PRESBYTERIAN UNIVERSITY, GHANA

OKWAHU CAMPUS

CENTRE FOR THE PROMOTION OF LIFE VALUES

COURSE OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS

Course Code: PCLV

Lecturer: Rev. Frank Adu, Ph.D.
 COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course:
Introduces students to ethics in general
and Christian ethics in particular.
It is concerned about the sources,
characteristics and praxis of Christian
ethical teachings and their application to
the major issues of ethical decision in
contemporary society.
 c

It aims ultimately at preparing students

to develop Christian personality, by
which they can excel morally in the
performance of their responsibilities.
 OBJECTIVES

To help students understand and

appreciate Ethics and its related
issues.
To help students identify and
understand the sources and
characteristics of Christian ethics
 c

To inculcate Christian Values that

will make students morally unique in
their chosen fields of study
To encourage students to exhibit
exemplary character alongside
academic excellence through self-
discipline.
 COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Students are required to meticulously

listen to lectures and follow notes.
They are also expected to read extra
material and do all exercises,
assignments and examinations as may
be given them.
 c

Presentations shall follow the following

guidelines: double-spaced, 12 font size
and Times New Roman. Evidence of
extra reading in presentations is highly
recommended.
 EVALUATION

Students will be graded as follows:

• Exercises and assignments..............20%
• Mid-semester exams.......................20%
• End of semester exams...................60%
 WHAT IS ETHICS?
The word “ethics” is from the Greek word
ethos, meaning custom, norm, habit,
standard or rule. The word is generally
used in the following senses:

A set of moral principles, values or rules of

behaviour. It is concerned about what ought
to be done or what ought not to be done as
well as voluntary choices and actions.
 c

A system of moral principles, rules or

standards or moral codes governing the
conduct of the members of a
Profession e.g. Medical Ethics, Legal
Ethics etc.
 c

The study of the general nature of

morals and of the specific moral choices
to be made by the individual in his or
her relationship with others or a
theoretical study of the system of
principles governing the appropriate
conduct of an individual or group.
 c

Thus, it has to do with enquiry into

the principle of rightness, the
goodness and the oughtness of human
actions.
 c

It is a branch of philosophy, or
philosophical thinking, which is
concerned about moral values, moral
principles, moral problems, moral
actions and moral judgments. This falls
under the discipline called Moral
Philosophy or Philosophy of Morals.
 c

It is the moral sciences as a whole and it

thus includes Moral Philosophy and
Customary, Civil and Religious Laws.
The moral qualities of a course of action,
i.e. its fitness and propriety e.g. someone
does something horrible or unacceptable
and you question the moral qualities
behind that action – a theological student
rapping a young girl.
 Morality
Morality is from the Latin word
moralitas, lit. manner, character, proper
behaviour. It may be understood as:
The principles of right and wrong or
good and bad behaviour.
The actual behaviour or conduct of life
– the living out of values or what is
believed to be the right and good.
 c

The degree (or measure) to which

something is considered to be right or
wrong, good or bad, etc. according to
some moral principles.
A system of moral principles followed
by a particular group of people.
 Moral

The term “morals” comes from the

Latin word “mores” meaning
“custom” or “habit.” It is concerned
about:
The acceptable behaviour or
normative ways of life (what is right,
good or acceptable).
 c

Following the standards of behaviour

or what is considered to be acceptable
and right by most people (a moral
person).
 c

When we consider and base our

decisions, ways of life or behavioural
relationships on societal values or
what is socially acceptable, our
conduct is taken to be normative or
acceptable as what ought to be. In that
sense, we are understood to be moral.
 c

Being able to differentiate between

right and wrong, good and bad, or
having moral consciousness (a moral
being).
 Moral Values

Moral values are the underlying or

fundamental beliefs and assumptions
about what is right and good and what
is important in life. They are
considered to be the standards for
determining the worth of a thing or an
action.
 c

Moral values are then the basis on

which to take decisions of whether an
action (behaviour) is right or wrong.
Some of these values (beliefs and
assumptions) often remain unchanged
for a long period of time.
 c

The Presbyterian Church of Ghana,

and hence the Presbyterian University,
Ghana, for instance, has the following
as our core values that are meant to
guide our conduct in all dimensions of
life:
 c

• Discipline
• Excellence
• Integrity
• Commitment
• Faith in God
 Moral Character
Character, in general, has to do with
strong personal qualities in individuals
that determine who they are; that is,
how they act and respond to
circumstances. It is what makes a
person or a group of people different
from others when responding to the
same situation.
 c

It is what makes one act or speak in a

certain manner. Moral character, in that
sense, is concerned about the strong
personal qualities of individuals to do
what is right or wrong; what is good or
bad. Thus, it is about one’s disposition
to think, feel, and behave in an ethical
or an unethical manner.
 Moral Agent
Persons (competent persons) who can
have moral duties towards others and
who can be held accountable (or
responsible) for their actions and
decisions. They are the benefactors of
moral action.
 Moral Object
The class of beings who should be taken
into account in our moral assessments and
reflections. The moral object is the recipient
or beneficiary of a moral action. Thus, if
you do good to your brother, you are the
moral agent while your brother is the moral
object. All moral agents have duties
towards all moral objects, in the sense that
all moral objects have moral status (or
moral standing).
 Moral Status
According to Mary-Ann Warren, to have
moral status is to be morally considerable,
or to have moral standing. It is to be an
entity towards which moral agents have, or
can have, moral obligations. If an entity has
moral status, then we may not treat it in just
any way we please; we are morally obliged
to give weight in our deliberations to its
needs, interests, or well-being.
 c

Furthermore, we are morally obliged to

do this not merely because protecting it
may benefit ourselves or other persons,
but because its needs have moral
importance in their own right. For
instance, there are debates about moral
status of human embryos (e.g. debates
about abortion), animals, and nature.
 Moral Virtue
A virtue is a disposition, habit, quality, or
trait of the person or soul, which an
individual either has or seeks to have. Thus
they are the dispositions, habits, qualities,
or traits that are considered to be morally
good. Examples are prudence, fortitude,
justice, love, courage, temperance, honesty,
gratitude, considerateness, truthfulness,
benevolence, etc.
 THE MAJOR BRANCHES OF ETHICS

