God and ethics

A person does not have to believe in a god or any number of gods to be ethical. Organized religion has frequently shown itself and its adherents to be unethical.

The field of ethics, also called moral philosophy, involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior. Philosophers today usually divide ethical theories into three general subject areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct. This may involve articulating the good habits that we should acquire, the duties that we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior on others. Finally, applied ethics involves examining specific controversial issues, such as abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental concerns, homosexuality, capital punishment, or nuclear war.

The problem is simple: ideas—and ethics—change, and thus remains in change. The issue of god(dess) design or interest has no value in a free society that values diversity and individual contributions regardless of externalities.

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 8:50 am EST on March 1, 2006

not concerned?

Truth be known, RWH, a violation of the Civil Rights Act is illegal. While you may not be concerned, a judge may be.

Susan P, at 10:45 am EST on March 1, 2006

Non-Divinely Inspired Bias?

Invoking the Civil Rights Act and the U. of Charleston’s nondiscrimination policy to banish religious belief to the category of an “externality” that can never be considered when crafting an academic program would raise insurmountable contradictions for practices at modern public universities. As quoted in the article, the CRA applies to “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The inescapable corollary is that if a public institution can in no case take religion into account, then neither can it take race or gender into account.

When Rob and the legal experts he cites are willing to stand up and be counted either for or against the Ward Connerlization of public higher education, their arguments will deserve a careful hearing.

ClioSmith, Associate Professor at Trinity Bible College, at 11:50 am EST on March 1, 2006

Sense and Sensibility?

Does it really make any sense to have a “Herchiel and Elizabeth Sims ‘In God We Trust’ Chair in Ethics” occupied by someone who does not in fact trust in God? Or does the “we” refer only to the Sims? It raises the question whether the chair itself, not just the job description, poses a legal problem for the University of Charleston.

Christopher Heard, Religion Professor at Pepperdine University, at 1:20 pm EST on March 1, 2006

The Necessity of Belief?

While it might be odd to select — intentionally or knowingly — someone who does not have any kind of relgious faith for a chair with the [ridiculous] title noted, that is not quite the point. After all, as someone observed, it would be rather odd for anyone not having any religious faith to apply for the position in the first place.

The problem is that the ad cites such faith as a criterion for candidacy. In this, it does imply discrimination based on religious faith. Furthermore, if it is permissible to list faith as a criterion, it must also be permissible to demand proof of such faith, just as the selection committee could demand proof that candidates meet other criteria.

An institution could perfectly well have a chair in ‘Christian Ethics,’ or ‘Jewish Ethics,’ etc., but it should not insist that applicants either ‘have’ a certain religious belief or [somehow]demonstrate it.

Christine Sistare, at 4:35 pm EST on March 1, 2006

Clio! Scott!

Susan P. notes that “the experts cited are some of the top legal authorities in the country.” Yes. Attorneys appear regularly before the Supreme Court to argue positions advocated by the nation’s “top legal authorities.” Half of the time those positions are fully or partially vindicated. Half of the time they are not. My sense is that the court is currently moving in a direction that will tend to undercut the double standard to which I referred in my previous post.

To recapitulate what I said before, invoking the Civil Rights Act and the University of Charleston’s nondiscrimination policy to banish religious belief to the category of an “externality” that can never be considered when crafting an academic program would raise insurmountable contradictions for practices at modern public universities. Ignoring those contradictions doesn’t make them go away.

ClioSmith, Associate Professor at Trinity Bible College, at 8:30 pm EST on March 1, 2006

When Was This Established

I’d like to know when this chair was established. If this position has been around since before extensive church/state litigation developed in this area, that’s one thing.

If this is a newer position, the University has some explaining to do about how it could accept such a gift in good faith.

Stu Gittelman, at 10:10 pm EST on March 1, 2006

RE:RWH

At the risk of endangering my title as Chair of Really Insightful Commentary, I think the case of endowed scholarships is distinguishable from [endowed] positions.

Many scholarships are quite narrowly targeted by race, religion, parent’s work association, etc. This permits private donors to give scholarships — gifts — to students of a specific identity. The institution is — privately endowed position or not — required to meet normal constitutional standards in hiring. Hiring decisions are supposed to be free of bias on religious and other grounds, absent a very clear justification in terms of qualifications.

By the way, I think ‘Lawyer’ has cast the occupational suitability test too widely in this case. The question is whether a person without religious faith can do the job of acting as the ‘In God We Trust’ Professor of Ethics. (Or, whatever silly name it is.)

Christine S., at 1:20 pm EST on March 2, 2006

across the board

Only one question. Would all of the above comments and positions hold true for a conversely titled Charles H. Darwin Humanism Chair in Evolutionary Education that did not require the applicant to be an evolutionist? What kind of squawking would be heard if that was opened up to an Intelligent Design proponent? What room is there for common sense in the legal mumbo-jumbo of anti-discrimination.

Wes, at 8:25 pm EST on March 3, 2006