 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 6:12 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Yes. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it . And that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass away. But as Christians, and Gentiles, we are not subject to that law. Even Orthodox Jews today say that Gentiles are subject only to the Noahdic covenant. Christians have adopted the 10 commandments as their own, but only, I would assert, b/c they are common sense, not many religions disagree with them....but how many Christians do you know who keep kosher? Who follow the Levitican laws? It's pretty disingenuous to say that Christians who are Gentiles are supposed to be following the Old Testament law - which is specific to God's chosen people - the Jews...in the New Testament, we have Paul talking about the law, but again, he was Jewish, as was Peter, as were all the first Christians - and once non-Jews (Gentiles) such as some Greeks, etc., started becoming Christians, it was clear that they didn't have to follow the Jewish law. Paul said that very clearly. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/12/2003 7:36 PM (GMT -6) | | I believe love calls us to the highest ethical standard and as a true lover we cannot but be ethical. I think people who say we are not called to an ethical standard but to love simply do not understand the nature of love.
Love seeks the greatest good for the individual loved and one cannot help be ethical when doing that.
God is the highest ethical being because he is the greatest lover, not inspite of it.
I would ask how one could possibly love another well unless one has a well-defined sense of right and wrong? | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/12/2003 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | RD: there is a great difference bewteen the ceremorial laws God gave to the Israelities, which the church was never called to follow and the moral laws which are written on a person's heart and, which, btw, our country is founded upon. Think about it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 8/12/2003 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Yes, but I"ve already covered that under the laws of Noah which apply to Gentiles. Those laws deal with morality, not ritual:
The torah prescribes a righteous path for gentiles to follow, known as the "Seven Laws of Noah." Maimonides explains that any gentile who faithfully observes these basic moral laws earns a Beautiful place in heaven in the world to come.
no conversion necessary
1) To establish courts of justice;
2) Not to commit blasphemy;
3) Not to commit idolatry;
4) Not to commit incest;
5) Not to commit bloodshed;
6) Not to commit robbery;
7) Don't eat live flesh from animal.
Genesis Ch. 9,
Recorded and classified by Maimonides
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 8/13/2003 1:11 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/18/2003 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | I need to say a few words first. This is actually a response to another thread that I never got around to putting up. The first quote is by RD and it is to her that I dedicate this post.  Second, keep this in mind, as it turns out, some names are in conjunction with that thread. Lastly, this information is taken from the work of Grenz (and a couple of other ones) who is quickly becoming one of my favorite authors. Anyhoo, let's go from here.
quote:
The more posts I read on this topic the more confused I get.
Right. Let’s see if I can confuse you more.  I think part of the problem with this thread is that there has been no agreed upon definitions. So just let me blab. 
Ethics-comes from the Greek word “ethica,” which comes from “ethos” meaning “relates to character.” Aristotle suggested that it means “custom,” “habit.” Ethics can be the analysis of morality which includes descriptive, normative and meta-ethical levels.
Basically, people want to know which actions are right, which are wrong, which actions and institutions are just and which are unjust. People also want to know which goals are worthwhile and which are not. So ethics gets divided up into three major divisions:
Empirical-This is also known as “descriptive ethics.” It is the first level of ethical analysis. It involves a statement of what people actually believe and practice, yet makes no claim about the ethical normativness. Making THAT claim is reserved for second level ethics.
Normative Ethics-This is second level ethics. It is also called “prescriptive ethics.” It evaluates actions or virtues as being morally right or wrong. Within this ethics we can have judgments of “moral obligation.” That is to say that we could state what someone is morally oblige to do or be (specific situation) i.e. “Because your duties repeatedly require you to violate your personal standards, you really ought to resign your employment.” Or (general situation) “Honesty is the best policy.” Contrasted to this is “moral value.” They don’t declare what one should do or be, they merely express what we value, i.e. “My father was a good man.” We also have specific “non-moral obligation” i.e. “You should see, “The Matrix!” as well as more general ones, “When it’s fourth down and thirty-five yards to go, you ought to punt!” Lastly, we have “non-moral value.” For example, “I have a good car!” Regardless of the opinion of others, “I value this car. We may think that these and judgments of non-moral obligation have nothing to do with ethics. Yet judgments of a non-moral value nature are connected to what people consider to be “the good life.” And “the good life” is crucial in ethical decision making.
