Comments on: Evangelicalism, Ethics, and Eggshells

By: Jeremy Pierce

Jeremy Pierce — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:57:32 +0000

I don’t think a virtue approach is outside the realm of morality. It just places the primary item to be evaluated morality in our character rather than our actions. Besides, Aquinas had an Aristotelian virtue approach that he thought was compatible with natural law, something he also saw the seeds of in Aristotle. The Stoics also combined the two.

I think it’s actually a misreading, albeit a common one, of Anscombe to think she’s saying law approaches are wrong. What she explicitly says is that they’re only going to make sense on theistic views, which most philosophers in her day had rejected. But she herself was a faithful Roman Catholic, so she hadn’t abandoned that. She said all naturalistic views had to avail themselves of is ancient non-law ethics, with character traits as the primary element of ethics rather than actions or rules. She did advocate looking in that direction herself, but I’m pretty sure she had no problem with moral laws in addition, as Aquinas did.

I happen to think that paper is terrible, by the way. I don’t think it clears much up. It knocks down straw man versions of modern moral philosophical positions. I’m sure her work improved, but that first paper that often gets credited with starting the modern revival of ancient virtue ethics isn’t all that philosophically sound.

By: Sarah Flashing

Sarah Flashing — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:55:45 +0000

Rachael, it’s also pretty scary writing among these men! But I hear you and much of what I do is motivated by a desire to undo the stereotypes. No matter your view on women’s roles in the church (and I am a complementarian) women have got to do more than crafts because we have so much influence in our society as wives, moms, and career professionals.

By: Rachael Starke

Rachael Starke — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 04:54:27 +0000

I just thrilled there’s at least one lady who’ll be mixing it up here with the mens! One of my frustrations with American evangelicalism is the silo-ing of different areas of Christian thought – theology for the pastors and professors, ethics for scholars (Christian or otherwise), and general Christian “living” for the rest of us (divided up, of course, into sports-themed books for the regular guys, and homeschooling, scrapbooking and marriage advice for us ladies).

Blech. No wonder the American church is such a mess!

I’m looking forward to reading your posts, and to learning from your interactions with the many learned gentlemen here, as well as with Frank Turk.

By: Jeffrey Maciejewski

Jeffrey Maciejewski — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:54:24 +0000

Great post, Sarah. I too teach an ethics class – media ethics – so I’m familiar with trying to make the ethics/morals distinction. I think Matthew’s citing of Anscombe is very helpful. At any rate, I agree that we need to engage ethical discourse in the church, at the global and local levels. I think what needs to happen is that we need to extoll the virtues of reasoning, and how we must reason well about matters of ethical import. I try to make that point myself by suggesting that we think more before we talk. See http://wp.me/pFLQa-b. Thanks again for an excellent post!

By: Friday Top Blogs « A Word of Grace

Friday Top Blogs « A Word of Grace — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:43:46 +0000

[...] Evangelicalism, Ethics, and Eggshells by Sarah J. Flashing on Evangel [...]

By: David Wayne

David Wayne — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:10:14 +0000

Thanks for this Sarah. You expressed something here I had never thought of but that rings true – that is the possible negative consequences of the common view that “Christianity is a relationship.” I hadn’t thought of this in relation to ethical deliberation, but your point makes perfect sense. This mentality is wider in the church as the feelings generated by a sense of “personal relationship” justify most everything. It fits well with Harold Bloom’s description of the “American Religion,” a religion which is all about me and my god to the exclusion of all else.

By: Matthew Anderson

Matthew Anderson — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:41:38 +0000

One unrelated point: I’ve sometimes thought that there is a distinction between morals and ethics, at least in philosophical discourse. Elizabeth Anscombe argues in “Modern Moral Philosophy” that ‘morals’ as a term stems from the specifically law based reasoning of the middle ages that (she thinks) is no longer viable. So she rejects ‘morals’ as a term with any meaningful content for us, and argues instead that we need ‘virtues.’

At any rate, it’s a great little essay. Anscombe is one of the best.