DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis Steven Jon James Lovell Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD Department of Philosophy University of Sheffield August 2003 Summary of Thesis Philosophical Themes from C.S. Lewis Steven Lovell C. S. LEW I S WAS PER HAP S the most popular and influential Christian apologist of the zo" Century, and his work is full of philosophical themes and arguments. Despite this, the main body of Lewis' work has received only scant attention from academic philosophers. Although countless books and articles have been written about C.S. Lewis and his writings, we are without a balanced and sustained evaluation of the philosophical themes and arguments to be found in his works. This is unfortunate for, in the words of James Patrick, the philosophical aspects of Lewis' work "constitute the very texture of his apologetic". It is hoped that this dissertation goes some way towards changing the situation. The dissertation contains five mam chapters, addressing four issues in the philosophy of religion through the writings of C.S. Lewis. Those issues are: the Euthyphro dilemma, the philosophical status of miracles, the Freudian critique of religious belief, and an argument from Lewis that has been dubbed 'the argument from desire'. While disagreeing with Lewis in some of the details, the dissertation defends a broadly Lewisian (and therefore broadly Christian) approach to each of these issues. Indeed, these Lewisian positions are defended with refurbished versions of Lewis' own arguments. In addition to a summary of some of the philosophical themes and arguments from C.S. Lewis that are not addressed in this dissertation, the work also includes two appendices. Appendix A is a short biography of C.S. Lewis. Appendix B offers a few thoughts on Lewis' general stance on the relation between faith and reason. Acknowledgements o LORD my God. I will give you thanks forever. (Ps. 30v12b) I TWO ULD BEl M PO S SIB LE to list all those whose input and assistance have helped to make this dissertation what it is. But a few names stand out as deserving of special mention. Particular thanks must go to my PhD supervisors, Stephen Makin and Richard Joyce, who gave detailed constructive criticism on countless draft chapters. Robert Trexler and Bob Merchant (of the New York C.S. Lewis Society) kindly checked my biography of C.S. Lewis for factual accuracy, as did Professor David Jesson, whose corrections saved me from much embarrassment. Chris Friel made some helpful suggestions for the improvement of my chapter on the argument from desire. My thanks also go to Lucy Huskinson and Charmaine Coyle, organisers of the 8th International Postgraduate Philosophy Conference (Essex, 2002); which conference provided a forum to explore my ideas on C.S. Lewis' argument from desire, the Freudian critique of religious belief, and the relationship between the two. For providing a pleasant and stimulating work environment, thanks are due to the postgraduates and staff within the philosophy department at Sheffield. I am also grateful to the Arts and Humanities Research Board, who have funded my research. My good friend Dan Watts not only offered insightful comments on much of my work; his companionship and conversation (and chess-playing) have helped to keep me going. I have received much encouragement from Michael Ramsden and Amy Orr­ Ewing of the Zacharias Trust, and from the members of our church family - especially the Moffetts, the Hills, the Harveys and the Hawkins. I'm also very grateful for the support of two sets of parents. Finally, and most importantly, unceasing thanks is due to my wife, Heather, who ­ in addition to diligently reading and commenting on much of my work - has given me constant encouragement and invaluable support throughout my studies. Steven Lovell Sheffield, 2003 II Contents Thesis Summary I Acknowledgements /I 1. Introduction 1 2. C.S. Lewis and the Euthyphro Dilemma 12 3. C.S. Lewis and the Possibility of Miracles 35 4. C.S. Lewis, David Hume and the Credibility of Miracles 55 5. C.S. Lewis and the Freudian Critique of Religious Belief 88 6. C.S. Lewis' Argument from Desire 119 7. Conclusion 146 Appendix A: Short Biography of C.S. Lewis 177 Appendix B: C.S. Lewis on Faith and Reason 186 Notes 189 Bibliography 203 111 Chapter 1 Introduction [Lewis had] read Greats, he'd taught philosophy for a while, he was well acquainted with the philosophical classics, he had the sort of mind which, had he addressed himself to the questions that engrossed philosophers of the time, would have made him into a good philosopher by professional standards.... [He] produced some good searching arguments and clearly had a feeling for what was philosophically interesting and what wasn't. (Basil Mitchell in Walker 1990: 14) C. S. LEW I S WAS PER HAP S the most popular and influential Christian apologist of the zo" Century, and his work is full of philosophical themes and