Ethics, Moral Laws, and Harvard

Charles ColsonInvited to give a lecture at Harvard Business School, Chuck Colson was given the topic: “Why Good People Do Bad Things.” Never one to mince words, Chuck told the students that Harvard could never teach business ethics because it did not believe in absolute values. The best it could do would be to teach pragmatic business judgments.

“You can’t teach ethics here because you don’t believe there are moral laws,” he said. “But there are moral laws just as certain as there are physical laws. We are simply unwilling to admit it because it interferes with our desire to do whatever we please, and doing what we please has become the supreme virtue of our society. Places like Harvard, indeed Harvard of all institutions, propagate these kinds of values.”

Colson’s speech was met by passive silence, then polite applause. Anticipating a more hostile reaction, he later queried organizers of the event: “Why such a docile response?”

“The material you presented was totally new to them,” said one young man. “They didn’t have the tools to debate it.”

–Jack Eckerd and Charles Colson,
Why America Doesn’t Work

Advertisements

Merely a bundle of preferences

mattRawlingsNew Atheists are quick to point out that they reject the violence of Stalin’s Russia, Pol Pot’s killing fields, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba and Kim Jim Il’s North Korea. But the problem is their rejection is wholly arbitrary for that have no objective means for opposing it. Leading atheist journalist and historian S.T. Joshi admits in his book “The Unbelievers: The Evolution of Modern Atheist”, that if you are an atheist , “…it is the brutal truth that…(a) system of morals is merely a bundle of preferences…” Joshi, like the late J.L. Mackie, Albert Camus and John Paul Sartre have the guts to admit the logical consequence of atheism is a lack of any objective moral laws and duties.

–Matt Rawlings