quote:

---

“…Honestly. I think that it is a combination of existentialism, moral objectivism, and moral realism that IN THE END would have "principles" emerge, but not for the sake of self-justification or absolution...but simply because being fully human in the world.”

and

“I agree that to the extent that the moral activity of an approach finds its BASIS in the purity of the principle rather than the ultimate SERVICE of the process of being human, said approach will always miss reality...because "reality" INCLUDES our being human and all that entails.”

---

is a given. The process of being human involves or includes community and moral intentions and deeds are a necessary part of that. That is, how are we obligated to each other.

Changing situations don’t change the morality. They only change how the rules should apply so that the instance of lying to the Nazis is really not lying. The Nazi’s had no right to know that truth and the Jews had a right to conceal it—an obligation even. So it wasn’t wrong. Lying is always wrong and that wasn’t wrong, so that wasn’t a lie. If I “steal” a piece of bread to feed my starving family, the situation doesn’t change stealing from right to wrong but it does sometimes change “taking” from stealing to not stealing. This is application. This, to me, is the crux between absolutism and relativism. The relativist would say that “taking” was a theft but sometimes theft is good. Sometimes lying is good.

Some will say that I am resorting to semantics or labeling. That is, all I’m doing is putting a label on a particular act. “This is a lie,” “This isn’t a lie.” But I assure you it is much deeper than that.

Again, there are three things that make an act good or bad: the situation, the motive and the act itself. How, when and where you do an act—the situation, counts. Why you do it—the motive counts. But what you do counts most of all. You can’t isolate these. Some deeds can’t come from from good motives—like rape—the deed itself is intrinsically evil (a principle?) and some motives naturally produce good deeds: love produces philanthropy.

Again, some may say, the situation can change a moral absolute, hence “situational ethics”. For example, “doing the right thing” in the wrong situation changes it to “doing the wrong thing.” Charity for instance. Giving money to the poor may be good, but not if the beggar is going to use it for drugs and OD and kill himself. In this instance, the situation changes the act from good to bad. If the intention or motive is to show off and not from real compassion for the poor, that is not good either.

Regardless, moral absolutes tell you what deeds are right and what deeds are wrong. In the case above, the deed is still right but the intention and situation are wrong. There first has to be deeds before they can be conditioned by different situations or motives. Hence, I would disagree with the relativist who says that morality is determined by situation and by motives. I would say that morality is partly determined but not wholly determined by those two factors. And as stated above if one of these goes wrong the whole thing falls.

So when Jesus the “real man, like us” in “concrete situations” is presented in antithesis to “abstract principle” that is “universally valid,” I find the dichotomy false. When I read about “Jesus the real man like us in concrete situations” I read about someone who had to deliberate and take all of this data into account and then live it.

Some would say that situations aren’t absolute. They’re relative. And intentions aren’t objective. They’re subjective. But I would say that situations are not subjective, but objective and intentions aren’t relative but universal and absolute—one must love, not hate, everyone, always. So even “situational ethics” is an objective ethics and even subjectivistic ethics—good motives—is universal and absolute ethics.

It may be that evey deed and every motive is embedded in some concrete situation and those situations are relative, but the principles aren’t. The very fact that one has to take the situation into account, the very fact that one has to apply the same principle differently to different situations—presupposes the validity of those principles rather than eliminating them or undermining them.

Really, it seems to me that B is an absolutist though he sounds relative. When I read,

”This person is "not fettered by principles, but bound by love for God."

and

“ B. denies that Christian ethics operates out of "universally valid" abstract ethical rules. Ethical principles are tools, but are not absolute.”

and

” The wise person, fixed on God, is aware of the limited receptiveness of reality for principles; for he knows that reality is not built upon principles but that it rests upon the living and creating God."

I see an absolutist. Hence Greg’s question,

“Where do these "concrete commands" and "instructions for which obedience is demanded" come from? They obviously aren’t "universally valid ethical principles." So, is he talking about "walking in the Spirit"? Is it God who communicates these commands to us? If so, if we disagreed about what God was commanding, would there be anyway to work toward agreement? Could this not be accused of being subjective, as well as situationally relative?

quote:

---

Do you agree with him that each of these approaches – and any approach that operates out of "the purity of abstract principles" will fail to grasp reality and will fail to be effective in confronting it?

---

No, I do not believe that to operate out of "the purity of abstract principles" will fail to grasp reality. Not unless "abstract principles" are not a part of reality. If they are a part of reality then we can grasp a part of reality and operate out of them. I guess you can tell that I am an absolutist to some extent huh? Yes, I believe that some would be justified that B is a precursor to "Situation Ethics" because situation ethics denies absolutes. B denies absolutes.

