--the research methodology can be more systematic--
While listening to the Han Hui (a co-teacher for the module) teach about the research methodology, it felt somewhat similar to what I have I learnt during my writing modules in USP and the lesson felt.. really nostalgic. Reminded about the numerous sleepless nights I took just to define a research problem that made sense for each paper I wrote. Well, for this module, the problem definition for our research papers was more or less given to us and are more or less along the lines or "is abortion/LGBT/caring for the environment ethical"?
However, what I learned and greatly needed to know, was how to conduct my research in a more systematic manner. If there was one lesson that I stuck with me very deeply from USP writing modules, it is that writing is not merely an expression of your thinking. what our writing and thinking share is a two-way relationship where the thought results in the writing but the writing also sharpens one's thinking. As a result, a dynamic relationship is at work every time you write where you are constantly refining your thoughts and writing through the writing-thinking process and results in a piece of work that goes way beyond what your mind is capable of without the writing process. However, because the writing is so dynamic, the process has often felt very disorganized and unpredictable. Entire paragraphs can be shifted around, divided, and/or even deleted -- just to be rewritten later again. I have scraped entire theses in the midst of writing as well. That's why when Han Hui said that a detailed outline should be done before the main paper, it made so much sense to me haha. This effectively separates the messiness, which occurs in the writing of the detailed outline, from the actual writing making the whole processed a lot more systematic!
Maybe you are wondering why something so obvious has never occurred to me. I am not sure either. Perhaps I was just impatient to start writing the paper? I am wondering, as I am writing this blog, whether it would have been helpful to write a outline for the complex papers I wrote back in USP. And hmm.. I think it would, but definitely would not eliminate the thinking done during the actual writing. I think a simple detailed outline is most helpful when your paper has a certain breadth to it, where you are considering the same topic from various angles and perspectives. In those cases, perhaps most of the thinking can be done while writing the outline itself because the material to the research problem lies mainly not in your thinking, but in the literary sources found on the topic, and your main contribution is to access the sources and to come to your own position. However, writing a simple detailed outline may not be able to account for the amount of thinking needed to derive a new perspective on a topic. When more writing occurs in the outline, then more thinking can occur there. Nevertheless, I do think writing an outline is a good practice to help me think more systematically.
--not about what you can't do, but what you should--
On reflection, I think my view of the world has been quite simplistic and it never really occurred to me that real ethical dilemmas can occur. Perhaps it was because I always felt that no matter how difficult the decision seems, God will know what is the correct decision, so all we need to do is to figure what God wants us to do. Seems simple, but sometimes it isn't that easy to figure out sometimes, especially when your emotions are in the way. Would you tell a lie to save your friends from being murdered? Steal an antidote to save? Would it be a necessary lesser evil or a good you are committing? Complex issues. (I think the greatest moral dilemma I face is "should I break this promise I made to fulfill this other promise I made?") The conflict is there because we think in terms of moral laws/principles. You shall not lie, steal, murder etc. However, what we need to realize is that at each and every decision, there is something that you should do, that God wants you to do, and all other options are that of disobedience. To know what that is, I need to study his word intently, and ask the Holy Spirit for His counsel.
--moral laws/principles are not carved in stone-- even though God carved the ten commandments into stone
The laws in the Old Testament were not given to restrict the Jewish people, but to protect their community from their human tendency to sin, and to protect other nations from the same. In the same way, moral laws and principles are there not to limit what we do with our lives, but to prevent us from destroying our own life and the lives of others. They work in most cases. However, when a moral dilemma occurs, one of the moral principles may not be applicable in that situation as obeying that principle may not yield in the intended purpose of that law, that is, to prevent us from hurting ourselves and others. But at the same time, we need to try to fulfill all moral principles as best as we can, since a conflict may not be there all the time.
So we should also not be too quick to judge the decisions of others as well if we do not know the full facts of the matter.
--knowledge is useless without power and understanding of grace--
Knowing what to do is completely useless if we don't end up doing it. Christians need to constantly remember that we have the power to do what we know to be right, and to forgive those who do not. Knowing of this power is important because the power of the Holy Spirit comes not when we are faced with the decision, but only after we have decided, which results in many Christians giving up without trying.
At the same time, being grateful for what we have received, be it from God or others, is critical to help us make difficult decisions. In those times, we may be feeling like we are losing out by making that choice. So we need to remember that we have already been blessed with many things that go beyond what we have worked for, and that motivates us to do good. For the Christian this all lines up: the eternal death we have received through Christ, in light of the death we deserve, compels us to obey Christ in every situation.
--how does God define what is good?--
I have had this question for the loooongest time. Is he a consequentialist? So that he determines whether an action is good by knowing the full consequences it results in? And by his perfect knowledge he decrees absolute obedience to his commands?
Or is he a absolutist? So that he creates laws as he deems fit, that seem beautiful if followed and surpassed. And he designs and guides the universe to obey those laws, such that obedience to those laws will result in good consequences?
I guess somehow I have determined that God must be both a consequentialist and absolutist haha.
I guess somehow I have determined that God must be both a consequentialist and absolutist haha.
