[2] Yet the idea has undergone a radical revision in our contemporary culture. The Webster’s Dictionary reflects the change in its rendering of two definitions: (1) “an easy death or means of inducing one” and (2) the act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from incurable diseases.”[3] Thus today it is popularly called the right to die.

In the Edward Bilton case, the laws that seem to be at odds are obedience to civil authority and the sanctity of human life. Euthanasia always raises the issue of the sanctity of human life. The Christian perspective is that God is sovereign over human life, thus the ultimate determination of a right to die does not rest with the expressed will (living will) of the person but with God. However, the living will is a legally binding document that rest in the authority of the civil magistrate to whose adherence a Christian is also duty bound.

While the civil obligation is clear, the sanctity of life issue needs further verification. That is, just because a person is being kept alive by a ventilator does not mean that removal is an issue concerning the sanctity of life. At this point the life of Edward Bilton has been placed under the stewardship of his wife and family by God. There is a duty laid upon them to deal with Edward’s life with dignity. Proper stewardship requires that the sanctity of life not be frivolously assumed and Edward’s volition be violated without just cause, but that its validity is established.

The criteria to establish that this form of euthanasia is not a violation of the sanctity of life is laid out by Dr. Norman Giesler as such: 1) the disease must be irreversible 2) the patient has veto power and 3) it is a collective decision of pastor, doctor, lawyer and family members.[4] Obviously there is a violation of criteria 3, as the Physicians are optimistic of a degree of recovery, and the family is not unified in the decision. However, first and more importantly, Edward’s condition appears to be reversible to the point of avoiding death. Giesler defines what is meant by irreversible;

In practical terms a condition is irreversible when there are no know available medical means to correct the injury or disease process leading to death. In other words, there is no medical hope for recovery, and it is only a matter of time before a person dies. Medically, this means that even the best unnatural (mechanical) means will not stop death.[5]

So with the sanctity of life established, the most primary question is “Which law is the higher law of God, sanctity of life or government?”

In applying the hierarchical ethical system, the higher moral law would be the sanctity of life. This is demonstrated biblically in the story of the Hebrew midwives, who principally have the same conflict. Commanded by Pharaoh to kill the Hebrew baby boys at birth they faced the conflict of sanctity of human life and obedience to the civil authority. Obviously they obeyed God’s commandment “thou shall not kill” at the cost of loyalty to the magistrate.

The rationale by which the higher law may be determined is not ambiguous as many claim the hierarchical ethic to be. It is fairly simple in this case and all cases for that matter. One need only examine the stewardship of the law itself. In other words what is the law designed to protect? What other laws are implicit within this law or entrusted to this law? Considering the two laws at hand, is life in trusted to government or is government entrusted to life? Is the government the protector of life or is life the protector of government? The protection of life is surely the duty of government, thus the higher law is life; thus it is the business of government to protect it, making government the servant of life and the lesser law.

So then in the case of Edward Bilton, upon the establishment of this being a sanctity of human life issue conflicting with the obedience of civil government, the proper solution is to allow Edward to remain on the ventilator and not fulfill the expressed wishes of his living will.

A 43 year old, southern Baptist woman is in the hospital and asks to see the chaplain because of anxiety and depression. Through the course of meeting with her you become aware that she is a victim of domestic violence. She states that she loves her husband very much and that he does not mean to hit her. She has been hurt enough that, a year ago, she had to go to the emergency room for treatment. She told them that she had fallen on her bicycle and they did not pursue the cause of her injuries any further. At that time, she had gone to her Southern Baptist pastor and told him of the incident. She said that she was "tired of being his (her husband’s) doormat." The pastor instructed her that, in no uncertain terms, she was to fulfill her marriage vows by staying in the marriage with her husband. He gave her Biblical instruction, reminded her of her marriage vows, and sent her home. She has remained in this abusive marriage ever since. She is now admitted for a new diagnosis of breast cancer and is questioning many things in her life.

In this instance the moral laws that are at variance include the sanctity of marriage and the principle of human dignity. Again, Christians are duty-bound to keep our vows. As Jesus said in no uncertain terms, “Let you yea be yea and your nay be nay.” It is no overstatement to say that the marriage vow is the most fundamental vow that can be made among humans. Needless to say Christians have a moral obligation to get married and remain married to the glory of God.

However, Christians also have a charge to uphold and promote the dignity of human life. Men and women are not to be treated as brute beast or like inanimate property. The source of human dignity is rooted in the Genesis account that mankind is made in the image of God (Imago Dei,) thus every human being is created and should be acknowledged as an inherently valuable member of the human community independent of their utility or function as a unique expression of life, with an integrated bodily and spiritual nature.