Let me also say that I ask that no one paint me as some arrogant, cold hearted intolerant monster. I have feelings too you know? My reasoning is this. Most religious people are humble because they know they are under God. But they are absolutists because their principles come from God. Their humility and their absolutism come from the same source. It is not an unusual combination at all. In fact it is inevitable. God, therefore absolutism. Under God, therfore humble.

That’s all for now.

Go Wings!!!

Just a little plug.


Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden

Edited by - BBBCanada on 06/10/2002 7:30:17 PM

From a Christian perspective, ethics is an ecclesial matter before it is a social matter. It is simply the shape of Christ being formed in us.

quote:

---

Theology in its authentic expression is the word of and about God. The more that theology is bound to the truth and to the vision of God, the more the word about God is true. . . .
It is precisely this position that reveals that the theology of the Church is one, and that there is no separation into neptic and social theology. All theology is simultaneously both neptic and social. . . .
The true work of theology is the healing of the person. A real theologian knows the problem and is able to cure it. And, certainly, the actual sickness itself is the darkening of the nous. Thus, the true theology is neptic, and the real theologian is in essence neptic, since he must recognize all the secrets of the spiritual struggle and have discernment, which has been cultivated as a result of his own spiritual journey to health. . . .
Hence, all of Orthodox theology is neptic, since it aims at man's cure. It cures man and liberates his nous from the tyranny of reason, of the environment and of the passions. This is accomplished by watchfulness and prayer. . . .
According to St. Maximos the Confessor, watchfulness keeps the nous clear of any tempting suggestion, whereas prayer brings rich grace into one's heart. . . .
Hesychasm is nothing else but the spiritual "method" through which the heart is cleansed so as to retain only the name of Christ within. . . .
And precisely this activity takes on, at the same time, social character, for, when man is treated, he becomes at once the most sociable of men. . . .

Accordingly, by establishing certain points it can be disclosed that the neptic man is the social man par excellence.

a) The greatest and most significant social act in the history of humanity, was accomplished by the Mother of God.

b) The person who is regenerated by divine grace becomes the most sociable being of all. A good example of this is the parable of the prodigal son, as interpreted by St. Gregory Palamas.

When our nous relies on God, we are in a good state. Yet, when we open the door to our passions, then our nous "spreads" itself around and wanders constantly in the direction of worldly things; various pleasures and impassionate thoughts. On our way it lures us away from true love, the love for God and love for our neighbour, and toward the desire for worthless things and the longing for vain glory. This is how love of pleasure, greed for money and ambition develops. Then, the person is taken ill, as St. Gregory Palamas expresses it, he becomes unhappy, and neither the sun's radiance nor the breathing in of fresh air, gives him pleasure.

The "prodigal" nous, i.e. estrangement from God, has consequences not only for the individual whose debasement has made him ill, but also for the whole society; for he becomes enraged and fights against his fellowmen because his unreasonable desires cannot be satisfied. He becomes homicidal and he comes to resemble a wild animal.
Therefore, when one's nous is estranged from God a person becomes anti-social, whereas when the nous returns within the heart from its dispersion and then ascends to God, he becomes all the more social. A cured person is the health of his community.

c) It follows that the person who is a bearer of Orthodox spirituality is inwardly integrated. He does not succumb to the tyranny of thoughts-logismoi.

Logismoi evolve into sin and passion. And passion is not only born of logismoi but also strengthened by them. It acquires powerful roots and afterwards a person experiences great difficulty in his own transformation. One's logismoi literally makes a person decay. They poison and defile the soul. Logismoi bring turmoil to the soul's faculties. The holy Fathers not only attribute a person's downfalls to logismoi but also describe the disturbances they cause in interpersonal relationships. Moreover many physical illnesses are caused by the unrestrained presence of logismoi. Beyond all of this, however, a man possessed by logismoi loses his candour and intimate communion with God.

Whoever follows the path of cure properly is freed from logismoi; he becomes inwardly balanced and behaves normally. He neither torments himself nor others. This is very significant for if we observe people who are psychologically imbalanced, we can see clearly that they are possessed by fixed ideas and patterns of thought and are unable to free themselves from them.

d) Neptic life is social life; and it is in fact social life par excellence, because it helps a person to reclaim the natural faculties of his soul and to function, from this point on, "according to nature" (i.e. as God intended).

In the teachings of the holy Fathers passions are not outside forces which enter us and must thus be uprooted. Rather they are energies of the soul which have been distorted and need to be transformed.

