In view of essential ethics

In his book, "Mere Christianity", there is this section where C.S Lewis gave the illustration of a ship sailing in a high sea:

Now let us go a step further. There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual-when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another's way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions. Or, if you like, think of humanity as a band playing a tune. To get a good result, you need two things. Each player's individual instrument must be in tune and also each must come in at the right moment so as to combine with all the others. 

But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to, or what piece of music the band is trying to play. The instruments might be all in tune and might all come in at the right moment, but even so the performance would not be a success if they had been engaged to provide dance music and actually played nothing but Dead Marches. And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta. 

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonising the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.

To paraphrase from C.S Lewis and Ravi Zacharias, when we deal with ethics, there is no reason why we should not prevent our ship from colliding with one another or our ship from sinking if we have not established life's imperative and answer the question where are we heading towards and why are we out there in the high sea in the first place. That is not to say that the first two questions are not applicable to someone who has not found any meaning or purpose in life but the fact remains that ethics and morality are only meaningful when we know the purpose of our existence.

I took some time to grapple with the philosophical argument behind C.S Lewis' illustration but it makes sense now. If everyone of us knows why are we out here, the first and the second question of not sinking and causing other to sink will automatically resolve itself because by being guided by our purpose, we will realise that all play a part in making sure we reach the destination safely (assuming that you do not think your purpose in life is to create tribulation so as to hasten the return of Christ).

This then should pose a big challenge to the proponents of humanism. Why then should one be moral and good when the ship knows of no purpose why it is out there and where it is headed towards? True enough, the humanist can argue and create a reason why it is out there and its destination, thus creating for himself a transcendental ground for not crashing onto the neighbouring ship, however ironic it can be. And just to be clear, one cannot fault him for doing so because by doing so, he just proved that human needs the clarity of the essential ethics to guide his life. But the flaw in the argument is this: you are already out in the high sea. The fact that you have to make out a reason to justify your existence out there in the high sea shows that you still have to answer that third question, whether the answer is due to God or not. The need for answer already assumed a need for a necessary pre-condition to be out there in the high sea, not a contingent one.

Likewise for us Christian, when we think and talk about ethics, where is our starting point? Actually Lewis' third question posit an answer which we cannot ignore when we talk about ethics and morality - there is a conductor in the whole journey that's orchestrating the whole tune of the piece. Important for us as disciples of Christ is the fact that we serve the living God and He is the conductor of our lives, if we allow Him to play that role. I think of it this way, in an orchestra, the conductor will make sure that all the music flows coherently, but there is a free will on the part of the musicians to play their own tune. To digress a bit, the conductor still remain sovereign over the whole situation because he can choose to continue or end, and with one hand signal, can command the curtain to close (thus ending the segment) and go over to slap the musicians who insist on their way.

Having a conductor in mind means that there is a direction set by the conductor that we need to follow. In Matthean terminology, we are sent by the king to the world to be salt and light etc. i.e. when we are out in the high sea, there was already a directive given to us, whether we like it or not. Translating this a bit, I would say that when we talk about ethics, we need to keep in mind the purpose for why we are sent out. This is not just because we need to know why we exist, but we need to know that we have a purpose, a mission in this world that God has placed in our hands to steward. We do not just exist to receive Christ and that's it. Christian discipleship is not fun play. If we frivolously treat our faith, then what does that make of the purpose Christ has in mind for us as a church?

The night is getting late and I think I shall rest. Till I write again.