[TUT317]

Tut,

I have read this and re read this. I can't respond because you are WAAY over my head. Sad but true.

Hi Tess,

I think the problem is my poor explanation. I will have another go at it.

I follow THE LAW when it comes to road rules. This is regardless of the circumstances and consequences. If the road sign says 110 k.p.h. then this is exactly what I do. The fact that I do this in very heavy rain is irrelevant from my point of the view. The sign says 110 k.p.h so this is exactly what I do. Going fast in heavy rain is obviously dangerous (it could have bad consequences for myself and others)

I am not worried about the consequences of my actions because I have a duty or obligation to follow the rules. This makes me a virtuous person.

Consequentialism on the other hand says all that matters when it comes to ethics is the outcome of a persons actions regardless of what rules they happen to be following at the time. If a persons actions have positive results for people in general then this should be the basis of any judgment regarding goodness or badness.

When it comes to the A & S example, one thing appears to be evident in this particular case. God is not a consequentialist. Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. God choose not to extend grace to A&S even though history is full of people who have done a lot worse.

Grace takes on different meanings when it comes to different denominations. I am not saying Grace is an example consequentialism. However, I do feel it has an element of consequentialism attached to it and this is what makes your original question so interesting.

Your questions are always food for thought.

Regards

Tut

[Wondergirl]

If the road sign says 110 k.p.h. then this is exactly what I do.

This is not a "road rule." This is the speed LIMIT, not requirement. The driver is to go no faster than 110, but he certainly can use his good sense and go slower if there is a dangerous weather or travel situation.

I am not worried about the consequences of my actions because I have a duty or obligation to follow the rules. This makes me a virtuous person.

That's not true at all. There is no duty or obligation to drive at 110 kph. It has nothing to do with virtue.

[Fr_Chuck]

Using a speed limit as a comparison, one has to remember that the law as a whole, while there are speed limits, they are the max speed, the complete law normally on many roads also has a min speed, such as US interstates, where max speed may be 70 but they set a min speed of 40, so you have a spread to choose from

But even then you also have additional laws, one is that you can not drive "too fast for conditions" which means under certain times you are not allowed to go the max speed even if it is a law and max limit

Or take lesser roads, they may have a max of 45, but there are many other laws, such stop signs, or yield signs that require you to change those speeds, school areas that require a change.

So even in speed laws, there are many things to effect it

[TUT317]

This is not a "road rule." This is the speed LIMIT, not requirement. The driver is to go no faster than 110, but he certainly can use his good sense and go slower if there is a dangerous weather or travel situation.


That's not true at all. There is no duty or obligation to drive at 110 kph. It has nothing to do with virtue.

Hi Wondergirl,


I am struggling to come with an analogy to explain the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism. It was the only thing I could think of at the time.

Basically virtue ethics focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than rules and consequences of a persons actions. Consequentialism is the opposite. It holds that the basis of right and wrong action is determined by the outcomes.

Interesting you should say," The driver is to go no faster than 110 , but he certainly use his good sense if there is a dangerous weather or travel situation" I realize that some people are of the opinion that God's Commandments are eternal. It is his law. However, there are other people who think that God's Commandments are a guide to action (using good sense to interpret the situation at hand). Hence the Law , Grace and consequentialist debate at the moment.

Regards

Tut

[Wondergirl]

Hi Wondergirl,


I am struggling to come with an analogy to explain the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism. It was the only thing I could think of at the time.

Methinks you are struggling to create a problem where none exists.

[Wondergirl]

I realize that some people are of the opinion that God's Commandments are eternal.

I don't know what you mean by this. Which people?

[TUT317]

Methinks you are struggling to create a problem where none exists.

Hi Wondergirl,

Perhaps.

[TUT317]

I don't know what you mean by this. Which people?

Some fundamentalist groups would say we need to stick strictly to Old Testament laws.

[Wondergirl]

Some fundamentalist groups would say we need to stick strictly to Old Testament laws.

Which groups? All the laws or cherry-picked ones? And those that say that, what do they say about grace? In other words, why do they say "we need to stick strictly to OT laws"?

[Fr_Chuck]

Actually most fundalmental groups I know are just the other way, they believe in the grace of God where we are no longer under the Law.

There are many legalistic groups but I seldom thing of them as fundalmentalists

[TUT317]

Which groups? All the laws or cherry-picked ones? And those that say that, what do they say about grace? In other words, why do they say "we need to stick strictly to OT laws"?

Hi again Wondergirl,

You do ask the hard questions, don't you?

I don't have access to the 3,000 or so different Christian denominations. Having said that Father Chuck is right. They do tend to believe in the Grace of God and no longer under the law.

However,is it likely there is a fundamentalist group somewhere in the world that believes in all of the Old testament Laws at the expense of Grace? Probably. Are there fundamentalist groups cherry-picking the type of laws that will be followed? Probably. Are there fundamentalist groups who fail to realize there may be an inherent contradiction in how they apply Law and Grace in their theology? Probably.

[Wondergirl]

They do tend to believe in the Grace of God and no longer under the law.

*poof* There goes your argument.

[TUT317]

*poof* There goes your argument.

Hi again,

I wouldn't think so. We were talking about 'tendency' here.Father Chuck quite rightly used the words," most fundamentalist groups......."
He didn't say, 'all'.

It would be very difficult to claim ALL fundamentalist groups believe in Grace while at the same time believing we are no longer under the Law.

To turn up one counter example of, "All fundamentalists believe in Grace while at the same time believing we are not under the law" is enough to prove this statement false.

[Wondergirl]

We were talking about 'tendency' here.

You were talking about what is virtue ethics and pulled this out of your hat --

Some fundamentalist groups would say we need to stick strictly to Old Testament laws.

Now you're sidetracked and off-topic with this --

To turn up one counter example of, "All fundamentalists believe in Grace while at the same time believing we are not under the law" is enough to prove this statement false.

I'm still trying to understand your argument using the terms "value ethics" and "consequentialism."

[TUT317]

You were talking about what is virtue ethics and pulled this out of your hat --

Now you're sidetracked and off-topic with this --


I'm still trying to understand your argument using the terms "value ethics" and "consequentialism."

Yes, it is off topic. I'll let a different source do the explaining. No doubt much better than I can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

[Wondergirl]

"The difference between these three approaches to morality [value ethics, consequentialism, and deontology] tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached."

The Bible is not a book espousing our looking at Law and Gospel as philosophy, i.e. how moral dilemmas are approached and moral conclusions reached.

How did philosophy enter into this thread?

[TUT317]

How did philosophy enter into this thread?

Hi Wondergirl,

Originally through Saint Thomas Aquinas- I think.


Tut

[Wondergirl]

Hi Wondergirl,

Originally through Saint Thomas Aquinas- I think.


Tut

No, he wasn't mentioned. I just went back through the thread and see where you brought up a "balance" problem and questions about ethics.

Actually, ClassyT was on the trail of something quite exciting regarding the A&S story, and then the thread got waylaid.

[TUT317]

No, he wasn't mentioned. I just went back through the thread and see where you brought up a "balance" problem and questions about ethics.

Actually, ClassyT was on the trail of something quite exciting regarding the A&S story, and then the thread got waylaid.

Sorry, I was talking generally. Philosophy came into it when the faith of the time was challenged by the re-discovery of Aristotle. The choice was to ignore Aristotle and risk faith being taken of by reason, or incorporate Aristotle into the religious tradition of the time. St Thomas attempted to reconcile these opposites (faith and reason). Didn't do a bad job when it comes down to it.

Regards

Tut

[Wondergirl]

We were taking about A&S and what happened to them, and, in light of that, God's grace vs. His justice.