Risk Appraisal and Christian Ethics

[Apex]

I have mentioned this in other threads, but it deserves its own thread.

Risk appraisal: Estimating the odds of being injured or losing something of value during an activity.

Should Christians define a system of ethics based on risk appraisal?

For example, a common argument against non-marital sex is it increases your odds of contracting an STI. However, this line of reasoning appears indefensible if not consistently applied to all actions that carry an increased risk of potential harm. To illustrate this point, driving a car, playing contact sports, or working as a tree logger all carry the risk of severe injury or death. Yet, no one seems to be objecting to the morality of those activities.

Is it is immoral not to wear a seat beat?
Is it is immoral not to wear reflective clothing while riding a bike?
Is it immoral to bungee jump?
Is it immoral to climb Mount Everest?

If risk appraisal is going to be used to argue a certain behavior is immoral, it has to be applied consistently.

 

[Adstar]

Ummm the argument you mention in regard to Pre-marital sex is not a Biblical one...

If people trust in the guidance of God they do not even bother with risk appraisal.. They seek to avoid taking part in any action God has declared sin out of love for God and trusting in what He said..

 

[Apex]

Ummm the argument you mention in regard to Pre-marital sex is not a Biblical one...

I'm not supporting any specific activity in this thread. I'm just pointing out that risk appraisal is a poor standard to base ethics on. As for my example, if someone wants to argue that non-marital sex is immoral, they should choose another argument than suggesting it is too "risky".

If people trust in the guidance of God they do not even bother with risk appraisal.. They seek to avoid taking part in any action God has declared sin out of love for God and trusting in what He said..

This has not been the case in my experience. I see Christians using risk appraisal quite often to denounce certain activities.

 

[RDKirk]

I have mentioned this in other threads, but it deserves its own thread.

Risk appraisal: Estimating the odds of being injured or losing something of value during an activity.

Should Christians define a system of ethics based on risk appraisal?.

I wouldn't discuss it as "risk appraisal," because I think that muddies understanding, making it sound like something new.

It's not new at all.

The question is whether obedience to God should be based on judging His commands as rational in our own logic. "Risk appraisal" is merely one avenue of logical judgment.

And, yes, Christians often argue in favor of obedience based on logical rationale, which is--ultimately--a losing argument. God may and has made commands that are not rational at all under human logic.

Jews call the Mosaic laws that cannot be supported by human rationale the chukim laws.

A number of years ago, I was in a conversation with an Orthodox rabbi (the chaplain assigned to my Air Force unit), and I began to speak of the "logic" of the Mosaic dietary laws.

He immediately cut me short: "We don't obey God because it's logical, we obey God because He is God."

 

[Apex]

I wouldn't discuss it as "risk appraisal," because I think that muddies understanding, making it sound like something new.

It's not new at all.

The question is whether obedience to God should be based on judging His commands as rational in our own logic. "Risk appraisal" is merely one avenue of logical judgment.

And, yes, Christians often argue in favor of obedience based on logical rationale, which is--ultimately--a losing argument. God may and has made commands that are not rational at all under human logic.

Jews call the Mosaic laws that cannot be supported by human rationale the chukim laws.

A number of years ago, I was in a conversation with an Orthodox rabbi (the chaplain assigned to my Air Force unit), and I began to speak of the "logic" of the Mosaic dietary laws.

He immediately cut me short: "We don't obey God because it's logical, we obey God because He is God."

I don't disagree that obedience to God's will is the ultimate standard of moral living. This is why I am trying to point out the weakness in using anything else as justification. What are God's commands for Christians? I think my signature says it all.

 

[SkyWriting]

I have mentioned this in other threads, but it deserves its own thread.

Risk appraisal: Estimating the odds of being injured or losing something of value during an activity.

Should Christians define a system of ethics based on risk appraisal?

For example, a common argument against non-marital sex is it increases your odds of contracting an STI. However, this line of reasoning appears indefensible if not consistently applied to all actions that carry an increased risk of potential harm. To illustrate this point, driving a car, playing contact sports, or working as a tree logger all carry the risk of severe injury or death. Yet, no one seems to be objecting to the morality of those activities.

Is it is immoral not to wear a seat beat?
Is it is immoral not to wear reflective clothing while riding a bike?
Is it immoral to bungee jump?
Is it immoral to climb Mount Everest?

If risk appraisal is going to be used to argue a certain behavior is immoral, it has to be applied consistently.

The danger is far greater if you consider the location of the injury. That alone trumps other risks.
Then the risk to reproduction, the risk to reputation, the life changing risks resulting from pregnancy, and finally the mental risks. God is concerned about all of those. While mountain climbing is the riskiest at 1 in 10, most people expect you to die knowing you did as well. This minimizes the impact on others. Choose that one if you decide to go out gracefully. Enjoy the journey!

 

[Apex]

The danger is far greater if you consider the location of the injury. That alone trumps other risks.
Then the risk to reproduction, the risk to reputation, the life changing risks resulting from pregnancy, and finally the mental risks. God is concerned about all of those. While mountain climbing is the riskiest at 1 in 10, most people expect you to die knowing you did as well. This minimizes the impact on others. Choose that one if you decide to go out gracefully. Enjoy the journey!

Sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Should Christians define a system of ethics based on risk appraisal?

No. If they are going to call themselves Christians they should base it off the word of God.

 

[Apex]

No. If they are going to call themselves Christians they should base it off the word of God.

I agree, but can you elaborate on this? I interpret the ethical system being prescribed in the NT as one based on internal intentions, not external actions. The key to moral living is having "agape" loving intentions towards your neighbors. This is how I view the Law of Christ.

 

[Radagast]

Should Christians define a system of ethics based on risk appraisal?

I think you're heading towards this approach to ethics.

 

[Apex]

I think you're heading towards this approach to ethics.

I would agree that risk aversion is a form of consequentialism. I think that ethical system is fraught with issues though. It suggests that as long as an action produces the greatest good for the majority affected it is moral. This flies in the face of the Christian teaching that places the minority (least among us) first.

 

[Radagast]

I think that ethical system is fraught with issues though. It suggests that as long as an action produces the greatest good for the majority affected it is moral.

Indeed.