Weevils are evil. They damage crops. That’s a natural evil. So weevildoers are evildoers.
Some weevils are more evil than others. They do more damage.
It’s evil to choose the lesser of two weevils. That makes me complicit in the evil deeds of the evil weevildoers—not to mention the weevil evildoers.
Therefore, if I have a choice between a lesser weevil exterminator and a greater weevil exterminator, it would be morally compromising of me to choose the lesser weevil exterminator over the greater weevil exterminator.
Likewise, unless a pesticide can kill lesser and greater weevils alike, it would me morally compromising of me to use any pesticide whatsoever.
Better to let the evil weevil infestation go unchecked than sully my hands by choosing the lesser of two weevils.
How about instead of making a choice FOR "the lesser of two weevils", making a choice AGAINST the greater of two weevils? The result would be the same, but wouldn't the motivation be different (and better in God's sight)? That is, if you know (all things being equal) that one of the two weevils will prevail? But to play the "pure anti-weevil's" advocate wouldn't such a choice be a consequentialist view of ethics? As Christians, shouldn't we choose what is right regardless of the consequences? Is Graded Absolutism Biblically defensible? Are the cases of 1. the Egyptian midwives deceiving Pharoah, 2. Rahab lying to protect the spies, and 3. the Magi tricking (NASB) Herod examples of GA? Didn't OT prophets promote (both in the sense of anoint/appoint and/or merely give approval of) not so perfect kings? What of Hazael? Elijah and Naaman and his question about "bowing" to a false God? God's "approval" of Babylon and by extention it's king in Jer. 29 (esp. v. 7)?
ReplyDeleteANNOYED PINOY SAID:
ReplyDelete“As Christians, shouldn't we choose what is right regardless of the consequences?”
You gratuitously assume that doing the right thing and considering the consequences are antithetical principles.
Sometimes they come into conflict, but sometimes they're complementary.
What does it mean for a physician to choose the right therapy for his patient? Should he not take the consequences into account?
"What does it mean for a physician to choose the right therapy for his patient? Should he not take the consequences into account?"
ReplyDeleteThe morality of a decision is not always clear. If therapy will prolong the patient's life but cause increased pain or suffering for them, what is the right decision? Euthanasia advocates (who seem to wish to avoid any suffering in the extreme) would suggest terminating one's life, others would suggest allowing the patient to die a natural death, while others might suggest that prolonging one's life with therapy is the only moral option if the patient is providing sustenance or care for others (or even if they are not).
I've seen Christians come down both sides of the latter two options (and there are sincere Christians who reject any medical intervention out of a belief that to do so would be an implicit rebellion against the will of God).
To further complicate things, what if the patient wants the therapy but if it comes at the expense of subsidized health care? Is the patient selfishly embracing socialism (which Medicaid is often considered by the Right) for their own benefit?
I guess the answer depends on what you think God considers the prime moral factor here.
Personally, I wouldn't have a clue as to what the "correct" choice would be, although I doubt I'd consider any assisted means of ending one's life. Although I support the idea of it, when confronted with the reality of the dying process of loved ones, it's never been on the table as a viable option.
I'm not discussing which is the correct choice. My point is simply that consequences often figure in ethical decision-making.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to "assume that doing the right thing and considering the consequences." Yes, it's obviously true that sometimes they conflict and sometimes the don't. I should have made clear that I was referring to those instances when they conflict. By the way, I'm just probing. I'm not dogmatic on these isses. I'm asking because I want to be more informed.
ReplyDeleteSteve what's your view of ethics? I find that many of my views line up with yours and I would be interested in your views on ethics, divine essentialism vs. divine voluntarism, realism vs. nominalism.
Btw, I'm a Calvinistic and Charismatic Baptist (similar to John Piper) who's Van Tillian apologetically and who leans strongly toward Supralapsarianism.
And you're a Calvinistic Baptist who is not a cessationist, nor a Charismatic but does believe in modern supernatural occurances from God. You're also a presupper who has much agreement with Van Til and you're a Supralapsarian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI think we would agree that one of our primary goals is historical development, establishing the righteousness of God on the earth.
The following scenarios are in the context of today's real issues facing the country. In other words, not in the context of the U.S. homeland being bombed by China.
Hitler vs Lenin: You and I would vote for neither of them. We would perceive no significant difference in historical development to warrant our votes.
Hitler vs Rudy: You and I would vote for Rudy. Significant difference in historical development.
Rudy vs Obama: You and I would vote for neither of them. Not a significant difference in historical development to warrant our votes.
McCain vs Obama: You would vote for McCain. You perceive a significant difference in historical development to warrant our votes. I would vote for neither. I do not perceive a significant difference in historical development to warrant our votes.
I don’t think our disagreement in the McCain vs Obama case centers around our specific goals in historical development. Our goals may differ a little in details, but not enough to be relevant. It probably centers around differing perceptions of today’s issues and to what degree either candidate will help or hurt.
I perceive the problems of today to be too big for someone like McCain to be a lesser evil than Obama in any practical way. The state is raising 90% of our children to be God-haters. Not only are God-haters bad on a normative level, but they reek havoc on an everyday-practical level. The country is catastrophically not living within its means. Neither cutting taxes a little or raising taxes will make a splash. Yes I want someone like Ron Paul to say no to every single unconstitutional thing that comes his way, but my reason is not just because that would be ideal. I think that is the only way to see a possible turnaround in our historical development. Given where we are right now, I have no reason to believe that there would be a significant difference between McCain and Obama; in the same sense that there would be no significant difference between Rudy and Obama to warrant our votes.
JOSHUA SAID:
ReplyDelete“How would you respond to Michael Butler's argument against incrementalism?”
One of the basic problems with his objection is that, according to James Anderson’s analysis, the Van Tilian version of TAG breaks down into a set of fairy conventional theistic proofs. So if Butler’s objection held against the traditional theistic proofs, it would also hold against TAG. In order to turn TAG into an actual argument, or argue for it, you have to marshal a number of direct, subsidiary arguments. Hence, TAG is, itself, an incremental argument.
annoyed pinoy said...
ReplyDelete“Steve what's your view of ethics? I find that many of my views line up with yours and I would be interested in your views on ethics, divine essentialism vs. divine voluntarism, realism vs. nominalism.”
That’s a tall order. Let’s start with ethics. Here are four good books:
1. John Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life (A Theology of Lordship)
2. Gordan Wenham, Torah as Story: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically
3. Peter Geach, The Virtues
4. John Rushdoony, Politics of Guilt and Pity
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteWhen I followed your link, it took me to an article on presuppositional apologetics.