Analytical Ethics-Analytical is derived from “analyze” which means, “to take apart.” It explores the nature of morality itself. Questions may be, “What is the distinction between “moral” and “non-moral.” What do the words such as, “right,” “good,” and “ought,” mean? What does it mean to say that something is good? On what basis can I say that the judgment “X is good” is true? How are ethical judgments established or justified? For example, “On what basis can we say that the Holocaust was morally reprehensible?”
Most ethics is done within the realm of “normative ethics.” In this arena, ethics is concerned with what we should do. Many ethicists propose what is called an “ethic of doing.” They look for “boundary situations” that seem to present the decision-maker with no ethically justifiable course of action. This is sometimes called “casuistry.”
Now, within normative ethics, we have both what are called, “Deontological” and “Teleological” approaches.
Deontological Ethics-This is the view that grounds ethical norms intrinsically, not by looking to results only. The morality of the act resides entirely in the act. It is intrinsic and essential to the act. The morality of the act is in no way dependent on the intention or the motive of the doer.
A problem of the deontological approach is, “How can we know what aspect of the intrinsic nature of an act determines whether it is right or wrong? So in helping to overcome this problem we have what ethicists called, “act-deontologism” or “rule deontologism.” Basically, this theory declares that certain rules or principles determine the rightness or wrongness of moral acts. Many Christians embrace rule deontologism. That is, they find rules in the pages of the Bible. The thing is, one need not look to the Bible to follow rule deontologism. Some philosophers insist that we can use human reason for determining the rules that ought to govern our conduct. But the problem with rule deontologism is the question of how many rules ought to govern ethical actions. How many rules are found in Scripture or through human reason?
A response to this has been, “one rule.” That is labeled “principle monism.” Basically, and as a very, very, very short response, as Kant basically proposed, “Do your duty.” But this is precisely what critics have found to be the problem. We cannot always be sure what constitutes our duty. Many Christians have come along and have tried to improve on Kant with, “Do the loving thing.” Something that we have heard on these boards from Greg, and Iconoclast and a few others. Yet those who advocate this position are in no better of a position. Sometimes we don’t know what the loving thing to do is? Sometimes we need instruction, sometimes we need boundaries, both of which help us determine what it means to love.
Perhaps it can be found in “pluralistic deontologism.” Say, the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. The problem with this is, how should we act when two or more laws or moral principles are at odds with each other? Some ethicists say that these rules never conflict (non-conflicting absolutism). But most of us would admit that they do because we have experienced such situations.
Because we have rules that conflict, some ethicists pose “hierarchicalism” or “graded absolutism.” The problem with graded absolutism is this. Is this just not another way of saying, “disobey” or “violate?” And if under the circumstances a rule can be “suspended” (read “disobeyed”), then in what sense can we speak of it as an ethical NORM?
So because we have these difficulties, then why not try the other approach—the teleological approach. This is also a “pragmatic ethic.” The assumption is that the only ground of moral obligation is the good produced or the evil prevented. The goal of the conduct is to produce the greatest balance of good over evil.
But the problem with this approach is this. The greatest good over evil for whom? Whose good should I seek to advance? Our response could be, “You” (ethical egoism). As Christians, we MIGHT have a problem with this. But many who are ethical egotists live respectable lives. They are not simply “live-for-the-moment” kind of people. As a matter of fact, many have long term interests because they know that ultimately it will bring about the greatest balance of good over evil in the long term for their lives. They may even respond to the Gospel because this insures the greatest balance of good over evil in their lives. In all due respect for the Christian faith, ethical egoism may prove to be compatible with Christian teaching because of its concerns for future rewards and punishments.
Question: Isn’t this similar to doing the loving thing because it leads “toward life?” That is to say, it leads to the greatest good over evil?
Regardless, the problem with ethical egoism though, is this. Our chief consideration in life should not be to make sure that our actions do not bring this sort of balance for ourselves. Because in so doing, it leads us to use people as a means to our own ends—“I’ll help you because in some way it will help me.”
Then we have “Utilitarianism.” One ought to act to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. That is, actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Something is right or wrong depending on the degree to which it is useful or harmful. It does sound “Christian.” The problem with this view is the loss of justice for the individual. Suppose that we could increase happiness of ten men by taking away all happiness from one of them, would it be right to do so?
