it is indeed uncanny how political philosophy and theology interact with each other. i don't think it is a coincidence that God has led me to take a module on justice (as part of my degree) and simultaneously brought me to the point (in my walk with Him) where questions of justification naturally arise from new perspectives on faith and works, moderate "middle knowledge" calvinism and the new creation. in fact, the copy of N.T. Wright's response to John Piper on the future of justification which i pre-ordered online arrived in the post two days ago and i'm currently working my way through it.
hopefully my study of justice will build on my study of justification, and my study of justification will build on my study of justice. for that matter, hopefully my study of philosophy will build on my study of theology, and my study of theology will build on my study of philosophy. after all, philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.
What is just and unjust is usually in dispute. Men disagree about which principles should define the basic terms of their association. Yet we may still say, despite this disagreement, that they each have a conception of justice. That is, they understand the need for, and they are prepared to affirm, a characteristic set of principles for assigning basic rights and duties and for determining what they take to be the proper distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation.
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
For what analysis of A’s [Nozick’s] and B’s [Rawls’] position reveals once again is that we have all too many disparate and rival moral concepts, in this case rival and disparate concepts of justice, and that the moral resources of the culture allow us no way of settling the issue between them rationally. Moral philosophy, as it is dominantly understood, reflects the debates and disagreements of the culture so faithfully that its controversies turn out to be unsettlable in just the way that the political and moral debates themselves are...
[But] what is it about rational argument which is so important that it is the nearly universal appearance assumed by those who engage in moral conflict? Does not this suggest that the practice of moral argument in our culture expresses at least an aspiration to be or to become rational in this area of our lives?
- Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue
There are three basic ways of explaining this sense of the echo of a voice, the call to justice, the dream of a world (and all of us within it) put to rights.
We can say, if we like, that it is indeed only a dream, a projection of childish fantasies, and that we have to get used to living in the world the way it is. Down that road we find Machiavelli and Nietzsche, the world of naked power and grabbing what you can get, the world where the only sin is to be caught.
Or we can say, if we like, that the dream is of a different world altogether, a world where we really belong, where everything is indeed put to rights, a world into which we can escape in our dreams in the present and hope to escape one day for good - but a world which has little purchase on the present world except that people who live in this one sometimes find themselves dreaming of that one. That leaves the unscrupulous bullies running this world, but it consoles us with the thought that things will be better somewhere, sometime, even if there's not very much we can do about it here and now.
Or we can say, if we like, that the reason we have these dreams, the reason we have a sense of a memory of the echo of a voice, is that there is someone there speaking to us, whispering in our inner ear, someone who cares very much about this present world, and our present selves, and who has made us, and it, for a purpose which will indeed involve justice, things being put to rights, ourselves being put to rights, the world being rescued at last.
- N.T. Wright, Simply Christian
The Fulfillment of the Law
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17 (NIV)
"[Jesus] said to [His disciples], "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."" - Luke 24:44 (NIV)
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." - Romans 3:21-26 (NIV)
There is a real moral conflict in the cross, one so great that many liberal theologians have considered the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement to be essentially immoral. The two moral principles are that the innocent should not be punished for sins he never committed, but that Christ was punished for our sins (Isa. 53; 1 Pet. 2:24; 3:15; 2 Cor. 5:21).
Some have tried to solve the problem by suggesting that Christ submitted to this punishment voluntarily, and hence the moral responsibility for the conflict disappears. But this is like saying it was not immoral for Jim Jones to order the Jonestown suicide because his followers did it willingly!
Other attempted explanations make God's actions in the cross entirely arbitrary, with no necessary basis in his unchanging moral character. But this reduces God to an unworthy being and takes away the need for the cross. If God could save men apart from the cross, then Christ's death becomes unnecessary.
- Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics
the only way to resolve the real moral conflict in the cross is to understand the cross as the place where justice and love meet.
See from His head, His hands, His feet
Sorrow and love flow mingled down
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?
yes, justice is the fulfillment of the law - but so is love!
"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." - Romans 13:8-10 (NIV)
*****
The last contrast that I shall mention now is that utilitarianism is a teleological theory whereas justice as fairness is not. By definition, then, the latter is a deontological theory, one that either does not specify the good independently from the right, or does not interpret the right as maximising the good.
(It should be noted that deontological theories are defined as non-teleological ones, not as views that characterise the rightness of institutions and acts independently from their consequences. All ethical doctrines worth our attention take consequences into account in judging rightness. One which did not would simply be irrational, crazy.)
- John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
Isn't doing the greatest good what utilitarianism holds? How does graded absolutism differ from it? There is a basic difference between graded absolutism and utilitarianism. First of all, utilitarianism is teleological (end-centered), but graded absolutism is a deontological (duty-centered) ethic. When graded absolutists speak of "greater good," they do not mean greater results but the higher rule. They are not referring to a higher end but a higher norm. Furthermore, the basis for their action is not future consequences (the long run) but present commands (the short run).
Of course, any ethic is obliged to consider the possible results of actions, but this does not make them utilitarian. But graded absolutism, in contrast to utilitarianism, holds that following moral rules God has established will bring about the best results. It does not believe that man's calculation of the best results will determine what the best rules should be. We keep the rules and leave the long-range consequences to God.
- Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics
links: political philosophy and theology (21 nov 08), education sentimentale (11 feb 09), justice and love (23 mar 09)
No comments:
Post a Comment