|
|
August 24 Having
heard the reactions to the scenario in a non-Christian forum, I was
curious to hear the reactions to the scenario in a Christian forum. So
I posted the scenario of Hans stealing the medicine to save his wife on
some Christian Discussion groups.
This
time there were equal numbers saying Hans was right as those saying
Hans was wrong. However, there were a couple of women who fervently
defended Hans' position.
Their main assertion is that life is precious; so precious that God would want us to steal to protect the life of our love ones.
For my part, I reiterated my two main points:
1) God's standard does not change; stealing is wrong in all circumstances. 2) While life is precious, preservation of life must not trump obedience to God.
Our
discussion resulted in pages and pages of posts. Most of these two
women's posts are reiteration of their main assertion and accusations
of my lack of humanity.
Frustrated with my counterpoints, one of the women stated:
Discussing the right or wrongness of an action bears no fruit that I can see.
So I posted the following:
Most
westerner believers think that the scenario that I posted is purely
hypothetical. Having traveled through parts of central Asia, I know that Christians in the east have to face this type
of decisions all the time. Choosing between pursuing holiness and
facing possible death for one's self or for a love one. It is amazing
to see what happens when they choose holiness. Not only does God
provide (e.g., causes a doctor to change his mind or their friends and neighbors rally to support them), but also God uses
their actions to win the hearts and souls of Muslim observers.
In
the same way, I could choose to obey God and risk my life by traveling
to a certain Muslim country or I could say God surely doesn't want me
to go because my life would be endangered. I can still remember the
comment of an Uzbek cab driver when I walked out the of police station
(when the corrupt police officers were shaking me down for money) and
no a single officers stopped me. He said in his broken English, "God
with you!" God provided my freedom and provided an open door to this
Uzbek man's heart.
In
fact, I can personally tell you that evangelical Christians in China
pray hard for Christians in the west, especially in America, to have
the conviction to say this is right and I'm going to trust God to
provide when I do what is right. And even if not,I am going to do what
is right because I will partake of His Glory on the other side of
eternity.
Yes,
life is precious. However, it is not to be worshipped in such a way
that saving the life is more important than obedience to God. And yes,
God commanded us not to steal. It applies now as well as in old
testament times. So not stealing is being obedient to God.
So
many believers say that they offer up their lives to God but do they
truly mean it or do they really mean they offer their services as long
as their lives or the lives of their love ones are not at stake.
This
is the foundation of our faith. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac.
He can choose to obey God or he can say, no life is more precious so
God must not really want me to take Isaac up the mountain to be
sacrificed. What would you do if you were in Abraham's place? How you
answer that question defines of YOUR faith.*
*I'm adding this footnote just in case someone might misunderstand my last statement. I meant that if we truly believe that life on the other side of eternity is much better than this one and that when we accept Jesus as our Savior we would be saved, would we be clinging so tightly to this life that we are willing to say that it's ok to sin if our lives are at stake.
August 20 The discussion concerning Hans' theft of medication for his dying wife continued with more repetition of the same ideas.
So, I wrote the following to sum up my position on the topic:
While
I sympathize with Hans' situation, I can not condone doing something
wrong for the purpose of doing something right. The logic of the end
justifying the means is simply bad logic.
If
we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can rob his
neighbor to get the money to pay for the medication and be morally
right.
If
we apply this logic as being morally right, then Hans can commit armed
robbery of a bank to get the money to pay for the medication and be
morally right.
My
opposition is that there are too many alternative actions that can be
pursued without having to resort to doing something wrong. Hans is
either lazy or impatient or has no perseverance and gave up on pursuing
morally right options.
My
other opposition is that taking a morally wrong short cut has bad
consequences. We have a legal framework for a reason. It is to minimize
bad consequences. That is why we can not simply isolate our evaluation
of Hans' morality to just the intent and the act.
If
a metal artist steals an I-Beam from the Minnesota highway bridge over
the Mississippi to build the most beautiful sculpture in the entire
world. Can we simply isolate our evaluation to just the act of theft of
the I-Beam from the bridge and the intent of building the most
beautiful sculpture in the entire world? No, we have to consider the
possibility of a bridge collapse that kills dozens of people.
In
the same way, we must consider the possibility of the entire community
loosing the doctor's services as a result of the theft. If the loss of
$50, 000 drives the doctor out of the community, we must then consider
the death of children dying from preventable diseases because of the
doctor's absence.
The end can NOT justify the means!
