RELATIVISTIC TELEOLOGICAL ABSOLUTE AGAPE A MIDDLE POSITION THREE

  • Slides: 21
Download presentation

RELATIVISTIC TELEOLOGICAL ABSOLUTE AGAPE A MIDDLE POSITION

RELATIVISTIC TELEOLOGICAL ABSOLUTE AGAPE A MIDDLE POSITION

THREE CHOICES ABSOLUTE • LEGALISTIC • DEONTOLOGICAL • NO EXCEPTIONS • KANT SITUATIONAL •

THREE CHOICES ABSOLUTE • LEGALISTIC • DEONTOLOGICAL • NO EXCEPTIONS • KANT SITUATIONAL • ONE ABSOLUTE (AGAPE) • RELATIVISTIC • CONSEQUENTIAIST ANTINOMIAN • TOTAL AUTONOMY • NO RULES • NO ABSOLUTES

ST LOUIS CABBIE

ST LOUIS CABBIE

AGAPE • UNCONDITIONAL LOVE (1 JOHN 4: 16, 21) • DERIVED FROM HESED IN

AGAPE • UNCONDITIONAL LOVE (1 JOHN 4: 16, 21) • DERIVED FROM HESED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT (EXODUS 34: 6) • INCARNATED IN JESUS CHRIST (JOHN 1: 14) • AN ACT OF WILL OR DISPOSITION

AGAPE – “… goodwill at work in partnership with reason” in seeking the “neighbour’s

AGAPE – “… goodwill at work in partnership with reason” in seeking the “neighbour’s best interest with a careful eye to all the factors in a situation”. (Link with Peter Singer’s Utilitarianism)

FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES • PRAGMATISM • RELATIVISM • POSITIVISM • PERSONALISM

FOUR WORKING PRINCIPLES • PRAGMATISM • RELATIVISM • POSITIVISM • PERSONALISM

PRAGMATISM FOR A COURSE OF ACTION TO BE RIGHT IT HAS TO BE PRACTICAL

PRAGMATISM FOR A COURSE OF ACTION TO BE RIGHT IT HAS TO BE PRACTICAL “TO BE CORRECT OR RIGHT A THOUGHT OR ACTION MUST WORK” (P. 42)

RELATIVISM RULES DON’T ALWAYS APPLY NB “IT RELATIVISES THE ABSOLUTE, IT DOES NOT ABSOLUTISE

RELATIVISM RULES DON’T ALWAYS APPLY NB “IT RELATIVISES THE ABSOLUTE, IT DOES NOT ABSOLUTISE THE RELATIVE” SO SCRUTON’S CRITICISM SHOULDN’T APPLY “IN ASSERTING THAT RELATIVISM IS TRUE FOR HIM, THE RELATIVIST ASSERTS THAT IT IS TRUE FOR HIM ABSOLUTELY. HE IS COMMITTED TO ABSOLUTE TRUTH BY THE VERY PRACTICE OF ASSERTION. ” (MODERN PHILOSOPHY P. 33)

POSITIVISM YOU HAVE TO START WITH A POSITIVE CHOICE…FAITH COMES BEFORE REASON “ONLY LOVE

POSITIVISM YOU HAVE TO START WITH A POSITIVE CHOICE…FAITH COMES BEFORE REASON “ONLY LOVE IS CONSTANT, EVERYTHING ELSE IS VARIABLE” (P. 45)

PERSONALISM PEOPLE FIRST “THE LEGALIST IS A WHAT ASKER (WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

PERSONALISM PEOPLE FIRST “THE LEGALIST IS A WHAT ASKER (WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY? ); THE SITUATIONIST IS A WHO ASKER (WHO IS TO BE HELPED? ) (P. 50) “KANT’S SECOND MAXIM HOLDS; TREAT PERSONS AS ENDS, NEVER AS MEANS. ” (P. 51)

LOVE ONLY IS ALWAYS GOOD “ONLY ONE ‘THING’ IS INTRINSICALLY GOOD; NAMELY, LOVE: NOTHING

LOVE ONLY IS ALWAYS GOOD “ONLY ONE ‘THING’ IS INTRINSICALLY GOOD; NAMELY, LOVE: NOTHING ELSE AT ALL” LOVE IS INTRINSICALLY VALUABLE. LOVE IS GOOD. NOTHING ELSE HAS INTRINSIC VALUE. IT GAINS IT BECAUSE IT HAPPENS TO HELP PEOPLE. A LIE IS NOT INTRINSICALLY WRONG. IT IS ONLY WRONG IF IT HARMS PEOPLE. IT MAY SOMETIMES BE RIGHT. “FOR THE SITUATIONIST, WHAT MAKES THE LIE RIGHT IS ITS LOVING PURPOSE”.