We may distinguish three kinds of

thinking that relate to morality in one
way or the other. These are:
 Normative Ethics
 Meta-Ethics
 Applied Ethics
 Normative Ethics
This branch of Ethics endeavours to
arrive at acceptable principles of
obligation and general judgments of
value in the light of which to
determine what is morally right,
wrong, or obligatory, and what or who
is morally good, bad, or responsible.
 c

This may take the form of asserting a

normative judgment like “I ought not
to try to escape from prison”,
“knowledge is good”, or “It is always
wrong to harm someone” and giving or
being ready to give reasons for this
judgment.
 c

Or it may take the form of debating

with oneself or with someone else
about what is good or right in a
particular case or as a general
principle, and then forming some such
normative judgment as a conclusion.
 c

Thus, in normative ethics, we try

primarily to arrive at a set of
acceptable judgments (1) of moral
obligation, (2) of moral value, and
secondarily (3) of nonmoral value.
 Meta-ethics
This kind of ethical thinking does not
consist of empirical or historical
inquiries and theories, nor does it
involve asking either particular or
general questions about what is good,
right, or obligatory. Rather, it asks and
tries to answer logical, semantical or
epistemological questions like the
following:
 Continue

What is the meaning or use of the

expressions “(morally) right” or
“good”? How can ethical and value
judgments be established or justified?
Can they be justified at all? What is the
nature of morality? What is the
distinction between the moral and the
nonmoral?
 c

What is the meaning of “free” or

“responsible”? In meta-ethics, we
mainly seek to work out a theory of the
meaning and justification of judgments
(1) of moral obligation, (2) of moral
value, and (3) of nonmoral value. It
thus consists entirely of philosophical
analysis.
 Applied Ethics
It is a descriptive, historical or empirical
inquiry such as is done by
anthropologists, historians, psychologists
and sociologists. Here, the goal is to
describe or explain the phenomena of
morality or to work out a theory of
human nature which bears on ethical
questions.
 c

It is ethics with respect to real-world

actions and is thus concerned about
practical application of moral
considerations in areas of private and
public life, the professions, health,
technology, law and leadership.
 c

Thus, it is that part of ethics which

focuses on particular fields such as:
Bioethics, Animal ethics, Environmental
ethics, Intergenerational ethics, Climate
ethics, Business ethics, Computer
ethics, Medical ethics etc.
THE MAJOR ETHICAL THEORIES

Moral or ethical judgments are of

various kinds. They may be particular or
general and may be stated in different
persons and tenses. In some of our
moral judgments, we say that a certain
action or kind of action is morally right,
wrong, obligatory, a duty, or ought to be
done or ought not to be done.
 c

In others we talk, not about actions or

kinds of action, but about persons,
motives, intentions, traits of character,
and the like, and we say of them that
they are morally good, bad, virtuous,
vicious, responsible, blameworthy,
saintly, despicable, and so on.
 c

To help us make such moral

judgments, Moral Philosophers offer
us a variety of alternative moral
standards commonly known as Ethical
theories. Ethical theories may therefore
be defined as the set of alternative
moral standards for making moral
judgments.
 c

There are three major ethical theories.

These are:
• Deontological theory (Ethics of Rights)
• Teleological theory (Utilitarianism)
• Ethics of Virtue (Motive)
A Summary of the Various Theories
 Deontological Theory

Act-Deontology (AD).
Rule-Deontology (RD).
• Divine command theory
• Categorical imperative
 Teleological Theory

Ethical Egoism (EE)

Ethical Utilitarianism (EU)
• Act-utilitarianism (AU)
• General utilitarianism (GU)
• Rule-utilitarianism (RU)
 Ethics of Virtue

Trait-Deontology
Trait-Teleology
• Trait-egoism
• Trait-utilitarianism
 Deontological Theory

Generally, a deontologist contends that it is

possible for an action or rule of an action to
be the morally right or obligatory one even if
it does not promote the greatest possible
balance of good over evil for self, society, or
universe. It may be right or obligatory simply
because of some other fact about it or
because of its own nature.
 c

There are two different kinds of

deontological theory, depending on
the role they give to general rules.
These are:
• Act-deontological theory (AD).
• Rule-deontological theory (RD).
 Act-deontologists (AD)

They maintain that the basic

judgments of obligation are all purely
particular ones like “In this situation I
should do so and so,” and that general
ones like “We ought always to keep
our promises” are unavailable, useless,
or at best derivative from particular
judgments.
 c

Thus, they tell us that particular

judgments are basic and any general
rules are to be derived from them, not
the other way round. The AD’s basic
argument is that each situation is
different and unique, hence no general
rules can possibly be of much help in
dealing with it, except as guides.
 c

They insist that one can only

determine what is right by becoming
clear about the facts in the case and
then forming a judgment about what is
to be done, either by some kind of
“intuition” as intuitionists would call it
or by a “decision” of the kind that
existentialists talk about,
 c

without appealing to any rules and also

without looking to see what will
promote the greatest possible balance
of good over evil.
 Criticisms against act-deontologists

1. Act-deontology offers us no criterion,

guiding principle or standard
whatsoever for determining what is
right or wrong in particular cases.
Meanwhile:
 c

• It is practically impossible for us to

do without rules; for we cannot
always put in the time and effort
required to judge each situation
anew.
 c

• Rules are needed in the process of

moral education. As R. M. Hare said,
“… to learn to do anything is never to
learn to do any individual act; it is
always to learn to do acts of a certain
kind in a certain kind of situation; and
this is to learn principle….
 c

• Without principles we could not learn

anything whatever from our elders….
Every generation would have to start
from scratch and teach itself. But…
self-teaching, like all other teaching, is
the teaching of principles.”
 c

2. It follows that act-deontological

theories are untenable in principle. In
choosing, judging, and reasoning
morally, one is at least implicitly
espousing rules or principles.
.
3. If we as homo sapiens share some
c

commonalities that can classify us as

homo sapiens, then there is no reason for
thinking that we cannot similarly make
general statements of a moral kind. For
example, many situations are certainly
alike in including the fact that a promise
has been made, and this may be enough
to warrant applying a rule to them.
 c

We are therefore not justified in

stressing the uniqueness of each
particular situation to the neglect of
any similarities
 Rule-deontologists (RD)
They hold that the standard of right and
wrong consists of one or more rules –
either fairly concrete ones like “We
ought always to tell the truth,” “We
ought to keep our promises” and “We
ought not to kill” or very abstract ones
like Henry Sidgwick’s Principle of
Justice:
“It cannot be right for A to treat B in a
c

manner in which it would be wrong for

B to treat A, merely on the ground that
they are two different individuals, and
without there being any difference
between the natures or circumstances of
the two which can be stated as a
reasonable ground for difference of
treatment.
 c

