An Insight (Not the Car)
In the discussions following my ethics post on SCO, I finally realized (comment #17):
You are not arguing for traditional conservative morality, you are arguing for Kantian (moral absolute) deontology. I don’t think Christian meta-ethics are either deontological or teleogical … or absolutist. I think, if pressed, I’d define Christian ethics is pneumatological … but that just occurred to me so I’m going to have to think that through in my next essay.
Modern ethics, wiki tells us, is divided today into deontological and teleological camps, or roughly speaking rule based ethics vs consequence based ethics with some variations. Christian ethics is neither. But then, what is it?
What does my claim that Christian ethics is pneumatological mean. That means, our ethical choices should be inspired by the Spirit (of God). St. Siluan (of St. Siluan the Athonite) suggests that this is, in part, accomplished by striving take first choice that springs unbidden to our mind as he believes that is, more often that not, is not from yourself but from the Spirit. Likely as well, one’s prayer life, ascetic struggle, and liturgical/sacramental participation play into that ability of the Spirit to influence you in this way. As well, Scripture and the traditions passed from the Fathers can be a guide for us … when we lack personal inspiration.
Filed under: Christianity • Ethics & Morality • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Before you keep assaulting straw men, I have never ever ever advocated “war” as the only solution. I fail to see how you might get that from me!
And you would be absolutely right, IF I had said that you had said that. I didn’t.
I said you believe in war-as-solution. Not “as-the-only-solution.” I’m just using that phrase to differentiate those like you from those like me who place a stronger emphasis on peacemaking and who view war as a failure of peacemaking.
What phrase or title would you like for me to assign your position? I’ll be glad to comply as long as it’s reasonably descriptive.
You are wrong that peace/aid is the only solution
I have not said that because I don’t believe it. Peace is a goal AND a method. Aid is one method. Discussion and debate is another. Holding people accountable, having clearly defined and followed rules, economic pressure, societal pressure, global pressure… these are all other methods.
As is – sometimes – defensive actions using police or military action. I’ve said that I have not ruled that out for truly defensive actions.
Finally, what do you advocate for dealing with Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, S. Africa, Nan King and, sadly, on and on? How many armies will it take to end the killing?
Dan,
What are you talking about? Are we talking about the same conflict? At what point would you suggest having done what things. Stop being so vague.
I’ve told you what I advocate for the “bottom billion”. Read that book. Really.
How do you suggest we resolve the violence in the world today? Rwanda? Congo? Sudan?
And I’ve said I’ll read your book if you’ll read mine (Ched Myers’ “Sabbath Economics”).
You’ll be getting the better end of the deal, most likely. Myers’ book is a booklet, probably 100 or so pages on the Bible and wealth and poverty (although, if you follow through and read all the scripture references, you’ll have a MUCH bigger job, because it is very heavy on biblical references).
Dan,
I only find “Binding the Strong Man” by Ched Myers via inter-library loan. Would that work?
contact me at my email paynehollow at yahoo with your address (if you feel comfortable doing so) and I will mail you a copy of Sab. Ec (gratis).
I’m quite sure that Strong Man is a great book (haven’t read it yet) on the topic of Biblical peacemaking, and you could surely be blessed by it, since we’re talking about economics, the Sab Ec book would make more sense.
I’m curious that you bring up the Collier book in this discussion – does it also deal with war-making? I thought it was a treatise on economics.
Our library has a copy that is due back this week. I’ll see if I can get a copy of it when it is in.
Dan,
The Bottom Billion, establishes the problem of the billion people held in poverty in this world, then enumerates the “traps” keeping them down and lists the remedies.
Military intervention in some circumstances is the best thing for a country. Just as are “aid is one method. Discussion and debate is another. Holding people accountable, having clearly defined and followed rules, economic pressure, societal pressure, global pressure… these are all other methods.” All of these methods have a best time to apply and can in fact in other situations be harmful.
Well, that is what I’ve stated. Although I’d probably refer to it as “military intervention in some circumstances can be the least worst thing on rare occasions.” or something like that.
If a people are being killed by their gov’t or by a rogue group of anti-gov’t guerrillas, there are no great answers. People are dying and will continue dying – whether we try to solve the problem with a military/police force or by other methods.
What’s important is having plans and systems in place for dealing with such problems – something which does not currently exist in an effective, consistent format.