I often find it difficult to take sides in debates on moral issues.The strict moralistic arguments may seem harsh and judgemental, while the more permissive viewpoints may appear to come from a moral and intellectual vacuum — as well as sometimes lacking concern for people who might get hurt.Both viewpoints may be compelling in a way, and yet both seem to have something missing. Sometimes the participants seem to come from such different starting points that the arguments used by one have little relevance to those used by the other. 

It seems to me that there are two rather different starting points, which lead to different kinds of debate and different kinds of conclusion. Only when the starting point is clear will the reasoning and conclusions make sense. Only when the participants have the same starting point will each be able to appreciate what the other is saying. 

If the object in life is to do what one wants to do, then moral principles are unwelcome. They may prevent us from doing what we want. We recognise that moral considerations are necessary, just as the law is necessary, but we feel that they restrict our freedom, and perhaps even infringe what we regard as our rights, and they are unwelcome. Because moral restrictions are unwelcome, they will only be accepted if they are supported by strong arguments.

If, on the other hand, our purpose is to lead a good life, a noble life, a life pleasing to God, to the best of our ability, then moral teaching and a moral outlook provide us with the inspiration and guidance we want. Like the psalmist, we welcome moral teaching:

'Teach me, O Lord, to follow your decrees; then I will keep them to the end.Give me understanding, and I will keep your law and obey it with all my heart.Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight.Turn my heart towards your statutes and not towards selfish gain.'

and, in a different way, it gives us freedom. Unlike the other approach, we may not be satisfied with a course of action which is no more than morally OK: we will be seeking the best.

There are some decisions that most people would approach with 'I want . . ', the kind of decision that does not affect anyone else and has no long-term consequences for oneself.'What ought I to do?' may not seem relevant in these situations.At the other extreme, difficult moral issues that may have life-or-death consequences for another person should always, most people would agree, be approached from the 'What would be best?' standpoint; arguments starting with 'I want . . .' would seem out of place. 

In between, there are many situations which can be approached in either way: choice of career (or vocation), perhaps, and a large range of life-style issues and day-to-day human situations.The approach we take may depend on our mood or attitude at the time. The motives behind these two kinds of approach are different. The hopes and fears are different, and the answers and conclusions are likely to be different. The whole spirit of a moral debate may be different, so that advice or comments that are relevant to one may have no relevance to the other.

Moral teaching and moral pronouncements on controversial issues, then, will only really make sense if they are understood in context. Sound-bite morality may miss the point if the listener is starting from a different standpoint to the speaker. To some, at least, of any audience, such pronouncements are bound to seem irrelevant or worse.

Bishops and 'the church' are sometimes criticised for not speaking out more forcefully in public about moral issues — but when they do, I, for one, sometimes wish they hadn't.An idea which is a useful contribution to one kind of debate may strike the wrong note when taken out of context. Sound-bite morality seldom inspires, and what we need first, perhaps, is the inspiration and idealism that leads us to ask the 'What would be best?' sort of question.

The main practical purpose of morality is to guide us as we make decisions about our own lives. A great deal of moral thinking, writing and discussion, however, has little to do with this: it is concerned with talking about and expressing (usually uninvited) opinions on other people's lives and behaviour. But that's another story.

Reproduced by permission from The Lantern, the parish magazine of Keyworth and Stanton on the Wolds, 
June 2000.

© Keyworth Parochial Church Council