What this then implies is that, for them,

in choosing, judging, and reasoning
morally one is at least implicitly
exposing one or more rules or principles.
Thus, for them, there is a non-
teleological standard consisting of a
number of rather specific rules, each one
saying that we always ought to act in a
certain way in a certain kind of situation.
 c

Against the teleologists, they insist, of

course, that these rules are valid
independently of whether or not they
promote the good.
 c

Against act-deontologists, they contend

that these rules are basic, and are not
derived by induction from particular
cases. They assert that judgments about
what to do in particular cases are
always to be determined in the light of
these rules
 c

Adherents include Samuel Clarke,

Richard Price, Thomas Reid, W. D.
Ross, Immanuel Kant.
 Criticisms against rule-deontologists

Here, the stock objection is that no rule

can be framed which does not admit of
exceptions (and excuses) and no set of
rules can be framed which does not
admit of conflicts between the rules.
The RD can reply by suggesting that one
c

can still build all the necessary

exceptions into a rule. E.g. if we agree
that it is alright to kill in situations of
self-defence, then we can rephrase our
rule “We ought not to kill” as: “We ought
not to kill except in situations of self-
defence.” Though RD is a very consistent
ethical position to hold we must admit
that it has problems with conflict of
 The divine command theory
(theological voluntarism)

One way by which the RD can avoid the

problem of conflicts is to hold that the
standard of right and wrong is the will
or law of God. This is the Divine
Command theory (also known as
Theological Voluntarism).
 c

Proponents of this view hold that an

act is “right” or “wrong” if and only if
it is commanded or forbidden by God.
For them then what ultimately makes
an action right or wrong is its being
commanded or forbidden by God and
nothing else.
 Criticisms against the divine command
theory
1. Though this position helps the RD out
it does not solve the historical/perennial
problem of whether an action is good
because it is commanded by God or
because it is good that is why God
commands it. In other words, is an action
good that is why God commands it or
because God commands it that is why it is
 c

2. Since the scriptural norms are not

casuistry how do we know and decide
what the will of God is in specific
situations?
 c

3. If the one who holds this view

believes that God’s law consists of a
number of rules such as the Ten
Commandments of the OT, then he may
still be faced with the problem of
conflicts between them, unless God
somehow instructs him how to resolve
them.
For instance, the one who holds such a
c

view may believe that we ought to “do

what is for the greatest general good” or
“do what is for his own good,” or that
we ought to “keep promises,” “tell the
truth,” etc. because and only because it
is commanded by God. In this way his
working ethics will be like that of the
utilitarian, ethical egoist, or pluralistic
deontologist.
 Immanuel Kant’s moral theory or
Categorical Imperative

Another example of rule deontology is

Immanuel Kant’s duty ethics or categorical
imperative with its unconditional demand
to treat all persons as ends, never as
means, and to act only in such a way that
one’s conduct could be universalized.
According to Kant, there is a universal
c

moral law in all humans called “the

sense of aught” or responsibility, and
this “sense of aught” causes humans to
do their duties. Therefore, the right
thing is when you (moral agent) do
your duty to the moral subject (one who
has the right to be so treated)
irrespective of the consequences.
 c

Here, duty can be positive or negative.

Positive duty is a duty that requires
some form of (positive) action– e.g. the
duty to help people in need. Negative
duty is a duty that requires that agents
refrain from certain courses of action –
e.g. the duty not to inflict harm on
others or the duty not to lie.
 One form of his categorical imperative
c

states that “Act only on that maxim

which you can at the same time will to
be a universal law.”
With this Kant seems to be saying
these three things:
• That when one acts voluntarily one
[must] always act on a formulizable
maxim or rule;
 c

• That one is choosing and judging

from the moral point of view if and
only if one is or would be willing to
universalize his maxim; that is, see
his rule acted on by everyone who is
in a situation of a similar kind, even
if he himself turns out to be on the
receiving end on occasion;
 c

• That an action is morally right and/or

obligatory if and only if one can
consistently will that the maxim or
rule involved be acted on by
everyone in similar circumstances,
and an action is morally wrong if and
only if one cannot consistently will
this.
Kant uses the following example to
c

illustrate his case. Suppose that Ama

makes a promise but is ready to break it
if it suits her purposes. Ama’s maxim
then may be expressed thus: “When it
suits my purposes, I will make
promises, intending also to break them
if this suits my purposes.” But Ama
cannot consistently will this maxim to
be universally acted on.
• Kant then concludes that it is wrong
c

to make deceitful promises. By

somewhat similar arguments, he
believes he can also show, e.g. that it
is wrong to commit suicide, that we
ought to cultivate our natural gifts or
talents, and that we ought to help
others who are in trouble.
Criticism against Kant’s moral theory

The problem with this approach is

that it does not leave room for
exceptions. One is therefore likely to
run into conflict of values such as
killing vs. Abortion or Euthanasia.
 Teleological Theory
A teleological theory holds that the
basic or ultimate criterion or standard
of what is morally right, wrong,
obligatory, etc., is the nonmoral value
that is brought into being. The final
appeal, directly or indirectly, must be
to the comparative amount of good
produced, or rather to the comparative
balance of good over evil produced.
 c

Thus, an act is right or ought to be

done if and only if it or the rule under
which it falls produces, will probably
produce, or is intended to produce a
greater balance of good over evil than
any available alternative; and an act is
wrong if and only if it does not do so.
 c

For a teleologist, then, the moral

quality or value of actions, persons, or
traits of character is dependent on the
comparative nonmoral value of what
they bring about or try to bring about.
 c

Teleologists, however, differ on the

question of whose good it is that one
ought to promote. Hence the two
kinds of teleological theory of
obligation: Ethical egoism and ethical
utilitarianism (or universalism).
 Ethical egoism (EE)
They hold that an act or rule of action is
right if and only if it promotes at least as
great a balance of good over evil for him
in the long run as any alternative would,
and wrong if it does not. Therefore, one is
always to do what will promote his own
greatest good; he is always to seek his
own advantage or welfare, or always to
do what he thinks will give him the
This view was held by Epicurus,
c

Hobbes, and Nietzsche, among others.