Because of this problem, some ethicists have reintroduced deontological interest in rules into this basically teleological theory. What do we have then? Rule utilitarianism. The question is not which act, but which rule has the greatest utility. Rules are obeyed because they indicate which acts have the greater utility, NOT because they are intrinsically right.
Overall, the problem with all teleological theories is that they are dependent on our ability to anticipate the results of our actions. Sure we can predict with some accuracy much of the good that will come from our actions. But as critics point out, can we anticipate ALL that will result from our actions? How can we forecast the future? Do we really know what balance of good over evil will ensue from our moral choices?
Sidebar: By the way, this is part of the problem that I have concerning “impact” on others. The person that is being impacted may think that the impact that someone is having on them is “towards life.” But in reality, it is very possible that damage may be done in other areas. Hence, we need something more than merely “impact.”[/End Sidebar]
Another problem with both deontological and teleological theories of obligation is this. If we are to do those acts which result in a greater balance in good over evil, then we must determine what “good” means. When we say something is good, that means we place value on it. This brings up the question of “the good life.” What ought we to value and hence call “good?”
So, on to values!
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Value—Some things are valued and disvalued not for themselves but because of their relationship to some value external to them. For example, “I value my car because it is reliable and affordable.” This is extrinsic value. When we value something that is intrinsic to it, then we are said value something intrinsically. That is, it is valued for something for itself and not for its effects. Judgments about extrinsic value are based on other judgments about intrinsic value. That is to say, all discussions will eventually arrive at the question of intrinsic value.
Coming to a consensus about what has intrinsic value has not been all that successful. Some will say that pleasure is something that has intrinsic value, that is “hedonism.” Hedonism says that pleasure is good for its own sake and pain is always bad. Second, pleasure is only good for its own sake and pain is the only thing intrinsically bad. We think of the “party-animal” who is sold out to debauchery. But this need not be the stereotype that we draw from it. Hedonists can even be law-abiding citizens. There can even be Christian hedonists who believe that a life of devotion brings pleasure.
Some ethicists have focused on actions so much that it has left us wondering if there is a more crucial aspect to ethics. Maybe the focus should lie not on us DOING but on us BEING. Of course, we have to deal with questions of attitudes and motivations (something John Earp points out).
For example, say a man has been committed in his marriage of 37 years. One night in another city he has a “sexual encounter.” Question. Is this man an adulterer? If you hold to rule deontologism, you would say that the man violated Ex 20:14. But say we ask about this person’s character. Instead of “Is this man an adulterer?” we may ask, “Is this man a faithful or unfaithful spouse?” We may think that one act does not make or determine his character. That is to say, that he is a faithful husband who on one occasion acted against his character and against the virtue of faithfulness that he had cultivated.
An ethic of being doesn’t ignore conduct, but it places conduct as secondary to character. That is, they are derived from motives, traits or virtues of moral agents. Even this approach though, is not without its problems. That is, they differ as to how to judge traits.
Trait deontologism-Certain character traits are intrinsically good. We are duty bound to develop these traits.
Trait teleologism-These traits are measured by their results. Therefore, one should develop those traits that produce good rather than evil effects. We may ask, “Whose good?” and the answer will be the same, “Your own.” We end up with “trait egoism.” Basic moral virtue is careful concern for your own good. Others will say that “trait utilitarianism” is the basic desire to promote for the common good.
Whether we prefer doing or being in normative ethics, the one question that gets raised is: “What is the ultimate foundation for morality?” And in the end we are really asking one important question-“What is the good life?”
In the end our conception of ethical living is connected to our perspective on the good life. For example, in teleological ethics we are told that we should do those acts or cultivate those traits that promote the good as we understand it. This is also true of deontological ethics, because in doing so one will learn the proper way to live as these ethicists understand it. Doing what is right or being characterized by the right is not the “right” way of living, it fulfills one’s vision of the good life and the good life is the life of obedience to one’s duty.
As I have stated above, there is also the branch of study called, “Analytical ethics.” We may ask, “What is the foundation for ethical judgments?” There are usually three major responses. These three are naturalism, intuitionism and non-cognitivism.
Naturalism—Basically, one assumes a connection between ethical judgments and that which “is.” One may be able to empirically verify these propositions, i.e. what is good is what most people, favor or admire or approve of. Therefore, one may be able to appeal to “universal principles of obligation” for they are “lodged” within the very nature of the human psyche and universe.
