Ethics in a fallen world

Philip Today 12:18 PM

I think Manata was well aware that if he'd been forthright about his goals and motives, he would have received different responses. Hence, the deception. He wanted to take a shot at Avalos, and he concealed that fact from those asked to comment. One wonders if this is consistent with Christian principles. 

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/11/triablogue-caught-in-web-of-deception.html#comment-105102748

1. Deception and concealment are not interchangeable concepts. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes not.

2. Suppose Manata was deceptive? Is that wrong? But Avalos is a moral relativist.

3. Suppose (arguendo) that it's wrong on Christian principles. But since when do infidels want Christians to behave like Christians? Don't they constantly inveigh against Christian morality?

4. Suppose I'm a restaurant reviewer. There are two ways I could go about my job:

i) I could show up at a restaurant unannounced, on a random day, not say who I was, then write a review of my experience.

ii) I could tell the restaurant in advance who I was and when I was coming.

I'd probably receive different treatment if I tip them off. They'd reserve the best table, have their best waiter/waitress on duty, have their best chef on duty, and so on. 

You can pretty well guarantee that I'd have the best possible meal they could offer if I gave them advance notice. Better than usual. Special treatment all around. 

So which is more honest?

As a reviewer, it's actually more honest if I conceal my intentions. That way I'm exposed to a representative sampling of their fare. I'd be getting the same thing the average customer could expect.

If, on the other hand, I'm more forthcoming, then my review will be skewed. Will be misleading. 

One could multiple examples. Suppose I'm cheated by a business. So I contact a representative of the company and pose some "innocent" questions to acquire information I can use against them. Of course, if I stated my intentions up-front, I wouldn't get straight answers from the spokesman. 

Yet I'm entitled to that information. I was cheated. I have a right to get information about the company from somebody in the know which I can then use to confront the shady business on its shady business practices.

The larger issue this raises is the challenge of how to be ethical in our unethical world. If everyone were honest and candid, then life would be so much simpler and easier. But Christian ethics is necessarily adapted to a fallen world.

When an honest man deals with a dishonest man, the honest man is at a disadvantage. His honesty will be unjustly used against him. His honesty handicaps him. 

So, to function in a fallen world, even an honest man must say and do certain things when dealing with dishonest men that he wouldn't have to say and do when dealing with honest men. 

That doesn't mean he must be unethical. But it does mean the ethical thing to do will often be complicated by the unethical conduct of other parties to the transaction. Yet whose fault is that? The fault of the honest party, or the dishonest party?