They have often been hedonists,
identifying the good or welfare with
happiness and happiness with pleasure.
But they may also identify the good or
welfare with knowledge, power, self-
realization, or with what Plato called the
mixed life of pleasure, knowledge, and
other good things.
 The basic tenets of ethical egoism

• That an individual’s one and only basic

obligation is to promote for himself the
greatest possible balance of good over evil.
• That even in making second – and third-
person moral judgments an individual
should go by what is to his own advantage.
 c

• That in making such judgments an

individual should go by what is to the
advantage of the person he is talking
to or about.
• Tenet (3) seems to be inconsistent
with ethical egoism. They could be
either hedonists or non-hedonists.
NOT an egoistic principle of acting
and judging.
 c

But for our purposes, we must regard

the ethical egoist as holding that
everyone should act and judge by the
standard of his own long run advantage
in terms of good and evil.
 Criticisms against ethical egoists
1. The position of the ethical egoist does
seem to involve one in a conflict of will
and thus seems to be a difficult position
to maintain as a moral theory. The
reason being that ethical egoism, as thus
construed, is self-contradictory, since it
cannot be to one individual’s advantage
that all others should pursue their own
advantage so assiduously.
If each of us should do what will or
c

probably will promote his own greatest

good then the world will run into
chaos. Kant is therefore right to argue
that one cannot will the egoistic
maxim to be universal law.
2. The problem of advising and judging.
It is out of the way when you base
advice or judging on what is to your
own advantage.
 Ethical utilitarianism (universalism)
(EU)
For Ethical utilitarians or universalists,
the ultimate standard of right, wrong,
and obligation is the principle of utility,
which says quite strictly that the moral
end to be sought in all we do is the
greatest possible balance of good over
evil (or the least possible balance of evil
over good) in the world as a whole.
In other words, the ultimate end is the
c

greatest general good – that an act or rule

of action is right or obligatory if and
only if it is, or probably will be,
conducive to the greatest possible
balance of good over evil in the universe
as a whole than any alternative would be,
and wrong if it is not conducive to the
greatest possible balance of good over
evil in the universe.
 c

A right action then is one with more

favorable end-results or usefulness or
welfare of more people. For the ethical
utilitarians, then, “the end justifies the
means.” There are three different forms
of utilitarianism: Act-Utilitarianism,
General Utilitarianism and Rule-
Utilitarianism.
 Act-utilitarianism (AU)

It holds that in general or at least where

it is practicable, one is to tell what is
right or obligatory by appealing directly
to the principle of utility or, in other
words, by trying to see which of the
actions open to him will or is likely to
produce the greatest balance of good
over evil in the universe.
One must ask “What effect will my
c

doing this act in this situation have on

the general balance of good over evil?”,
not “What effect will everyone’s doing
this kind of act in this kind of situation
have on the general balance of good
over evil?” generalizations like
“Telling the truth is probably always
for the greatest general good” or
 c

“Telling the truth is generally for the

greatest general good” may be useful
as guides based on past experience; but
the crucial question is always whether
telling the truth in this case is for the
greatest general good or not.
 General utilitarianism (GU)
It holds that one is not to ask in each
situation which action or rule has the
best consequences. For example,
“What will happen if I do so and so in
this case?” or “What rule should I
follow?” but rather, “What would
happen if everyone were to do so and
so in such cases?”
The idea behind GU is that if something
c

is right for one person to do in a certain

situation, then it is also right for anyone
else who is similarly situated to do, and
hence that one cannot ask simply what
effects one’s proposed action will have
in a particular case – one must ask what
the consequences would be if everyone
were to act likewise in such cases.
For instance, whereas AU can allow a
c

poor man to steal from the rich for

purposes of feeding himself and his
family, as the poor man’s act may
produce the greatest general balance of
good over evil in his particular
situation, GU will maintain that he
ought not do it because of what would
happen if all the poor and needy were to
steal from the rich.
 Rule-utilitarianism (RU)
Like rule-deontologism, it emphasizes
the centrality of rules in morality and
insists that we are generally, if not
always, to tell what to do in particular
situations by appeal to a rule like that of
truth-telling rather than by asking what
particular action will have the best
consequences in the situation in
question.
 c

But, unlike deontologism, it adds that

we are always to determine our rules
by asking which rules will promote the
greatest general good for everyone.
That is, the question is not which
action has the greatest utility, but
which rule has.
Criticisms against ethical utilitarianism
(universalism)

Utilitarians tend to focus on the

interest of the greater number of
people at the expense of that of the
individual.
 Ethics of Virtue (Motive)

According to ethics of virtue, an action

or a person may be judged to be right
or wrong, good or bad based on the
disposition, motive, intention, or trait
of character involved, but not its results
or the principle it exemplifies.
 c

Thus, an act may be said to be good or

bad, praiseworthy or blameworthy,
noble or despicable, and so on, and
then the moral quality ascribed to it
will depend not on the nonmoral value
that is brought into being or the
principle involved but on the agent’s
motive, intention, or disposition in
doing it.
This is crucial because one may do what
is right from bad motives, in which case
c

he is not morally good, or he may fail to

do what is right though sincerely trying
to do it, in which case he is not morally
bad.
To this end, whether he or his actions are
morally good or not depends not on the
rightness of what he does or on its
consequences, but on his character or
motives.
 c

For ethics of virtue, then, what is basic

in morality is judgments like
“Benevolence is a good motive,”
“Courage is a virtue,” “The morally
good man is kind to everyone.” These
judgments (known as aretaic judgments)
are not judgments or principles about
what our duty is or what we ought to do
(also known as deontic judgments).
 c

But, of course, it thinks that its basic

instruments will guide us, not only about
what to be, but also about what to do.
An ethics of virtue, therefore, does not
take deontic judgments or principles as
basic in morality, as we have been doing,
especially in the case of deontology and
teleology; instead, it takes as basic aretaic
judgments like “That was a courageous
deed,”
“His action was virtuous,” or “Courage
c

is a virtue,” and it insists that deontic

judgments are either derivative from
such aretaic ones or can be dispensed
with entirely. Moreover, it regards
aretaic judgments about actions as
secondary, and as based on aretaic
judgments about agents and their
motives or traits, as Hume does when he
writes: “…when we praise any actions,
 c

we regard only the motives that

produced them…. The external
performance has no merit…. all
virtuous actions derive their merit only
from virtuous motives.”
Moralists of ethics of virtue differ on
the question: “What dispositions or
traits are moral virtues.”
 Trait-deontological theory
They hold that certain traits are morally
good or virtuous simply as such, and
not just because of the nonmoral value
they may have or promote, or,
alternatively, that there are other
cardinal or basic virtues besides
prudence or benevolence, for example
obedience to God, honesty, or justice.
 Trait-teleological theory
c