Sidebar again! I suspect that this, and principle monism are what Greg and Iconoclast don’t like.End sidebar
In naturalism there is what is called, “Teleological naturalism.” It says that everything is endowed with an innate tendency to grow toward its own ideal, which it therefore possesses in “embryonic” form. The problem with ethical naturalism is what is called “the naturalistic fallacy.” That is, ethical naturalism moves from what is to what is good and hence what ought to be. For example, “Snow is white” does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is good that snow is white or to the judgment, “Snow ought to be white.”
Another problem with ethical naturalism is specifically a Christian one. That is, the world is not what it ought to be. It is fallen. Consequently, what may appear to be natural may also be wrong. Naturalism is a favorite of Christians even though it has this mega flaw in it. For example, Christians on both sides of the homosexuality debate have used ethical naturalism to defend their positions.
Then we have “meta-physical moralism.” This view says that what is right is what is commanded by God. Now the question that is raised here (done so by RD) is this: Is something right because God commands it? Or does God command something because it is right? If we go with the first option then we risk making God into some kind of capricious despot. Therefore, even if what God demands violates our sense of what is right, God is still right well, because he is God. The big kid on the block. The other option is unacceptable, because then we are saying that there is a standard outside of God that he must conform to. And to do so, is basically tantamount to denying God as a sovereign deity. A response that I adhere to appeals to God’s nature. God is love, and so, we should love as well.
Well then, there is another alternative. It is called “Intuitionism.” Terms such as “good” are names of objects or qualities observable by intuition, rather than by sense perception or scientific observation. That is, we know ethical truth by direct intuition rather than deductive reasoning. In a shell, ethical truth is self-evident. Though intuitionists point to the reason in their approach to ethics, there is something different between “intuitive reasoning” and “reason.” Reason involves, step by step processes of moving from premises to conclusions. Intuitive reasoning recognizes truth without the aid of step by step processes. That is that some truth arises from another truth. It is self-evident.
Again, as with the other proposals, the problem with this approach is that though rational intuition may be powerful, the question arises as to what we can know through intuitive reasoning. Some will say “goodness” is something that we can know. Though the Plato believed in “eternal forms” that are metaphysical in nature, some moderns say it (goodness) resides in human experience. Though it is something simple like the color yellow, we know that something is good just by “seeing” it. If someone were to disagree with us, all we could do is say, “look again.” But this way of doing ethics is not concerned with defining goodness. Ethics would be concerned with, What is right? What is my duty? What should I do? Statements about what is right are derived from direct perception of goodness. “Right,” translated, means “cause of a good result” or what is “useful.”
Other intuitionists say that not only “goodness” but “rightness” is apprehended through direct intuition. That is, that some acts we know are right without thinking about the good it brings about. We see rightness or wrongness in certain acts. We will know if an act “fits” the specific situation. Though one needs to know certain facts of the situation, ultimately, one simply “sees” what moral judgment is proper.
Noncognitivism-this theory says that ethical judgments may not be objective observations at all. They say nothing as either true or false. If a statement asserts or denies something that is objectively true or false about an object in the universe it be can be meaningful because then it can be compared to reality. For example, if I say, “There is a pack of gum on the desk in front of me” we can discover whether that is true or not. This is not an ethical judgment. It neither asserts nor denies objective fact. Now if I say, “Saving that old gramma from the fire was a noble thing to do” I have not be said anything objective and hence, I have not said anything true about rescuing in itself nor about the person doing the saving. According to the non-cognitivist, these statements carry emotional meaning. They would be like, “Yaaaay!” or “Bah-humbug.” Therefore, noncognitivism is sometimes labeled “emotivism.”
But it should be realized that this is NOT subjectivism, because according to emotivists ethical statements are expressions of feelings, etc, rather than revealing the psychological experiences or states. The extreme position says that ethical statements are nothing more than forceful expressions of the speaker’s emotions.
Some emotivists say that there is an implicit command in every ethical statement calling the audience to adopt the same attitude. These statements are made such that they will arouse emotions and stimulate to action. Others will say that ethical statements are descriptive in nature for they indicate the presence of the attitude of the speaker. The purpose is to not merely command but to evoke approval or disapproval in the audience.
