Utilitarianism in ethics

[au5t1n]

Thank you for explaining, Rev. Winzer. I have just one more question. You mentioned Jonathan Edwards' definition of virtue. What would you say is wrong with his definition, and what would you propose instead? I have found Edwards' ideas in The Religious Affections to be quite good (esp. with regards to true religion being rooted in the affections, i.e. God commands man to love his ways, to have a zeal for his truth, to hate wickedness, etc.). Is there something I need to watch out for in my readings of him?

An excellent book that I have no desire to discourage anyone from reading. But for Edwards, love of being is the essence of virtue; for Scripture, love of good being is the essence of virtue, and hatred of evil being is equally virtuous. Again, for Edwards, there is always a motive of advantage in the choice of good; for Scripture, the good is to be chosen as good because God commands it, regardless of advantage.

I do agree, but why does Scripture, whenever it commands us to forsake our own advantage for God's command, always bother to point out that obeying God is to our greater good than any other advantage we might find? Scripture seems to present "eternal advantage" as a primary motivation for obeying God in spite of the temporal advantages that may come from disobeying him. I suppose the difference would be that we would need to obey God even if it gave us eternal disadvantage, merely for the sake of obeying him. His eternal rewards, then, are merely because of his graciousness, and not the sole reason we obey. Is that right?

, that's another question or two.

---------- Post added at 08:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 PM ----------

Should I listen to Bach or Vaughan Williams in the car?

If you have to ask, that's symptomatic of a moral disease.

I would have trouble choosing. Which would you choose? And would it be the same for every mood you might be in when getting in the car?

 

[py3ak]

I would have trouble choosing. Which would you choose? And would it be the same for every mood you might be in when getting in the car?

Worse and worse. Between Bach and Vaughan Williams there simply is no question. Sometimes instead of Bach I will listen to Vivaldi or Agrell or Domenico Scarlatti or Haydn.

 

[au5t1n]

I would have trouble choosing. Which would you choose? And would it be the same for every mood you might be in when getting in the car?

Worse and worse. Between Bach and Vaughan Williams there simply is no question. Sometimes instead of Bach I will listen to Vivaldi or Agrell or Domenico Scarlatti or Haydn.

There is no question which of the two is more brilliant. But there is a question of what I am in the mood to listen to right now. Shall I never listen to The Lark Ascending simply because Bach's Mass in B Minor is better, even if I am in a mood that goes well with the former? Wait a minute, this is a silly discussion.

 

[py3ak]

Haydn wasn't as brilliant either: that isn't where the discussion lies. But I mainly wanted to give you a swift kick while you were distracted with a real discussion.

 

[Philip]

Should I listen to Bach or Vaughan Williams in the car?

If you have to ask, that's symptomatic of a moral disease.

True--I should have said Bach and Mozart, but I'm currently switching back and forth between Bach's and Vaughan Williams's sacred music.

And did I mention that the Mass in B Minor is possibly the greatest choral work of all time, in my humble opinion?

Rev Winzer, given the disjunctive definitions, I think we agree.

 

[au5t1n]

Haydn wasn't as brilliant either: that isn't where the discussion lies. But I mainly wanted to give you a swift kick while you were distracted with a real discussion.

Well, in any case, you've inspired me to pop out my classical music, which I have neglected to listen to the past month or so.

 

[Philip]

Haydn wasn't as brilliant either: that isn't where the discussion lies. But I mainly wanted to give you a swift kick while you were distracted with a real discussion.

Well, in any case, you've inspired me to pop out my classical music, which I have neglected to listen to the past month or so.

I don't care what ethical system you subscribe to: that's inherently immoral!

 

[au5t1n]

Haydn wasn't as brilliant either: that isn't where the discussion lies. But I mainly wanted to give you a swift kick while you were distracted with a real discussion.

Well, in any case, you've inspired me to pop out my classical music, which I have neglected to listen to the past month or so.

I don't care what ethical system you subscribe to: that's inherently immoral!

Well, I've been listening to a lot of psalms, so I win. QED.

 

[MW]

I do agree, but why does Scripture, whenever it commands us to forsake our own advantage for God's command, always bother to point out that obeying God is to our greater good than any other advantage we might find? Scripture seems to present "eternal advantage" as a primary motivation for obeying God in spite of the temporal advantages that may come from disobeying him. I suppose the difference would be that we would need to obey God even if it gave us eternal disadvantage, merely for the sake of obeying him. His eternal rewards, then, are merely because of his graciousness, and not the sole reason we obey. Is that right?

There is a teleological element in ethics owing to the fact that there are consequences to choices, and this makes it very difficult to think of eternal disadvantage in serving God; but again, it comes back to fruit and root. The advantage follows from the fact that the action is commanded by God and God has promised to bless it. The selfish theory would make the advantage the motive for action as if "the right" possessed a natural virtue of blessing in and of itself. There are a number of historical developments rising from this idea, but I think it is already clear enough wherein the two differ.

 

[au5t1n]

I do agree, but why does Scripture, whenever it commands us to forsake our own advantage for God's command, always bother to point out that obeying God is to our greater good than any other advantage we might find? Scripture seems to present "eternal advantage" as a primary motivation for obeying God in spite of the temporal advantages that may come from disobeying him. I suppose the difference would be that we would need to obey God even if it gave us eternal disadvantage, merely for the sake of obeying him. His eternal rewards, then, are merely because of his graciousness, and not the sole reason we obey. Is that right?

There is a teleological element in ethics owing to the fact that there are consequences to choices, and this makes it very difficult to think of eternal disadvantage in serving God; but again, it comes back to fruit and root. The advantage follows from the fact that the action is commanded by God and God has promised to bless it. The selfish theory would make the advantage the motive for action as if "the right" possessed a natural virtue of blessing in and of itself. There are a number of historical developments rising from this idea, but I think it is already clear enough wherein the two differ.

Is it wrong to say, "Do good so that you may live," rather than, "Do good for its own sake, and it just so happens that you will live"? For what it's worth, I have never heard a sermon of Piper's that wasn't man-humbling and God-exalting. The man is in love with the glory of God, not human pleasure. Is it really wrong to assert that the way of rendering service to God is by desiring and enjoying him alone, even to the loss of all other things? I ask because it would seem that God does not command us to do good even if we hate it; he commands us to love good. Likewise, we serve God not out of duty detached from delight in him, but because we delight in him.