Trait-Egoism: It holds that the virtues

that are good are the dispositions that are
most conducive to one’s own good or
welfare, or, alternatively, that prudence or
a careful concern for one’s own good is
the cardinal or basic moral virtue, other
virtues being derivative from it.
 c

Trait-Utilitarianism: It asserts that the

virtues that are good are those traits
that most promote the general good, or,
alternatively, that benevolence is the
basic or cardinal moral virtue.
 Integrative Approach
From the foregoing, it becomes evident
that no one theory can satisfactorily
determine what is morally right or
wrong, good or bad, obligatory or not.
Therefore, regarding the question
whether we should construe morality as
primarily a following of certain duty
and principles (as exemplified by
deontology and teleology) or
 c

as primarily cultivation of certain

dispositions, virtues and traits of
character (as in the case of ethics of
virtues), it is argued that we should
treat them not as rival kinds of morality
between which we must choose, but as
two complementary aspects of the same
morality.
 c

Then, for every principle there will be

a morally good trait, often going by the
same name, consisting of a disposition
or tendency to act according to it; and
for every morally good trait there will
be a principle defining the kind of
action in which it is to express itself.
 c

To quote the words of Kant: “I am

inclined to think that principles
without traits are impotent and traits
without principles are blind.”
 c

Whereas deontology and teleology

(morality of duty and principles) may
rightly be described as ethics of doing,
ethics of virtues (morality of virtues or
traits of character) may be described as
ethics of being.
It follows that one cannot consider the
c

former (deontology and teleology) to be

important than the latter (ethics of
virtues), as being without doing, like
faith without works, is dead. This is
because being a certain kind of person
requires doing certain kinds of things
or performing certain kinds of duty or
following certain kinds of principles.
 CHRISTIAN ETHICS

What is Christian Ethics?

Christian ethics may be understood as
follows:
• The moral standards of Christendom:
The ethics of the Christian Community
• The ethics of the Bible
• The ethical insights of Jesus.
 1

But, as a working definition for our

study, we may define the term
“Christian ethics,” as a systematic study
of the moral principles, values or rules
of behaviour taught and exemplified by
Jesus, applied to the manifold problems
and decisions of human existence, and
their implications for the Christian
character and conduct.
Thus, it primarily focuses on Christian
c

action vis-à-vis the moral insights of

Jesus or the principles, derived from
the Christian faith, by which to act. It
is therefore concerned about the
multitude of decisions about what to
do or what not to do – how to do right
and how to avoid doing what a
Christian ought not to do.
 c

In this case, both the moral

injunctions of Jesus and the way of
life demonstrated by him as well as
the popular religious writing and the
church pronouncements and actions,
based on Jesus’ teaching and life, are
crucial.
 Christian Ethics and Moral Philosophy

Classical systems of moral philosophy

Aristotle’s eudaemonism, with its emphasis on
a life of moderation, with every man fulfilling
the function for which he is fitted by nature,
aims at ensuring happiness for all. The
hedonistic, or pleasure-seeking, ethics of
Epicurus, which finds expression in the oft-
quoted “Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow
we die,” also seems to aim at simplicity of
living, and freedom from tension in a cultured
and unstrenuous life.
Stoicism, on the other hand, with its appeal
c

to courage in the face of life’s vicissitudes

and the pursuit of virtue solely for virtue’s
sake, was both a more serious and a more
religiously grounded ethic. Its doctrine of an
all-pervasive World-Reason, or Logos, and
of a natural law of morality fundamental to
all existence and embracing in its scope all
men, had a note of universalism which
made Stoicism particularly open to
amalgamation with Christian thought.
 C

There is the formal, duty ethics of Kant

with its categorical imperative, or
unconditional demand, to treat all
persons as ends, never as means, and to
act only in such a way that one’s
conduct could be universalized. There is
the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill,
centred in the “greatest happiness of the
greatest number” and the measurement
of all courses of action by their
 c

There is also the modern, but in its

elements very old, “social adjustment”
philosophy of John Dewey which
measures right conduct by the ability
to take one’s place as a good citizen in
an ordered, democratic society.
 Points of contact between Christian
ethics and moral philosophy
That Christian ethics shares some common
elements with moral philosophies from other
sources is apparent. For instance, one may
discover in the various schools of moral
philosophy a sense of the dignity of man,
humanitarian concern for the weak, the
helpless, and the suffering, a wholesome
respect for law, and in general, attitudes of
kindness, generosity, and responsible
 c

These virtues, particularly

humanitarian concern for others and a
sense of the worth of every person, can
be traced directly to Christian roots.
 The distinctiveness of Christian ethics

Whilst acknowledging that there are good

elements in all of these systems of moral
philosophy, there is the need to emphasize
that they do not represent what is
distinctively Christian and for that matter
Christian ethics? This is because Christian
ethics, unlike these moral philosophies,
presupposes “a God-centred view” and has
“obedient love” as its defining principle.
 For one is required to seek to do the will of
C

God by loving God supremely and one’s

neighbour as one’s self. Here agape, the
word used for love, means an uncalculating,
outgoing spirit of loving concern which finds
expression in deeds of service without limit.
Therefore, whilst finding points of contact in
order to stress common ground between
Christian ethics and moral philosophy from
other sources, there is the need to emphasize
what is distinctively Christian.
This then requires of Christian moralists to
c

familiarize themselves as thoroughly as

possible with the history of philosophy, seek
to understand other world views in their best
forms as well their worst, give them
sympathetic but critical evaluation – then
appropriate what is worth appropriating if it
is not at variance with Christian faith. But in
this process, there must be no amalgamating
of what is different; no surrender of what is
distinctive in Christianity.
In this way, there can be a partial
C

acceptance by Christians of the insights

of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics,
especially their humanistic foundations,
but no identification of eros with
agape, no substituting of stoic fortitude
for devoted submission to the will of
God. The self-centred hedonism of
Epicurus must be rejected because it is
squarely opposed to Christian agape,
while the duty ethics of Kant, the
c

utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, and the

contemporary emphasis on social adjustment
may well be used as instruments for carrying
out some aspects of the Christian moral
imperative, but ought never to be confused
with its goals. This is crucial because
Christian ethics is on unsafe ground if it
either refuses to respect and learn from moral
wisdom of the ages or sells its birthright by
accommodation to secular standards.
 Sources of Christian Morality (Ethics)
Four main sources of Christian ethics may
be identified. These are conscience,
experience, Church tradition, and the Bible.
Conscience: The word conscience has been
classically defined by St. Thomas Aquinas
as “the mind of man making moral
judgments.” It is the capacity to feel a moral
obligation or the sense of right or wrong or
the moral sense of ought or sense of duty.
 C