A person's soul as far as the passions are concerned is divided into three faculties: the intelligent (reasoning), the appetitive (desire) and the irascible (affective). These three faculties must be directed toward God. When they turn away from Him and others, they become known as passions. For this reason, passion is movement of the soul contrary to nature.

e) One of the greatest existential, as well as social problems is death. It afflicts everyone by its very existence or when it touches our loved one. Death is terrible for man, because it disrupts the unity between soul and body and the union among beloved persons. It is the source of sin. Not only is it the offspring of sin but it also causes sin.

The Christian, however, who lives the ascetic and sacramental life of Orthodox spirituality, overcomes mortality. Through Baptism and holy Communion he moves beyond his biological existence and acquires the well-known spiritual hypostasis. He has communion with the Saints and is well aware of the existence of the Church triumphant, and that death has been abolished by the resurrection of Christ. He knows that there is also another life into which he will enter to live eternally in the love of God, beyond mortality and decay. He also knows that the bodies will be resurrected.

f) The healed and healthy person also cultivates all other cultural values.

...cultural legacy -an offspring of their own sanctified personality: magnificent churches, monastic institutions, renowned in their time as well as in ours, iconography not easily reproduced by the contemporaries, superb hymnography of exquisite literary value, in addition to their deep faith and devotion; music appreciated by the great musicologists of our times. The person who is spiritually healthy produces "healthy" works -the fruits of his own regeneration.

g) Because the bearer of Orthodox spirituality loves God and understands, through his illumined nous the causes of beings, in other words he sees the uncreated energy of God in all creation, he treats nature and all the world properly.

---

quote:

---

You mean Bon would have his own SECTION? Fine by me. (

Doc

---

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 6/30/2007 10:00:06 AM (GMT-5)

Go Wings!!!

quote:

---

Doc: I’ve heard Bon charged with situational and/or relativistic ethics throughout the years, but I have to confess that I don’t see it – at all. That fact that he holds that Christ is taking form in history through his people – THE Christ, truly existing – itself means he’s not a relativist.

---

My problem though is this. How do we justify pitting Christ and Christian ethics against each other as if they are some how opposed or antithetical to each other? The bane of modern theology. Ugh...

Certainly, I agree with the first part when you say,

quote:

---

For Bon, as I understand him, we are to "walk in the Spirit," not in "the law." We are to live out of union with Christ, and not out of our knowledge of good and evil.

---

However, when combining the first and second part of your quote together, I begin to have reservations. There is such a element in scripture (New Testament) known as "the law of Christ." That is, there is some external standard or authority which finds it's roots in the Old Testament messianic thought that there would come a "New Torah" as well as someone "like unto Moses." I will be develling (sp?) into this. Hoping to put this up within the next couple of days or so. So please, pleeeease be patient with me, Master Jedi.

quote:

---

Here’s a question for you (and others) BBB. If how we should apply principles or standards is "flexible," as you agree, what inflexible principle stipulates how the principles or standards flex from situation to situation? Some argue for "graded absolutism" – the idea that we can "grade" absolutes in a hierarchy which will tell us what to do. (Hence, the command to preserve human life takes precedence over the command not to lie). But I wonder how people know how to GRADE their principles.

---

This is the same question that I asked above with my statement about Grenz. But I think it is also tied very closely to your question of intuition as you put down further.

Ahhh...the law of God written on the hearts of man. Awesome, awesome stuff. There is no doubt that people "intuit" about ethics. But ultimately even those intuitions, as I see them, are grounded in God's nature as expressed through his revelation to us the Bible. Intuiting about something doesn't make it any less objective. For me the question is not really a question of intuition (this is the same objection that many atheists use for the case against the existence of God by the way) but about where they are grounded.

And you want to hear about problems? I have a problem with many theologians who start out with universal methodic doubt. Why don't we start out with universal methodic faith? That is, one starts out with a claim and then you examine this claim to find if it is wanting or not? Why not treat ideas like people? That is, innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty until proven innocent?

This doesn't make the methods describe above, self-evidently wrong. But it seems to me that although skepticism may be practically productive, as a beginning, as a method, it is self-destructive and self-contradictory as an end philosophy. Later...

Brandon
"We must love one another or die."--W.H. Auden

quote:

---

It seems it all goes back to a living principle which people INTUIT – or not. And if they don’t, there’s simple no way to settle an ethical issue. This is why I am suspicious of all claims to objectivity on the part of ethicists. So far as I can see, everything is rooted in intuition – and what we call "objective" ethics really just describes our intuitions.

---