The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the crazy anti-abortion activists who fire bomb abortion clinics.
The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the eco-terrorists who burn down homes next to wilderness areas.
The end justifying the means is the same logic used by the rioters who burn businesses in the cities hosting the G8 summit.
If
you look at all the major atrocities of the twentieth century, they all
started with the persuasion of an unsuspecting public that the end
justifies the means. Lately,
I have been participating in non-Christian forums concerning moral
issues. Basically, I wanted to see how well I can defend the Christian
perspective in a secular forum in which the contents of the Bible is
irrelevant to the other members of the forum.
This week, someone started a new thread with the following post:
A
man named Hans has a dying wife with a mysterious disease. It was
thought that this disease had no cure until finally a doctor had
created a special medicine that can save the life of Hans' wife. The
problem is the doctor is charging $50,000 which is much more money that
Hans can afford. At first, Hans tries to raise the money but he's still
well short of the asking price. He then tries to negotiate with the
doctor, but the doctor refuses to lower his price. Finally in a
desperate measure, Hans steals the medicine behind the doctor's back.
Was Hans wrong to do such a thing?
Immediately, someone else, posted
Nope he wasn't wrong
Another posted the following:
Sure,
what Han did was wrong, but any sane human being would do the same
thing. I would not equate $50,000 with an irreplaceable human life. The
doctor will live and replace the lost money. The wife doesn't have the
luxury of replacing her life. Also I'd rather live with the indirect
death of others than live without my loved one.
The
dilemma is between two moral wrongs. Which wrong is more serious is the
question. Is stealing a bigger wrong than not saving a life? It is very
cut and dry. The power is in your hands. The guilt and responsibility
is yours and yours alone.
Instead of posting a structured argument supporting moral absolutism, I posted the following to prime the discussion:
What
if it costs the doctor $50,000 to make the medicine? Let's say that the
doctor purchases its ingredients with his own money with the assumption
that the patient that needs it would redeem the cost that he incurs?
Now,
he's out $50,000 and unable to pay his bills which includes the rent of
his office space, the repayment of loan for his medical equipment (like
x-ray machines, sterilizing ovens, etc.), and his medical school loan.
So, he packs up his practice to move it to an upscale neighborhood in which his patients are able to pay.
Now,
the poor neighborhood, the original location of his practice, is
without a doctor; many babies and children die from preventable
diseases because of the lack of a doctor there.
Not so cut and dry is it?
The person who started the thread responded with the following:
You're
missing the point of the question and adding irrelevent ideas to the
story. I'm simply asking if Hans' action is right or wrong from a moral
standpoint.
Again,
I refrained from posting a structured argument supporting moral
absolutism and continued my argument for considering the consequences
of Hans' action. I wrote the following:
The
ideas that I inject are not irrelevant. You are saying that theft stops
at the loss of property and we should weigh the loss of life against
the loss of property.
But too often, then it comes to health care, it does not stop at the loss of property.
In
fact, the scenario plays out over and over in developing countries in
which a socialist government takes over. These government would impose
price control on the medical profession (as well as other parts of the
economy) using the same comparisons that you specify. Whether it is the
government imposing price control or Han stealing the medicine, it's
still theft.
The
doctors and other medical care workers have bills to pay and with the
price control are not able to do so. So they leave the country and the
entire nation sinks into a health care disaster. Check the news on
Zimbabwe.
Closer
to home, in West Virginia, people have been suing Ob/Gyn left and
right. Same logic, it's only money; the doctors can re-earn the money.
Unable to pay the malpractice insurance, all the Ob/Gyn left West
Virginia. People there have to leave the state to get prenatal care if
they are able to do so. Those, who don't have the means to travel to
neighboring states, suffer. More particularly, these babies suffer.
When it comes to healthcare, theft does not stop at the lost of property.
The moral standpoint must weigh the loss of one life against the loss of many lives.
There
are consequences to all our actions and moral judgment must not only
account for the single act but also the consequences of that act.
Most
of the posts rebutting my posts continues to rehash the argument that
Hans is correct because he has chosen the lesser of two evils.
So, I asked the following two questions:
If
what you said is true, then would it be ok for Hans to rob a bank to
pay the doctor? Would he be right if he rob you to pay the doctor?
Then,
someone posted a reply that allows me to segway to my structured
argument supporting moral absolutism. He wrote the following:
Right and Wrong is personal perspective. If he were to attempt such a thing, two things can happen:
1.) I would kick his @ss and rob him of his dignity.