Conscience then, is a judgment of

practical reason at work on matters of
right and wrong. Like all other human
capacities, conscience is, in a
considerable measure, the outcome of
growth and education. In a large part, it
is the result of experience and training
during the process of growth.
Conscience is formed and made firm as
one grows in experience.
Experience: Whilst asserting that the Bible
C

gives us the foundation for judging every

moral problem, there is the need to
emphasize that the Bible alone does not give
us all the answers we need regarding moral
issues. For example, the Bible does not tell
us what to do about birth control, speeding
on highways, stock-market manipulations,
the use of hydrogen bombs and suicide
bombing simply because they are for the
most part modern problems; problems
 C

We are still left with a multitude of

concrete moral decisions to make. And
for guidance in making them we may
look to other ranges of experience that
may throw light on such problems not
treated within the scope of the Bible. The
thinking and experience of the centuries,
whether in philosophy or the Church, will
help us at some points. But, we cannot
live by the past.
 c

We must know our time and the causes

and consequences of prevailing evils.
We must be continually on the alert to
see what a sensitive Christian
conscience, responsive to the call of
Christ, will hold to be right and wrong
courses of action in the circumstances
where we are.
 Church tradition
The Church exists to be the carrier of the
gospel and the Christian faith out of which
the principles of Christian ethics are
fashioned. The Church has several
traditions such as the creed, canticle, the
Lord’s Prayer, catechism, etc., some of
which are directly taken from the Bible.
These traditions have contributed not only
to the propagation of the gospel but also to
the ethical living of its members.
 C

The way the Church Fathers lived in

relation to the Christian faith is of much
significance. For instance, we need to
know what Augustine and Aquinas,
Luther, Calvin, and Wesley believed
about the Christian life, both to learn
from them and to avoid their errors.
 C

Yet, whilst acknowledging our debt to the

“faith of our fathers, living still,” and to
those fathers who valiantly proclaimed it,
let us not suppose that the Church of the
past can be our norm for ethical decisions
of today. This is because the Church exists
also as a human institution, a social group
with a common centre of professed loyalty
to Christ, yet a social group made up of
fallible human beings.
 C

These fallible human persons “who profess

and call themselves Christians,” who are
of varying degrees of ethical insight and
fidelity to Christ, are also enmeshed in a
network of other human institutions,
political, economic, domestic, recreational,
cultural, etc. It is only natural, therefore,
that the standards current in these other
social institutions should impinge upon
their life as Christians and so find access
into the structure of the churches.
 C

Hence, the churches are always in

danger of themselves becoming
secularized and conforming to the
standards of the world instead of being
agencies of Christian transformation.
 The Bible
The Bible although is not the sole source
of Christian knowledge, it is the primary
source of guidance for moral decisions.
For there is a natural theology, also called
philosophical theology, which finds
evidences of God throughout his total
creation and in the moral and religious
aspirations and experience of all peoples.
Nevertheless, the Bible is our firmer base
C

for what is distinctively Christian, and the

movement away from the more
generalized conclusions of philosophical
thought about God and his world to a more
Christ-centred, biblically based structure
of theology is in the right direction. It is
therefore the fountainhead of Christian
theology and for that matter indispensable
to our knowledge of Christian truth and
moral obligation.
One cannot therefore find the primary
C

authority for the demands of Christian

decision in conscience or experience, or in
the general field of moral philosophy, or in
the moral standards of Christendom, past or
present, or in the ethical pronouncements of
the churches, corporately or through the
words of any one of its leaders, though
from all of these sources important insights
may be gleaned which we cannot afford to
overlook or to discard.
The primary authority for the demands of
C

Christian decision ought to be found in the

Bible. Christian ethics, in that sense, may
be said to be rooted in the Bible of which
the NT is considered to be our more
definitive point of reference, and within
which no final authority is to be located in
particular words or passages but in the total
picture it gives of the person and work of
Jesus Christ: his life, teachings, ministry
and death, as the revelation of God.
 C

The basic foundation of Christian ethics,

then, is in the ministry and teachings of
Jesus Christ, as these bring to us the
supreme revelation of God’s nature and
will. Yet the Old Testament contains
much that is revelatory in its own
structure, as well as preparatory for the
coming of Christ.
 C

We cannot, therefore, dispense with

the OT, especially the statutes, the law
and the commandments as well as the
great moral insights of the prophets or
the matchless devotional poetry of the
psalms.
 Biblical Foundations of Christian Ethics

Old Testament (OT) Perspective

The Old Testament contains elements
such as the law, statutes and
commandments that entail both
ceremonial and moral obligation; both
ritualistic and humanitarian concern –
specifications for ritualistic and
ceremonial observance stand side by side
with those indicating humanness and
moral insight.
The law embodies universal moral
C

principles which, although entail elements

that are not provisions for our day, show
an admirable sense of justice, moral
responsibility, and humane concern for
the underprivileged. There is a statement
of general ethical principles such as the
prohibitions of murder, adultery, theft,
lying, and covetousness found in the
Decalogue (Ex. 20:2-17; cf. Ex. 20:23-
23:33).
 C

The breadth of situations which Lev. 17-

26 covers is very impressive. This
includes protection for the weak,
especially those who lacked the natural
protection of family and land (namely,
widows, orphans, Levites, immigrants
and resident aliens); justice for the poor;
impartiality in the courts; generosity at
harvest time and in general economic life;
 C

respect for persons and property, even of

an enemy; sensitivity to the dignity even
of a debtor; special care for strangers and
immigrants; considerate treatment of the
disabled; prompt payment of wages
earned by hired labour; sensitivity over
articles taken in pledge; consideration for
people in early marriage, or in
bereavement; even care for animals,
domestic and wild, and for fruit trees.
 C

