Response to:
"Morality is whatever works."
Your professors may disagree about a lot of things academically, but there is one thing most of them do seem to agree on and that is truth can not be absolute. That tail of assumption wags a lot of academic dogs! Well then, without absolute truth how can we know what we should believe and what we ought to do? One solution that is popular in the classroom is a philosophy called pragmatism. Essentially, it says truth is whatever works for you in a given situation. But as we will see, this philosophy like so many others, simply avoids the truth at all costs. However, on the other hand, we'll see how pragmatism can be a powerful tool to show people absolute truths.
Deficiencies of pragmatism
There are several deficiencies with this so-called Pragmatic Test for Truth. First, pragmatism itself doesn't work so therefore it is false. What I mean is if we can find an example of pragmatism not yielding the truth or worst supporting wrongdoing, then it would not be true. What about when one group commits genocide for pragmatic reasons like for more political power? Something can work but be wrong. Just because genocide is a solution that works for the group in power doesn't make it right. What about companies like Enron who choose to follow unethical business practices. Pragmatism would say it is alright, as long as it works, to inflate the stock price and make a few people richer, but when it hurts investors it ceases to work. Genocide and unethical business practices certainly don't "work" for the victims.
Second, it follows that pragmatism confuses rightness and personal preference. When the group commits genocide, they may think they are doing the right thing, but they are really just carrying out a personal preference. How can we be certain of that? If the tables were turned they would appeal like the rest of us to a higher, absolute truth that genocide is not right!
Third, when we say Christianity is true, we are not saying it is true because it works. Yes, many Christians can point to positive changes in their lives and that is wonderful, but so can Hindus and Buddhists and atheists point to personal benefits gained from their practice of their religion. Christianity is not proven true because Christians' lives are changed. The truth of Christianity is rooted in the historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead, which validated all his claims to be the only Savior of the world. This makes it true for all people not just the person whose life is changed by Him.
Outside of class students practice pragmatism for a slightly different reason. When you hear other students say, "Truth is whatever works," it is often used as a conversation stopper to avoid having to really deal with the truth. J. Budziszewski explains this well,
In campus social life the myth that truth is whatever works takes a different form (than in the classroom)--the form of a conversation stopper. You may have a friend who used to have ideals but now cares for nothing but money. Is that really all that matters? "Hey, it works for me." Another friend gets bombed every weekend and has started to drink on the weekdays too. Does it really make sense to destroy himself? "Hey, it works for me." Still another friend has had two abortions and sleeps with every man she meets. Can this really be the way she ought to live? "Hey, it works for me." Be patient with your friends, but recognize their slogan for what it is--not a way to find the truth, but a wall to keep truth out. Jesus was right: "The truth shall set you free," but the myth of "whatever works" can only keep you in chains.1
Pragmatism Reveals a Person’s True Beliefs
In the beginning of this article I said that pragmatism can actually be used as a powerful tool to persuade non-Christians their philosophies of life are wrong. Jesus said, "Each tree is recognized by its own fruit." (Luke 6:44) In other words, a peach tree will not produce apples. So if you see apples on a tree no one will be able to convince you it is a peach tree, right? Well, so it is with whether or not a person's lifestyle reflects what they say they believe or what the really believe.
Jackson Pollock (1912-1956), was an American artist who had an important influence on modern painting as a main figure in the abstract expressionist movement. His philosophy of life was that all of life is just chance. There is no plan, meaning or purpose to our lives. He developed a painting technique to express this philosophy. He applied paint to a canvas in what he thought was a totally random manner. He dripped it, dribbled it and splattered it. To most observers there is no discernable pattern. After exhausting the possibilities of his method, he did the only act that was consistent with his philosophy of life. He committed suicide.2
By contrast, the American musician John Cage (1912-1992) used a similarly random approach to making music to express the same philosophy of life. He would flip coins to determine notes. Another time, he set up 12 radios, 24 musicians and a conductor. As the piece progresses, each radio is tuned to a different station and the volume is changed. Thus, the sound of the composition cannot be predicted, and it varies with each performance. Now could Cage, like Pollock, live (and die) consistently with his philosophy of life? His hobby was mushroom hunting, and some mushrooms are poisonous. He confessed, "I became aware that if I approached mushrooms in the spirit of my chance operations, I would die shortly. So I decided that I would not approach them in this way!" Pollock is dead because he tried in vain to live his chance philosophy. Cage lived on because he was inconsistent with his random view of the universe. His lifestyle revealed what he really believed was that this universe is not random and our lives really do have meaning and purpose.3
Jesus said, "You will know a tree by its fruit." In other words, a peach tree will not produce apples. So if you see apples on a tree, no one will be able to convince you it is a peach tree. Do you see how we can use this pragmatic test for truth to challenge people to stop playing mind games and either start to live consistently with their real philosophy of life or change their philosophy of life?
I had a conversation like the following with a student about cheating.
Challenger: "Cheating works for me so its alright."
Responder: "How's that?"
Challenger: "I need good grades to get into med school, and I can't get them without cheating because everyone else cheats too."
Responder: "Would you go to a doctor who you found cheated his way through school and doesn't really know what he's doing?"
Challenger: "No."
Responder: "Then why don't you begin now to treat your future patients the way you want to be treated. If you can't get the grades without cheating, then maybe you should pursue something else. You see, you actually do believe that there is an absolute standard of morality that is above and beyond the situation that determines whether an action is right or wrong. You can go on pretending that right and wrong is determined by whatever works but that's not what you really believe. Your actions prove what you really know to be true.
Conclusion
Finally, where does that standard of morality come from? If it applies to all people it has to be given by Someone outside of all cultures and all time. It is obvious to me that there must be a God who is perfectly moral who gave us that standard to live up to. Jesus claimed to be that God. He said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." Light is a metaphor for truth. He also claimed to be able to forgive sins against God and His perfect standard of morality because He is God. Finally, He promised to guide us in our difficult ethical and moral decisions.
References
1 Budziszewski, J. How to Stay Christian In College: An Interactive Guide to Keeping the Faith. Colorado Springs: NavPress. 1999. p. 77.
2 Schaeffer, Francis A. The God Who is There. Volume One of The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview. Westchester: Crossway Books. 1982. p. 76 - 78.
3 Ibid.
See also:
Pollock (the movie)
The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, "Cage, John." World Book Childcraft International Inc., 1978
Copyright 2005. Gary C. Burger and New Media Ministries. This article may be reproduced and distributed freely as long as it is done so in its entirety. If quoted it must be properly cited as a reference.