2.) He will be put in jail and punished by the courts.
These
consequences are the results of the technical wrong he has done to me.
This is negative from my perspective because it is not in my best
interests to lose $50,000.
But
we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and
understandable. If it weren't, then we'd feel no sympathy. If he needed
the money for drugs, booze, and prostitutes then I can agree with you
100% that it was totally wrong.
I'll
break it down one more time. His actions are wrong because it was an
act of theft (against the rules). His intensions were right because he
is saving a life (protect family).
It
is not black and white like you want it. "Intent" is a very important
factor in morality and in law. It could mean the difference between
murder and manslaughter. Sometimes judges consider the defendant's
competence. This is related with the defendant's "intent" as well. We
do not live in a black and white world so don't limit youself to that
view.
Here is my reply:
You
have misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's
intent. It is not the determination of whether he did wrong in order to
help someone else or for selfish gain (the rob Peter to pay Paul
scenario) as you described it. It is to determine if he intended to do
wrong or was the wrong committed accidentally (the difference between
murder and manslaughter).
e.g.
Did the accused shoplifted a sweater or did she try it on, continued
shopping and forgetting that she still had it on, walked out of the
store?
Hans did not mistakenly take the medicine. He purposely took it for his wife.
You
also misapplied the legal process of determining the defendant's
competence. A defendant's competence is not based on intent. It is a
determination of whether the defendant knows if he knows right from
wrong. I think we can agree that Hans knows that stealing is wrong.
Otherwise, this whole discussion is moot.
So legally, he would be convicted.
But, let's separate what is legal from what is morally right and limit our discussion to what is morally right.
You
nailed our disagreement right on the head. It's a matter of whether one
believes there is a moral absolute or is morality relative. I believe
in a moral absolute and you believe in moral relativism (as do most
other participants in this particular thread).
The
problem with moral relativism is that often the criteria slips into
what's best for one's self is what is right and what's bad for one's
self is what is wrong. Your reply is a prime example. You wrote "Right
and Wrong is personal perspective... This is negative from my
perspective because it is not in my best interests to lose $50,000...
But we are speaking from his perspective now. His actions are noble and
understandable."
If we apply that criteria, society would fall apart.
That's why we have laws that are... well... absolute.
The scenario is framed for the purpose of supporting moral relativism.
First,
it leads the readers to feel sympathetic towards Hans and unsympathetic
towards the doctor. What if the doctor borrowed the $50,000 to make the
medicine? What if Hans' effort to raise the money consisted of knocking
one door and rejected never tried again?
Then,
it leads the readers to conclude a false assertion. "Finally in a
desperate measure" lead the readers to believe that Hans has exhausted
all courses of action.
Hans
has not exhausted all courses of action. Not that I'm advocating these
actions but, Hans did not rob a bank to get the money to pay for the
medicine nor did he rob an individual for the money as I had mentioned
before.
Until
his wife dies or Hans dies (whichever event comes first), Hans has not
exhausted all courses of action. Every day brings new conditions and
new opportunities for the acquisition of the medicine.
Hans simply gave up and resorted to breaking the law. And that is why Hans is wrong. August 17 At
the end of last December, someone slammed into my car. (Thankfully, no
one was hurt.) While my car was in the body shop, I drove a rental. A
couple of days later, I caught the flu and stayed in bed the entire
week. During that week, the city of Baltimore ticketed and towed my
rental car that I parked in front of my own house.
I
live near the stadium where the Baltimore Ravens NFL team plays.
Because game spectators tries to avoid parking fees by parking in my
neighborhood, the city designated my street a sticker parking street
during stadium events; only cars with a particular parking sticker are
allowed to park there.
Unfortunately,
my rental car doesn't have a parking sticker and I had not realized
that there are any NFL games at the end of the year (That's when they
have the college football bowl games).
To
get the rental car out of the city impound lot, I had the pay the cost
of the ticket, the towing charges, and the impound lot vehicle storage
fee; close to five hundred dollars.
I
contested it in court and won. However, I did not receive the money
back right away. The city had to process all the documents that I
submitted.
This week, just as the bills started to come in (see my previous blog), I received the check from the City of Baltimore.
The Lord is faithful once again.
Matthew 6:25-34
"Therefore
I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink;
or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than
food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of
the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your
heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
"And
why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow.
