jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
You will either have no Ethick orFor instance the abortion debate it must be admitted that both sides have warrant for their belief. But how could CSR ever on its own be able to decide who is right?
That is asking it to do something it isn't meant to do, though. I take it as a given that Christian ethics is about following the will of God and is therefore always and only revealed ethics that will only sometimes overlap with secular ethics.
CSR, in other words is not, nor is it meant to be, good for everything. It's one of many analytical tools in the intellectual toolkit.
How could this model ever attain something more than warrant in more complex beliefs without say supplementing some Vantillian method?
What sort of beliefs did you have in mind?
Also does properly basic in this model exclude any prior more pressupositional beliefs being influential in the formation of properly basic beliefs?
What you call presuppositional beliefs I would categorize as prephilosophical commitments that only manifest propositionally post hoc and on an ad hoc basis.
Than we agree that CSR has limitations. But I would say only Christian ethics can account for right or wrong, never secular ethics. Even if they can identify moral norms they do so in contradiction to common sense, since in the end common sense is God's revealed sense. I admit that I'm stretching the definitions of these terms a bit but I'm only theologically qualifying them. By complex beliefs I mean ones like the abortion debate. I think we mean the same thing by presuppositions roughly.
Who says CSR was originally a secular ethic? Thomas Reid is very clear in identifying God as the one who creates us the way we are.
Of course it has limitations (but so does every methodology; Try using TAG against Roman Catholics, for example). There are always defeaters (which is what we would employ against the pro-choice advocate) that can undermine belief. Until we see a defeater for the belief in Christian Theism, we are warranted (per CSR) in belief in God.
A Christian one.
I think you mean to say "no consistent ethic." Anyway, it doesn't touch Reid's position, since Reid began his epistemology with God.
Well that assumes a neutral space that is not Christian in principle. Since nothing can be nonchristian in principle at all we assume that either Reid was a Vantillian or something else.