Prescriptivism—ethical judgments in this view are personal evaluations, prescription, etc. Obviously they are subjective, but they are more than this for they carry descriptive force. That is the prescriptivist will appeal to something that is “there” which provides the reasoning behind why an act was committed.
Pluralism takes this further. It realizes that one’s viewpoint is influenced by one’s point of reference, where one was raised, life experiences, etc. Therefore others will not share what I believe and therefore their evaluation will be different than my own.
Another question that gets raised is, what if our searching for morality is harmful itself?
Philosophical Justification—this view focuses on life as a whole which asks what is the highest good of human existence. It is the link between ethics and the “what is the highest good” or “life worth living” that suggest why one might be moral. The importance of harmonious social interaction is usually laid out. This would lead one to construct personal morality on an ethics of sociality. That is, we participate in something larger than ourselves and therefore we have certain obligations, etc. This only raises the question of why we should be concerned about the well-being of society. The answer suggest that if we want to pursue the good life, then social cohesion (well-functioning society) is what is necessary.
This leads to a teleological approach, “We should be ethical because living this way produces something good.” In turn this leads to the “self” as the foundation of ethics. That is, acting ethically will be to my benefit. This goes back to human reason. That is, living ethically “fits” with who we are as humans. Live ethically because it is rational. Be rational because, well…there need be no reasons. One is wholly justified in committing themselves to rationalism. That is to know that you are rational is to have all the reasons. To rationally choose one life over another which must be fully known for the choice to be enlightened is the most reasonable, least arbitrary, and founded upon the best decision.
Now, this takes us back to who we are. Asking, “What is the good life?” is a personal question. What does one consider to be the good life? What is the telos that motivates me and my pursuits? That is, what is the vision of the good life that lies at the end of my journey? Living ethically means living in accordance with human reason. We end up with ourselves as the starting point. By leaving us in this place it may point us to something beyond ourselves. That is, can there be a transcendent vantage point to speak to us on our ethical journey? A religious vision will point us to something beyond ourselves to something greater than the now and in the end may be our justification.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiress
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363
| Posted 8/18/2003 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Jesus was way nebulous quite often....
Mat 22:36-40 Master, which [is] the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I sometimes wish Jesus left us with a complete ethical code...something more comprehensive than the 10 commandments for instance. But then my reasoning says that if we truly loved God and our neighbor that much, the rest would fall into place. We may, however, have to think about what the best way is to love someone in any given situation...and that might be called "ethics"...but it doesn't matter what we call it as long as we live it to the best of our ability.
Peace,
~e
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/19/2003 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Empiress,
Wonderful post, yours is (the one just above mine here)!
And so ...
God has deliberately left us in the Nebulous. The doors of the 10 Commandments are visual, the foundational Generals, but we forage for entrance into the doors of Specifics, the appropriate transitory ethic. It seems thre are either fewer doors than necessary to accomodate the specifics or the darkeness of the Nebulous is too great.
Hasn't God rectified our darkness in view of the work of the Christ on the Cross? Do we not walk in perfect and brilliant light in which to find all the appropriate doors for the Ethical Moment? No, not if by walking in light we mean that we have a tool to wield seperate from the Light Giver; we do not. What we have is the Giver of Light as the Light Himself. We have a connection to and an understanding of Light, of Him; we have Love. And yet, we still forage for the many Ethic doors, do we not?
The dualities are intimate but nevertheless seperated: God and man; the heart of God, the heart of man; the light of God, the darkness of man. It is in between and in the middle of these dualities in which God submits our benefit to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; to walk in His light (love) and to trust it to illumine what we still do not see; the Ethic Specific. Amazing. For all His light, there is still much darkness. We are asked to ground ourselves in love and then let that flow in human uncertainty. Hmm! We are in an arena in which we were never supposed to be: for in the day that you eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you shall die. Indeed, we died! And though we are again alive in Christ, we are still blind. And, as I said, this blindness is the context in which God uses for our benefit. Certainty and uncertainty!
As Empiress said, "... my reasoning says that if we truly loved God and our neighbor that much, the rest would fall into place. We may, however, have to think about what the best way is to love someone in any given situation...and that might be called "ethics"...but it doesn't matter what we call it as long as we live it to the best of our ability."
May we abide more in His light ... in His love, and come to see more clearly in our new life.
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|