They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all
his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes
the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into
the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So
do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or
'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and
your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his
kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to
you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will
worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. August 12 I
dread it when the Holy Spirit directs me to give more sacrificially
than what I've budgeted. I've already committed much more than the
tithe percentage of my monthly net income. And I've also specified a
couple of percentages more for discretionary giving to the homeless
that I meet on the street. So, when the Holy Spirit appeals to me to
help with more, I would spend several days praying about it.
O.K.,
I really don't spend the prayer time seeking God's guidance. It's more
like several days of protesting the request of the Holy Spirit. More
particularly, it's a couple of days of protesting and a couple of more
asking Him to prepare me for the storm.
You see, the issue isn't about the giving of the money; I always leave some breathing room in my monthly budget.
What
I dread is that whenever I give beyond what I've budgeted, without
exception, a series of events/setbacks would follow and take me
financially into an area that is completely out of my control.
This week was no exception.
A
young woman, that I know, needed financial help with the cost of
mission college training. I wrestled with the Holy Spirit concerning
the amount. I offered an amount that I can afford but the Holy Spirit
kept me restless. I reworked my budget and offer a little more but the
Holy Spirit continued to keep me restless. Finally, I threw out my
budget and asked the Holy Spirit to pick a figure; and He took away the
breathing room from my budget for the next several months.
Lord, please, prepare me for the storm! Please, please, prepare me for the storm.
When my heart calmed, I unfurled the sail.
Then,
the storm hit. My brother's Medicare prescription plan hit the "donut
hole" and his prescriptions will cost $800 per month for the next
several months. My car's air conditioner gave out during the hottest
part of the summer. A lightening strike burned out the circuitry in my
house's heat pump. My main sewer line backed up into my basement
bathroom tub because the tree in front of my house grew its root into
it.
I
am, by no mean, destitute. I do have savings from which to draw. I
just hate to have to dip from that fund since I don't believe that
Social Security nor my company pension would be there when I retire.
Besides,
in all previous times, when the Lord pushed me out from the security of
my safety net, He had always provided so that I would not have to
withdraw a single dime from my savings.
What I truly dread is the fear from the financial freefall that He forces me to take before catching me again.
Each
time, He would whisper, "Trust me. Trust me" as I watched the earth
jumped up at me at two hundred miles per hour. And just as my heart is
ready to stop, He would pull the parachute.
You'd think that after so many times that He has proven that He is faithful to provide for all my needs, the fear would go away.
So, I had to learn the lesson, once again.
Matthew 6:25-34
"Therefore
I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink;
or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than
food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of
the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your
heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?
Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
"And
why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow.
They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all
his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes
the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into
the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So
do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or
'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and
your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his
kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to
you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will
worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. August 08 One
of the blogs that I read regularly is that of an young woman named
Colleen. Recently, she posted a blog entry about her dad. My dad
passed away several years ago but as I read this blog entry, I was
flooded with memories of my dad bringing him back to me momentarily.
So, I am remembering my dad in this blog entry and introducing him to you.
Several
years ago, I gave a book to all the men in my house church. It was a
book by Stu Webber called "Tender Warrior". In his book, Webber
identifies four aspects of true manhood.
He is a Leader/King. He is a Protector/Warrior He is a Magician/Mentor And he is a Friend/Lover
He
is a Leader/King who receives his calling from the Lord, casts that
vision for others, and invites others to come join the call.
He is a Protector/Warrior who fights for and provides for those the Lord puts under his care.
He
is a Magician/Mentor who motivates and teaches those, which the Lord
had brought to listen, by showing them the wonders and delights of what
the Lord had shown him.
He is a Friend/Lover who speaks and acts with care and compassion for all those around him.
My dad, he was all four.
My
dad was a leader who abandoned his lucrative teaching career in Taiwan
to follow his calling to bring his wife and children to America. But
most importantly, he was a leader who continues to take his family on
his journey of faith.
My
dad was a protector and provider for our family. He worked hard to
earn a living and worked hard at attending to our needs at home. But
there were always times when my dad made the decision to sacrifice the
financial security of the family in following his calling and allowing
the Lord to be our protector and provider.
My
dad was a mentor. He was not just a teacher to his students. He
wasn't just interested in dispensing information. My dad nurtured his
students' growth as individuals, helping them acquire wisdom.
Especially for my brother and me, my dad surrounded us with an
environment for learning and character development. He exposed us to
world literature while my mom exposed us to music and the arts. All
the while, they encouraged us to pursue the sciences. But most
important of all, he instilled in us a calling to pursue compassion and
faith.
