--Boundary_(ID_D6tJT3ZY1H7+l2n+PQVkGw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Greetings:
"Theological Ethics," Chapter 10 of my "God, Reason, and the Evangelicals"
is now at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre.htm, along with other the chapters
and other goodies.
Also, just below you will find my answer to Kurt Smith's letter to the
Daily News:
To the Editor:
Kurt Smith's letter (Opinion, Feb. 28-29) on evolution and ethics is
filled with logical fallacies, inaccuracies, and misinterpretations.
First, virtue ethics is not a "flimsy newcomer" on the moral
scene. The virtues are central to the moral philosophy of Aristotle,
Confucius, and the Buddha.
In my own work I argue that virtues came before moral rules. Moral
imperatives are simply abstractions from the virtues and moral prohibitions
are abstracted from the vices.
Second, there is a simple logical fallacy in appealing to God as
the foundation of morality. To say that an action is right because God
says so tells us nothing about right actions. This is arguing in a circle
and begging the question.
Virtues ethics does not beg the question. The virtues are good
because of their long term positive consequences, and the vices are bad
because of their long term negative consequences. This theory is called
"character consequentialism" and I defend it at
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gandhiconseq.htm.
Smith also misinterprets theistic evolution. For example, Alfred
North Whitehead's God evolves along with the rest of the universe and is
eternally committed to maximizing truth, goodness, and beauty for all
things, not just humans. The character of Whitehead's God is never
capricious, but I'm afraid that Jehovah certainly was.
In Numbers 31 Jehovah commanded that all the Midianites except the
virgin girls be slain, and the same god empowered Satan to kill all of the
righteous Job's children and livestock. Taking the Bible literally makes
God into a moral monster.
At a Friday colloquium at New St. Andrews College in 2000, I
challenged the students to develop a Christian virtue ethics.
Rule ethics is based on unimaginative and boring obedience. Virtue
ethics is emulative--using the sage, the savior, or God as a model for
virtue. The emulative approach engages the imagination, personalizes, and
thoroughly grounds individual moral action and responsibility. For more on
virtue ethics see www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gandhi.htm.
Nick Gier, Moscow
--Boundary_(ID_D6tJT3ZY1H7+l2n+PQVkGw)
Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
<html>
<font face="Courier New, Courier" size=1>Greetings:<br><br>
"Theological Ethics," Chapter 10 of my "God, Reason, and
the Evangelicals" is now at
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre.htm</a>,
along with other the chapters and other goodies.<br><br>
Also, just below you will find my answer to Kurt Smith's letter to the
Daily News:<br><br>
To the Editor:<br><br>
Kurt Smith’s letter (Opinion, Feb. 28-29)
on evolution and ethics is filled with logical fallacies, inaccuracies,
and misinterpretations.<br>
First, virtue ethics is not a “flimsy
newcomer” on the moral scene. The virtues are central to the moral
philosophy of Aristotle, Confucius, and the Buddha. <br>
In my own work I argue that virtues came
before moral rules. Moral imperatives are simply abstractions from
the virtues and moral prohibitions are abstracted from the
vices.<x-tab> </x-tab><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Second,
there is a simple logical fallacy in appealing to God as the foundation
of morality. To say that an action is right because God says so
tells us nothing about right actions. This is arguing in a circle
and begging the question. <br>
Virtues ethics does not beg the question.
The virtues are good because of their long term positive consequences,
and the vices are bad because of their long term negative
consequences. This theory is called “character consequentialism”
and I defend it at
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gandhiconseq.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gandhiconseq.htm</a>.<br>
Smith also misinterprets theistic
evolution. For example, Alfred North Whitehead’s God evolves along with
the rest of the universe and is eternally committed to maximizing truth,
goodness, and beauty for all things, not just humans. The character
of Whitehead’s God is never capricious, but I’m afraid that Jehovah
certainly was.<br>
In Numbers 31 Jehovah commanded that all
the Midianites except the virgin girls be slain, and the same god
empowered Satan to kill all of the righteous Job’s children and
livestock. Taking the Bible literally makes God into a moral
monster. <br>
At a Friday colloquium at New St. Andrews
College in 2000, I challenged the students to develop a Christian virtue
ethics. <br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Rule
ethics is based on unimaginative and boring obedience. Virtue ethics is
emulative--using the sage, the savior, or God as a model for virtue. The
emulative approach engages the imagination, personalizes, and thoroughly
grounds individual moral action and responsibility. For more on
virtue ethics see
<a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gandhi.htm" eudora="autourl">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/gandhi.htm</a>.<br>
Nick Gier, Moscow<br><br>
</font></html>
--Boundary_(ID_D6tJT3ZY1H7+l2n+PQVkGw)--