LOVE IS THE ONLY NORM (RULE) “THE RULING NORM OF CHRISTAIN DESCISION IS LOVE:

LOVE IS THE ONLY NORM (RULE) “THE RULING NORM OF CHRISTAIN DESCISION IS LOVE: NOTHING ELSE. ” LOVE REPLACES THE LAW SHOULD ONLY BE OBEYED FOR LAWS SAKE. FLETCHER REJECTS NATURAL LAW. “THERE ARE NO (NATURAL) UNIVERSAL LAWS HELD BY ALL MEN EVERYWHERE AT ALL TIMES”. LOVE IS THE ONLY LAW. UNFORTUNATELY THIS ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL TO DO ANYTHING IN THE NAME OF LOVE.

LOVE AND JUSTICE ARE THE SAME “LOVE AND JUSTICE ARE THE SAME, FOR JUSTICE

LOVE AND JUSTICE ARE THE SAME “LOVE AND JUSTICE ARE THE SAME, FOR JUSTICE IS LOVE DISTRIBUTED, NOTHING ELSE” THE INJUSTICE E. G. OF STARVING CHILDREN IN AFRICA IS DUE TO LACK OF LOVE BY THE FOOD RICH WEST.

LOVE IS NOT LIKING “LOVE WILLS THE NEIGHBOURS GOOD, WHETHER WE LIKE HIM OR

LOVE IS NOT LIKING “LOVE WILLS THE NEIGHBOURS GOOD, WHETHER WE LIKE HIM OR NOT. ” MARTIN LUTHER KING’S NON-VIOLENT RESISTANCE TO SEGREGATION WAS BASED ON AGAPE. ‘A CREATIVE, REDEMPTIVE GOOD WILL TO ALL MEN. ’ IT IS NONSENSE TO LIKE THE UNJUST OPPRESSOR (AS IN BURMA). BUT ACCORDING TO KING WE ARE TO LOVE HIM/HER.

LOVE JUSTIFIES THE MEANS “ONLY THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS; NOTHING ELSE” IF AN

LOVE JUSTIFIES THE MEANS “ONLY THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS; NOTHING ELSE” IF AN ACTION CAUSES HARM IT IS WRONG. IF GOOD COMES FROM IT, IT IS RIGHT. E. G. DIETRICH BONHOEFFER WAS A GERMAN PASTOR WHO JOINED THE RESISTANCE AGAINST HITLER. HE JUSTIFIED LYING AND ASSASSINATION, BY ARGUING THAT THE END JUSTIFIED THE MEANS.

LOVE DECIDES THERE AND THEN “LOVES DESCISIONS ARE MADE SITUATIONALLY NOT PRESCRIPTIVELY” WE MAY

LOVE DECIDES THERE AND THEN “LOVES DESCISIONS ARE MADE SITUATIONALLY NOT PRESCRIPTIVELY” WE MAY MAKE MISTAKES IN WHICH CASE WE ARE TO SIN BRAVELY (MARTIN LUTHER) E. G. IN 1841 THE WILLIAM BROWN STRUCK AN ICEBERG, ONE LIFE BOAT HAD TWICE THE RECOMMENDED NUMBER OF PASSENGERS. THE MATE ORDERED THE MEN TO BE THROWN INTO THE SEA. FLETCHER ARGUES THAT HE WAS ‘BRAVELY SINFUL, IT WAS A GOOD THING’. P. 136

AN EXAMPLE ON AUGUST THE SIXTH 1945 THE ENOLA GAY FLEW TO JAPAN TO

AN EXAMPLE ON AUGUST THE SIXTH 1945 THE ENOLA GAY FLEW TO JAPAN TO DROP THE FIRST ATOM BOMB ON HIROSHIMA. WHEN HE SAW THE MUSHROOM CLOUD, CAPTAIN LEWIS SAID ‘MY GOD, WHAT HAVE WE DONE’. NAGASAKI FOLLOWED THREE DAYS LATER. 152, 000 JAPANESE PEOPLE DIED. TRUMAN WAS UNCERTAIN AND APPOINTED A SPECIAL COMMITTEE BEFORE THE DECISION. SOME ARGUED FOR A WARNING DROP, OTHERS FOR A VERBAL WARNING, THE MILITARY AND SCIENTISTS WERE SPLIT. WHO WAS RIGHT?

FRANCK REPORT 1945 • We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear

FRANCK REPORT 1945 • We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER • "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious

DWIGHT EISENHOWER • "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude. . . " • - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380