The other definition I find helpful is an idea created by Lord Moulton, a nineteenth-century British parliamentarian, who spoke of ethics as "obedience to the unenforceable." That's an interesting concept, because it separates ethics from law. Law is obedience to the enforceable; ethics has to do with matters upon which the law is silent, but upon which there is a broad social consensus.
Mark Steyn: The great English jurist Lord Moulton considered the most important space in society to be the "middle land" between law and absolute freedom, in which the individual has to be "trusted to obey self-imposed law." That is, a gentleman should not lie for political advantage about the paternity of his child. When he does so, it is a poor reflection on him and on those who colluded with him — the Democratic party and the media. What it is not is a crime. As bad as Edwards's behavior is, the Justice Department's is worse. The urge to ensnare in legalisms every aspect of human existence — including John Edwards's rutting — will consume American liberty.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Christians and Scholarshp: Are we Christian Scholars or Scholars who are Christian?
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/05/christianity_philosophy_and_th.html
Attitude #1 is what I will call the Averroist Approach. The Averroist Approach says that, to be an honest and professional philosopher, you must even in your own mind completely bracket your Christian beliefs when you are doing philosophy. So, for example, if you are examining the question of the existence of a non-material aspect to man, you should bracket the fact that traditional Christianity clearly does assume that there is such a thing (hint: "the soul"). That's religion, not philosophy. The two are different, and that's flat. They just don't have anything to do with one another, and the fact that you believe Christianity to be true can't give you any reason, while you happen to have your philosopher's hat on your head, for believing in the existence of the soul.
My reasons for connecting this approach with Averroes should be historically evident.
Attitude #2 is what I will call Extreme Rhetorical Diffidence. ERD says that even though in the privacy of their own minds Christian philosophers do believe things at odds with the zeitgeist, when it comes to making arguments, they have to pretend for practical purposes that they don't.
Lydia McGrew
Attitude #1 is what I will call the Averroist Approach. The Averroist Approach says that, to be an honest and professional philosopher, you must even in your own mind completely bracket your Christian beliefs when you are doing philosophy. So, for example, if you are examining the question of the existence of a non-material aspect to man, you should bracket the fact that traditional Christianity clearly does assume that there is such a thing (hint: "the soul"). That's religion, not philosophy. The two are different, and that's flat. They just don't have anything to do with one another, and the fact that you believe Christianity to be true can't give you any reason, while you happen to have your philosopher's hat on your head, for believing in the existence of the soul.
My reasons for connecting this approach with Averroes should be historically evident.
Attitude #2 is what I will call Extreme Rhetorical Diffidence. ERD says that even though in the privacy of their own minds Christian philosophers do believe things at odds with the zeitgeist, when it comes to making arguments, they have to pretend for practical purposes that they don't.
Lydia McGrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)