3 ms·

Rethinking "Christian ethics" in terms of Aristotelian ethics

1 points by jackpirate 14y ago

krapp 14y ago
I don't see how this proves the premise that 'radical christian' ethics are unique compared to non-christian or, presumably, non-radical christian ethics. In my opinion, this seems to undermine its own validity by invoking the ideals of a pagan philosopher to express the idea. edit: sorry, just realized it might not be your site being linked to so I rephrased my comment.
- jackpirate 14y ago
  Well it's not trying to "prove" that radical Christian ethics are different so much as just giving an example of a different thought process. I actually think the fact that it can be expressed in terms of a pagan philosopher strengthens the argument.
  - krapp 14y ago
    But isn't it no longer Christian if you do? Where is the Biblical principle that "virtue is the mean between two vices?" And if you can adequately frame radical Christian ethics this way, doesn't it suggest that the ethics themselves are not Christian but human, and aside from the particular cultural and mythopoeic trappings of radical christianity, not even really fundamentally different? If so, different from what, and to what value? Let me use as an example the dilemma stated in the article, and the conclusion reached using the "radical Christian" metric: This leads us to our second option: redefining which spectrum of vices and virtues we use. Let’s imagine the classic thought experiment against pacifism: Someone is attacking your grandmother; do you fight the attacker or do nothing? By the standard metric above, only a coward would not fight. The courageous man—the virtuous and ethical man—would clearly fight. But I make decisions based on a different metric. On the one hand, I weigh my responsibility to the victim, and on the other hand I weigh my responsibility to the perpetrator. The virtuous person under this schema is the one who is able to treat both of them with perfect love; the vices are excessively favoring one side at the expense of the other. That is, the virtuous man intervenes but in a nonviolent way to stop the attack. Surely the thesis can't be that only a 'radical Christian' would be able to adopt this point of view? The final paragraph says "radical Christians tend to adopt this perspective" but where is the evidence that non-radical Christians of a pacifist nature tend not to? The provided charts don't really cut it.

1 points by jackpirate 14y ago

krapp 14y ago

I don't see how this proves the premise that 'radical christian' ethics are unique compared to non-christian or, presumably, non-radical christian ethics. In my opinion, this seems to undermine its own validity by invoking the ideals of a pagan philosopher to express the idea. edit: sorry, just realized it might not be your site being linked to so I rephrased my comment.

jackpirate 14y ago
Well it's not trying to "prove" that radical Christian ethics are different so much as just giving an example of a different thought process. I actually think the fact that it can be expressed in terms of a pagan philosopher strengthens the argument.
- krapp 14y ago
  But isn't it no longer Christian if you do? Where is the Biblical principle that "virtue is the mean between two vices?" And if you can adequately frame radical Christian ethics this way, doesn't it suggest that the ethics themselves are not Christian but human, and aside from the particular cultural and mythopoeic trappings of radical christianity, not even really fundamentally different? If so, different from what, and to what value? Let me use as an example the dilemma stated in the article, and the conclusion reached using the "radical Christian" metric: This leads us to our second option: redefining which spectrum of vices and virtues we use. Let’s imagine the classic thought experiment against pacifism: Someone is attacking your grandmother; do you fight the attacker or do nothing? By the standard metric above, only a coward would not fight. The courageous man—the virtuous and ethical man—would clearly fight. But I make decisions based on a different metric. On the one hand, I weigh my responsibility to the victim, and on the other hand I weigh my responsibility to the perpetrator. The virtuous person under this schema is the one who is able to treat both of them with perfect love; the vices are excessively favoring one side at the expense of the other. That is, the virtuous man intervenes but in a nonviolent way to stop the attack. Surely the thesis can't be that only a 'radical Christian' would be able to adopt this point of view? The final paragraph says "radical Christians tend to adopt this perspective" but where is the evidence that non-radical Christians of a pacifist nature tend not to? The provided charts don't really cut it.