Turns out Arminian theologian Roger Olson is a utilitarian bioethicist. The Arminian Peter Singer:
This is a major issue in contemporary ethics. I think that most people make the moral judgment that there is some sort of distinction between doing and allowing although it is difficult to pin down. However, I do not think it has anything to do with greater evil. The right thing to do might be to allow the greater evil to occur rather than doing an evil oneself.
The go-to example would be of a surgeon about to operate on a relatively healthy patient whom the surgeon discovers is a perfect match for four patients in the hospital running out of time for live-saving transplants (of different organs) and finds himself faced with a decision: do I kill the one relatively healthy patient and make it look like a surgical complication and save four lives? Or do I treat and release him and allow the other four patients to (probably) die? Most people think it would be wrong to kill the healthy patient, but not because of any greater goods or evils at issue--obviously four deaths are worse than one.
Roger Olson Mod Rob • a day ago
We disagree. See my essay (a lecture given at Baylor and posted here) "Sin Boldy: Christian Ethics for a Broken World." Some acts are necessary even though wrong (sinful). My argument is that God automatically forgives necessary acts such as taking life to save innocent life.
Rob Roger Olson • 19 hours ago
So you think the surgeon should kill the one relatively healthy patient?
Roger Olson Mod Rob • 4 hours ago
You are asking me to engage in casuistry. I can only say what I think I would probably do--when talking about "limit cases." And in this case I don't know. But I doubt I would condemn the surgeon in your hypothetical scenario. Have you seen "Sophie's Choice?"
In Olson's defense, he's just echoing the dysfunctional nature of the Arminian "god"'s version of love....
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I'd say his position is a logical outcome of denying absolute predestination and meticulous providence. In a world full of gratuitous evils–a world that's a runaway train–humans will be confronted with intractable moral dilemmas in which there's no right option. They can't avoid doing something morally wrong. It's just a choice between degrees of wrongdoing.
DeleteGood points as well. All I know is that for all their preaching about how Arminianism is all about love, the Arminians I've had most experience with sure don't display much of it. I guess when you believe that love is only sacrificing for people who "allow" you to do so, it's going to be a very unsatisfactory love you'll be sharing.
Delete"My argument is that God automatically forgives necessary acts such as taking life to save innocent life."
ReplyDeleteThat's great news for aspiring but conflicted abortion clinic bombers everywhere.
Not to get off OT, but I think Aquinas' law of double effect is valid, and easily clarifies and resolves dilemmas like this. Here, the sugeon's action would be to use evil as a means to achieve good, therefore it would be wrong.
ReplyDelete-Another Rob
The reference to "Sophie's Choice" does not help Olson's case. Sophie was forced to choose which one of her two children to save; the alternative was that both would be sent to the camps to be killed. A harrowing choice for any parent, to be sure, but not the same as in the case posited.
ReplyDeleteI am glad Olson chose theology over medicine.