So with the conflict of laws established, what then is the higher law? Again we turn to the question of “Which principle is to serve the other?” Does marriage serve the Imago Dei or vice-versa? Does marriage accentuate the Imago Dei or does the Imago Dei accentuate marriage?

These questions can be answered simply by looking at the order in Genesis. Obviously creation precedes marriage, thus the image is primary and marriage is secondary. The purpose of marriage is to magnify the human reflection of God. In this, right marriage is the lesser law and human dignity the higher law.

Another way to understand the priority of marriage as it relates to the Imago Dei is in the fact that marriage is temporal. When confronted with a question about marriage in Heaven, Jesus said, “There is no marriage in heaven.” So then marriage is an earthly social institution, not eternal as is the Imago Dei and the human dignity it facilitates. Thus human dignity therefore transcends any social order as the basis for rights and is neither granted by society nor can it be legitimately violated by society.

Now it is important that a violation of the principle of human dignity is established in this instance. All quality of life issues are not a transgression of the law of human dignity. A violation of the law of human dignity is a decision that unduly disregards the physical well-being of the parties involved – human life is not deemed “sacred.”[6] This is clearly a case where the human dignity law is being broken, as the woman has been hospitalized before do to her husband’s abuse. She is in constant danger of physical harm and perhaps death.

Now let us turn to a biblical precedent for our decision. This hierarchy is demonstrated in the scriptures among the same principles in the story of Abigail and her husband, Nabal. In the narrative David sends to Nabal requesting food for his men. Nabal insults David with his negative answer and David is enraged and coming to kill Nabal and likely his family. Abigail hears and realizes what is about to occur. So then she must determine whether to violate the sanctity of her marriage vows (loyalty to her husband) or to break the vow for the sake of her family (human dignity.) Abigail chose to violate her marriage vows and save the lives of herself and her family. God’s approval of this is clear in scripture, as she finds favor with David and marries him after her husband dies.

Given this order, the proper course is that the woman should forsake the marriage and seek her own safety as a priority.

Is there any biblical basis to dismiss both an elder and a senior pastor for poor ministry performance even though both of them are morally qualified? What are the consequences of your choice? What are the ethical considerations here?

The conflicting laws in this case are the law of qualification and the law of expediency. The offices of the church are established for a purpose. Those who are placed in offices are to meet a certain criteria. Both the offices and the criteria thereof are established by God. The church is duty-bound to uphold both the purpose and the criteria of the office.

In an examination of the two laws we must consider; “Does the law of qualification serve the purpose of the office or does the purpose of the office serve the law of qualification?” Are qualifications for the meeting of purpose or purpose for the meeting of qualifications? The answer to this is simple. Qualifications are meant to protect the purpose of the office, and increase the provability of the office accomplishing its purpose. So then, qualifications serve expediency and expediency is the higher moral law.

The classical biblical precedent for this is what we will deem the firing of John Mark. John Mark was morally qualified to assist Paul on his journey; however, he was just not cut out for the perils missionary journeys. He has displayed very poor performance in this regard after abandoning Paul when turmoil occurred on a missionary journey. Firing John Mark was not only good for Paul, but allowed John Mark to find his true calling; he wrote the gospel according to Mark.

So then not only is allowing these people to remain in these offices a disservice to the church, it is a disservice to these men as well. The proper resolution is to dismiss both the elder and the senior pastor for their poor ministry performance.

In each instance the graded absolutist ethic was administered, by observing the conflicting laws and determining the higher law. By carefully determining exactly how the laws related one to another, that is which law is in the service of the other, the hierarchy is found to be neither arbitrary nor ambiguous. In this it is demonstrated that the graded absolutist ethic model properly resolves the conflict and uphold a biblically-based morality.

[1]D. Jones “Biblical Christian Ethics” (Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516 Bakers Book House, 1994) 133.

[2] J Kerby Anderson, “Euthanasia: A biblical Appraisal” Bibliotheca Sacra 114 (April-June1987): 574.

[3] Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam & Co., 1971), s.v. “euthanasia,” 786.

[4] Norman L. Geisler, “Christian Ethics, Options and Issues” (Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516 Bakers Book House, 1989) 168-169.

[5] Ibid.

[6] C. F. H. Henry, "Image of God," Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, rev. ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell, (Grand Rapids, Michigan 49516 Bakers Book House, 2001) 591-594.