There is also a special emphasis on love

for God (Deut. 6:4-5) and for one’s
neighbour (Lev. 19:18). And here one’s
neighbour was the one within the covenant
community. And a major motivation
towards ethical living in Israel, that is,
amongst the covenant community, was the
actual personal experience of God’s love,
goodness and blessing in the events of
Israel’s election,
 C

Exodus and Canaan Conquest as well as

God’s provision of material goods and
protection for his people.
The social teachings of the prophets
also supply a degree of concreteness and
of social application to specific
circumstances which appear only
marginally in the teachings of Jesus.
 New Testament Perspective

Although we may turn to the Pauline

letters for NT ethics and for that matter
the moral insights of Jesus, the Gospels,
particularly the synoptic gospels, are our
main guide to the ethical teaching of
Jesus.
 The ethical teaching of Jesus
The ethical teachings of Jesus although are
not stated systematically or in a developing
logical sequence, as a philosopher might
state them, it is not difficult to summarize
with a fair degree of consciousness the
principal ethical teachings of Jesus. Over
and over again they appear – in aphorism,
parable, simile, striking hyperbole, in
words of commendation or rebuke or in
Jesus’ own recorded deeds.
At least six major aspects of the ethics of
C

Jesus may be distinguished:

a. Jesus taught an ethic of obedient love to
God and loving concern for one’s neighbour

The keynote in the life and teaching of

Jesus with regard to man’s moral duty is
found in “obedient love.” Thus, one is
required to seek to do the will of God by
loving God supremely and one’s neighbour
as one’s self.
 C

In response to the question “Which

commandment is the most important of
all?” Jesus said “…. You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart and
with all your soul and with all your mind
and with all your strength….
You shall love your neighbour as
C

yourself” (Mar 12:29-31), answering

with the dual commands – one from
Deut. 6:4-5 (total love for God) and the
other from Lev. 19:18 (love for one’s
neighbour as oneself). These, for Jesus,
are the primary values, the overriding
priorities that govern the rest of the
detailed legislation.
Our starting point, then, must be the
C

words of Jesus himself, that the Lord

God matters above all else. No moral
imperative ranks higher than the
command to love God with the totality
of one’s whole being which, is enshrined
in the shema.
By this Jesus brought together the
universal love for God and the universal
moral obligation to one another, and saw
in both the true fulfilment of the law.
Thus he took the moral framework of Israel
C

and transformed it into something so universal,

so compelling, that it became new…. For
instance, whereas, in the OT, one’s neighbour
was the one within the covenant community,
for Jesus, one’s neighbours included those
outside the covenant community. Though he
never expressly repudiated the covenant
relation of his people, to Jesus so universal was
the love of God, so compelling the need to
serve every human being that the covenant
with its exclusive bounds was left behind.
 C

Jesus made human need the criterion of

acts of obedient love to God to the
extent that even if the law of the Sabbath
stood in the way of human service, it
was to be suspended; he ate with
publicans and sinners to win them to the
kingdom even at the cost of ceremonial
uncleanness.
 c

In this way, love of neighbour becomes

freely given, uncalculating, unrestricted
service, such as is epitomized in the
parable of the Good Samaritan, and this
flows from the nature of the love of
God.
 C

In this supreme duty of love to God

and neighbour, rooted in faith,
obedience, and humble acceptance of
divine grace, we find “all the law and
the prophets” – and enough to give a
basis for centuries of ethical
application
 b. Jesus taught an ethic completely
integrated with his religious faith

This is seen in its clearest expression in

the two Great Commandments, where
the duty of love of neighbour is not an
addendum to the obligation to love God
without reservation, but is an implicate
of it (ref. Matt. 5:9, 44-45-48; 22:34-40;
Lk. 4:18-19; 6:36; Is. 61:1-2).
 C

This interrelation between ethics and

religious faith appears repeatedly both in
Jesus’ words and in the total tenor of his
life. For Jesus, then, religious faith and
ethics are just inseparable. E.g. in order to
show that we are children of our heavenly
father, we are to love our enemies and
pray for those who persecute us (Matt.
5:44-45), and in order to be called sons of
God we are to be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9).
 c

In order to see God, we are to be holy

(Matt. 5:8), and future judgment is
dependent upon how we treat the sick,
poor, those in prison, and the
victimized in society (Matt. 25:31-46).
 c. Jesus laid primary stress on ethical
and spiritual inwardness
This is not to say that he was indifferent to
outward acts, or to the way men conducted
themselves toward one another. On the
contrary, his most stinging words are
directed toward those who “preach, but do
not practice”; those who “bind heavy
burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on
men’s shoulders; but they themselves will
not move them with their finger”;
those who “devour widows’ houses and for
c

a pretence… make long prayer”; those who

are “blind guides, straining out a gnat and
swallowing a camel” (Matt. 23:3, 4, 14,
24). Yet the same passage, as well as many
others, indicates that his chief concern was
with right attitudes from which right acts
might proceed. Jesus was completely
opposed to the substitution of either
ceremonial acts or correct outward
and loving concern for one’s neighbour
C

(Matt. 23:23, 25-26). For him, the inner

anger that resulted in murder was as
important as the murder itself (Matt.
5:21-22) and the inner lust for the
opposite sex is as dangerous as adultery
itself (Matt. 5:27-30).
Jesus condemns any outward religiosity
that does not spring from an inner
spirituality.
 c

If anything at all, Jesus seems to believe

that our outward life is mainly dependent
on our inner spiritual condition and not
vice versa. Note that Jesus does not
condemn making the outside of the cup
clean; what he condemns is the
substitution of these for something more
basic, namely, the inner spiritual
condition.
 c

This is actually the burden of the whole

Sermon on the Mount where, without
any abrogation of the 10
commandments, the emphasis is shifted
away from legalism to those inner
attitudes that determine the nature of a
person, and hence his/her acts.
 d. Jesus set forth a clear pattern of the
demands of the God-centred life
By clear pattern is not, of course, meant a
blueprint or easily applicable set of rules.
But that we can today speak of “Christian
virtues” is due to the fact one who reads the
Gospels seriously is left in no doubt as to
the general structure of what a life lived in
obedient love would embody. We see it in
Jesus himself; we find it on every page of
the record; it is epitomized in the beatitudes .
 c