But
of the four aspects of manhood that Webber identified, and my dad
exemplified, the most indelible in my heart, is that last one. My dad
was a man of love.
My
dad was a man who loved his God, who loved his wife, his children, his
students, his neighbors. During my childhood and into my adult years,
my dad demonstrated every day that he was a man of love.
Although my dad was an English professor, words were not what he used most to express his love. My dad loved with action.
I
remember, when I was a child, my dad would rush home from work to spend
time with me before dinner. He would take me riding on his
motorcycle. We would go downtown to see all the lights And we would go
to the rail station to watch the trains. How I treasure those rides
with my dad!
I
remember one year, on my birthday, during a major ice storm, my dad
insisted on going out to the store because we didn't have a cake with
which to celebrate. He ended up in an automobile accident. But that
day, there was a cake.
Even
without action, my dad showed how much he loved my brother and me and
showed how proud he is of us. No one can miss the way his face beamed
whenever he presented his boys to his friends and colleagues.
My
dad loved my mom. My dad loved her by being the husband who strives to
build the home for his wife. My childhood images, of love in the home,
were that of my mom and dad enjoying each other's company as they work
around the house together. There is joy in their faces when they
painted the living walls together. There is laughter when they
prepared the soil for planting or when they harvested from our backyard
garden.
My
dad loved his neighbors. One of our neighbors was an elderly couple,
Mr. and Mrs. Kaiser. I remember my dad cutting the grass in our yard
and when he's done, he'd roll the lawn mower over to the Kaiser's to
mow their yard. He'd rake the leaves in their yard after he raked our
yard. And He'd trim their bushes after he'd trim ours. I remembered
asking him why he did that, asking him if Mr. Kaiser had asked him to
do their yard. My dad, he'd say, "No, they didn't ask. But they are
old and have a hard time doing it themselves." And he left it at that
as if the answer was self-explanatory.
My
dad loved his students. He tutored them. He encouraged them. And the
evidence of his love for them is their love for him. Year after year,
my dad was selected by his students as their favorite professor.
Once,
one, of his students, needed someone to co-sign his education loan.
Evidently, the student's parents were either unable to or unwilling to
co-sign the loan. My dad co-signed the loan. I don't know how often
he did that for his students. I would not have known about my dad
co-signing the student's loan if it wasn't for that particular student
having defaulted on the loan.
My
dad's income as a college professor was quite meager. My dad's income
was definitely not large enough to be able to cover a student's
defaulted loan.
So,
early on, my dad taught me that love requires sacrifice. What better
foundation than that is there for understanding scripture verses like
John 3:16
For
God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever
believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
God's ultimate demonstration of love through sacrifice.
But
coupled with the constant reenforcement of my dad's demonstration of
love through sacrifice is his demonstration of his trust in the Lord
to provide when we step out in faith.
Often,
my dad's spontaneous generosity would put our family's budget at risk.
And each time, my dad allows the Lord to prove scripture verses like
Matthew 6:33
But Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things will be given to you.
And
indeed, the Lord provided for our family abundantly: through the time
when my dad didn't have an income because he was trying to complete his
Ph.D. and through times of medical crisis for my dad and my brother.
The Lord even provided pretty much a free ride through college for my
brother and me.
Most
important of all, the Lord brought salvation to my life through my
dad. My heart was hard toward the Lord until my dad's massive stroke
twenty years ago. When he had the stroke, the doctor said that my dad
would not live beyond the week. It was at that point I went on my
knees to ask the Lord to spare my dad's life. And if He saves my dad,
I would give my life to the Lord. My dad was out of the hospital
before the end of week.
My
dad had set for me a wonderful example of godly manhood. This legacy,
that I inherited from my dad, is of greater worth than a hundred-acre
estate or a multimillion dollar trust fund.
It was a priceless gift of being an apprentice to a man who had mastered the art of godly love.
No,
I can't honestly say that I have acquired all that character that my
dad had modeled for me. There are good days and there are bad days.
On bad days, I fall flat on my face. But on the good days... On those
days when I came close...
when you see me, you've seen my father.
Although
my mother, my brother and I miss my dad very much, we are also very
much at peace and are filled with joy for my dad. When he was a young
man, my dad received the faith to accepted the Lord's gift of salvation
through Jesus Christ and because of this faith my dad is now with the
Lord. And because of that same faith, he was given the grace to raise
a family whose foundation is firmly set in Christ.
|