Its primary qualities are a God-centred

faith and love. Its derivative aspects are
purity of heart, sincerity, humility,
forgiveness, love toward enemies, mercy,
charity in judgment, honesty in speech and
action, sexual purity, compassion toward
those in need, and renunciation of worldly
aims with the preferring of spiritual to
marital treasure.
For Jesus, the good life is that of
C

generous and self-giving service to all

humanity and unbroken, unworried trust
in the goodness of God. These virtues
although represent a set of admirable
qualities similar to those advocated in
Judaism and certain of the non-Christian
religions as well as in Greek philosophy
and modern secular world, it is important
to note that Jesus did not set out to give a
catalogue of virtues, and was apparently
 c

quite untroubled as to whether he was

saying something new or even
expressing fully attainable goals of
action. His concern was to proclaim the
nature of a God-centred, love-filled life
in obedience to the call of God, and to
win men and women to it.
e. Jesus had a realistic knowledge both of human sin and of the possibilities of the redeemed life

Unlike Paul, Jesus did not look upon sin

as an enveloping state of evil resulting
from Adam’s fall and corrupting man’s
whole being. Yet, Jesus did not also set
forth a doctrine of the natural goodness
of humanity such as is characteristic of
Greek thought and common in present
day humanistic philosophy.
 c

In the records of what Jesus said,

there is no doctrine of total depravity,
but neither is there a sentimental
assumption that if a person is well
nurtured and his intentions are good,
his acts will be good enough.
 c

This is because “he himself knew what

was inside man”(Jon 2:25), he pierced
through the veneer of “good” people to
their chicanery and self-deception, and
saw that the keeping of the
commandments from one’s youth up
was no substitute for single-minded
devotion to God (Mk. 10:17-22).
Yet, on the other hand, he never scaled
c

downward man’s possibilities, and the very

virtues that have been enumerated as
belonging to the life of faith and love are
implicit witness to his confidence that man,
with God’s help, could live as the “salt of
the earth.” Jesus gives us no explicit
doctrine of sin; what he does is to show us
what is wrong with our living and what the
good life, centred in obedience to God’s
word will/might be.
As with sin, Jesus gives no explicit
C

doctrine of redemption. Yet, there is not

the least doubt that Jesus viewed the sins
of men with utter seriousness even to the
point of staking his own life on the cross
to enable man to find forgiveness and
release from it.
Jesus gives some requirements for
victory over sins. These are in 2 poles
God and the sinner himself.
First, it is God himself who forgives in
c

infinite love and mercy the sinner who

turns to him, as is epitomized in the
parable of the prodigal son. The primary
focus is thus first and foremost on God’s
act. Second, the sinner himself must do
something about it; it does not happen
without cost on man’s part as well as
God’s.
From man’s side, the requirements are:
C

• Commitment of will (seek first the

kingdom of God – Matt. 6:33)
• Repentance (repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand [Matt. 4:17])
• Forgiveness of others (for if you forgive
men their trespasses, your heavenly
Father also will forgive you;
 c

• but if you do not forgive men their

trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses – Matt. 6:14-15)
• Faith (your faith has saved you; go in
peace – Lk. 7:50)
 f. Jesus declared the supreme worth of every person to God

Jesus did not use the phrase heard very

commonly two decades ago, “the intrinsic
worth of personality,” or the one now in
more common usage, “the dignity of
man.” His idea of man although was not at
variance with either of these concepts, it is
not the way in which he thought. Rather,
every person was of supreme worth to him
because every person was beloved of God.
His total ministry was a ministry of the
c

redemption of persons – whether it was

redemption from physical illness, mental
disturbance, error, or sin – because he
shared the love of God for every person
and so gave himself completely to a
ministry of helpfulness to all.
His words indicate that he valued
personality above material things or
institutions.
As a Jew, Jesus retained the ceremonial
C

laws except where they conflicted with

service to human need. Then he did not
hesitate to disregard them.
In Matt 12:12, he says, “Of how much
more value is a man than a sheep! So it is
lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matt.
12:12; cf. 10:31). In another setting he
declared God’s loving care by saying,
“You are of more value than many
This was a graphic way of affirming the
c

worth of man to God above the total

subhuman world. Yet it is in his attitudes
and acts, rather than in specific words,
that we find the charter of human equality
in God’s equal concern for all. Whether
he dealt with women, children, or slaves,
whether the persons in need were Jew,
Roman, Syro-Phoenician, or Samaritan,
whether he associated with “respectable”
people or social outcasts,
The gospel of redemption through the
c

love of God in Christ broke down

earthly barriers, and people of every
occupational status, degree of wealth, or
social standing saw the “middle walls of
partition” melt away. In him there was
“neither Jew nor Greek… neither slave
nor free… neither male nor female,” for
all were one in Christ Jesus.
Whether he was C
illustrating true
neighbourliness by the story of the Good
Samaritan or declaring the principle of divine
judgment – all persons were of equal and
supreme worth to him because he saw them
through the eyes of God. He did not set out
simply to exalt the dignity of humanity; yet
he lifted the status of men, women, and
children wherever his message was heard
because he saw all persons as precious to
God and equally the recipients of God’s love.
 c

Although he does not have a great deal

to say about political or economic
structures, he has much to say about the
attitudes and motives of men in their
corporate life. His concern about social
iniquities always sprang from his
indignant perception of their ill effect on
individuals.
His sense of the worth and dignity of the
c

human person is evident in his concern

for the victim of the bandits on the
Jerusalem-Jericho road, the widow
mistreated by an unjust judge, the
unfortunates on whom publicans like
Zacchaeus practiced extortion, the
destitute at a rich man’s door, prisoners
unvisited and hungry folk unfed – always
it was wronged individuals who called
out from Jesus a social message.
 Christian Virtues

Several Christian virtues that are found

scattered throughout the Bible are expected to
be brought to bear on one’s attitude. Those
epitomized in the Beatitudes are: humble in
spirit; comforted by God in their morning;
unpossessive; eager and persistent in the quest
for righteousness; merciful; pure in heart;
peacemakers; faithful to duty even under
persecution; able to endure misunderstanding
and scorn for the Kingdom’s sake.
Others such as love, joy, peace, patience,
c

kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

gentleness and self-control are also listed
in Gal. 5:22. These, for Paul, are not the
product simply of human cultivation;
rather, they are the fruit of the Spirit, the
result of the indwelling presence of God
as he comes to us in Christ. Still, others
may include honesty, generosity or
benevolence, justice, prudence, obedience
to God, courtesy, veracity, etc.