arguments. Despite this, the main body of Lewis' work has received only scant attention from academic philosophers. James Patrick writes: While several critical studies ... have been written, the philosophic presuppositions of [Lewis'] arguments ... have remained unexamined.... Lewis is usually considered an apologist and his relation to philosophy ignored ... [this interpretation robs] Lewis of the philosophic insights that constitute the very texture of his apologetic. (1985: 165) Although Lewis' thought remains largely unexamined by academic philosophers, he has not gone entirely unnoticed. Victor Reppert (1989a) notes "Selections from Miracles, The Problem of Pain, Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man, as well as essays like 'The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,' have all found their way into introductory philosophical anthologies." I suggest that Lewis' works have been anthologised because they are clearly written and therefore suited to the beginner in philosophy. It is more difficult to explain why Lewis' work remains largely unexamined. Fortunately, such explanation is not my task. Of the books and articles that do examine Lewis' work, the majority seem to be utterly uncritical; they swallow nearly everything whole. A notable exception is John Beversluis' C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion (1985). This book errs in the opposite direction. Thomas V. Morris, himself no partisan of Lewis, has this to say: My main overall philosophical criticism of this book is that Beversluis seldom comes anywhere near digging deep enough to really appreciate a line of thought suggested by Lewis. All too often he gives a facile. fairly superficial reconstruction of a line of argument. and after subjecting it to some critical questioning, declares it bankrupt and moves on. What is so disappointing to the reader who is trained in philosophy is that in most such instances a few minutes of reflective thought suffice to see that there are very interesting~ considerations to be marshalled in the direction Lewis was heading.'- considerations altogether neglected by lBeversluisI. (Quoted in Purtill 1990: 41) The publication of Beversluis' book initially provoked a handful of replies from a small number of academic philosophers. However, Beversluis book and the articles written in response have left the situation largely unchanged. We are still without a balanced and sustained philosophical evaluation of the philosophical themes and arguments found in the works of C.S. Lewis. It is hoped that this dissertation goes some way towards changing the situation. Note how restricted this aim is. I shall not be addressing all the philosophical themes to be found in Lewis' work - there are far too many for that to be possible ­ and even on the issues that this dissertation does address, I do not pretend to have said the final word. We begin, then, by outlining a few of the philosophical themes that are not addressed in depth here. Philosophical Themes from Lewis that are not Addressed in this Dissertation A theme that runs through much of Lewis' work is his rejection of moral (and conceptual) relativism. His most sophisticated writings on this topic appear in The Abolition ofMan (l943a). Similar arguments appear in Mere Christianity (1952b) and in various individual essays, notably "The Poison of Subjectivism" (l943b), "De Futilitate" (l967a) and "On Ethics" (l967b). I would go so far as to suggest that few have presented the case against such relativisms more clearly than Lewis does in The Abolition of Man. That book, based on his Riddell Memorial Lectures, also contains warnings about the hazards of setting the (human) sciences free from all ethical considerations.' Part of Lewis' defence of traditional morality was his rejection of ethical egoism. In a throwaway comment that anticipates the strategy of Thomas Nagel's The Possibility ofAltruism (1970), Lewis wrote, "To prefer my own happiness to my neighbour's was like thinking that the nearest telegraph post was really the largest" (1955b: 180). 2 Connected with this is Lewis' endorsement of the moral argument for the existence of God. Lewis' statement of the moral argument is one of the clearest available in contemporary literature. It has appeared in several anthologies.:' Another related issue is his discussion of the "Three Parts of Morality" (l952b). He contends that ethics (or at least ancient ethics) is concerned with three basic issues: Firstly, it is concerned with the interaction between indi viduals. This is social ethics. Secondly, ethics is concerned with virtues and vices, with the kind of character traits that an individual is developing. This is indi vidual or virtue ethics. Thirdly. ethics is concerned with "the general 1 purpose of human life as a whole: with what [i f anything] man was made for" (l952b: 67). This is what has been called essential ethics. Lewis compares Humanity to a fleet of ships, and the three parts of morality to the three elements essential to a successful voyage.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CS Lewis on Death
    Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 4 January 1971 Farewell to Shadowlands: C.S. Lewis on Death Kathryn Lindskoog Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythpro Part of the English Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Lindskoog, Kathryn (1971) "Farewell to Shadowlands: C.S. Lewis on Death," Mythcon Proceedings: Vol. 1 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythpro/vol1/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mythopoeic Society at SWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mythcon Proceedings by an authorized editor of SWOSU Digital Commons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mythcon 51: The Mythic, the Fantastic, and the Alien Albuquerque, New Mexico • Postponed to: July 30 – August 2, 2021 Abstract Examines death as portrayed in many of Lewis’s fictional and apologetic writings, and particularly in the Chronicles of Narnia. Discusses Lewis’s attitudes toward his own impending death as expressed to friends and his brother Warren. Keywords Lewis, C.S.—Attitude toward death This article is available in Mythcon Proceedings: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythpro/vol1/iss2/4 Lindskoog: Farewell to Shadowlands: C.S. Lewis on Death suooestion has been made14 that the Nine corresponded to the nine 4. JJJ 383 planets. These would be Mercury, Venus, the Earth, the Hoon, S. III 456 Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. Pluto •as probably not 6. I 472 known to the astronomers of the Second AQe; Neptune is not 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Mercy Vs. Law and Justice: a False Dichotomy”
    “Mercy vs. Law and Justice: A False Dichotomy” Speaker Series for St. Catherine Laboure Parish Glenview, Illinois March 12, 2017 † Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki Bishop of Springfield in Illinois My dear brothers and sisters in Christ: It is good to be back with you here at St. Catherine Laboure Parish, where I served as deacon from the summer of 1977 until my ordination as a priest in May of 1978. It is hard to believe that forty years have passed since then, but this parish and many of the parishioners still have a special place in my heart. The topic of my presentation is, “Mercy vs. Law and Justice: A False Dichotomy.” Specifically, I will address the questions: how can God be just and merciful at the same time? Can there be mercy without judgment? I will describe how a well-formed conscience enables us to experience God’s mercy. I will also look at how moral law, canon law or church law and civil law bind us and how they free us. 2 By way of introducing these themes, I start by recalling one of my favorite movies, “Shadowlands,” the 1993 film about the British author and Oxford University scholar C.S. Lewis, starring one of my favorite actors, Anthony Hopkins, who played the part of Lewis. After I saw that movie for the first time in the theater, I rented the video and did something that I had never done before and have never done since: I watched the video in my living room with a note pad and jotted down quotes from the profound theological insights that were being spoken by the character of Lewis in the movie, which was based on his real life experiences dealing with the terminal illness of his wife Joy, who was dying of cancer.
    [Show full text]
  • Eastern Regional Meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers Concurrent Paper Abstracts
    Eastern Regional Meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers Concurrent Paper Abstracts Majid Amini, Virginia State University From Absolute to Maximal God: Would that Solve the Problem? The classical monotheistic concept of God has been bedeviled by a plethora of logical and metaphysical paradoxes. Recently there have been a number of attempts claiming that by reforming the traditional concept of God as an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent being to a concept of God as the being with maximal consistent set of knowledge, power and benevolence, the monotheistic concept of God can be rescued from contradictions and thereby reinstating a viable version of Anselmian theism. By focusing on omnipotence specifically, the purpose of this paper is therefore twofold: (1) to show the logical impossibility of maintaining an absolute or infinite conception of divine attributes, and (2) to show that even a maximal conception of divine attributes is plagued with the problem of uniqueness of God and a variant of the paradox of omnipotence thus indicating that such reformulations are still beset with dilemmas and paradoxes. Greg Bassham, King’s College A Critique of C. S. Lewis’s Argument from Desire In various places, C. S. Lewis offers an argument for God and/or a heavenly afterlife that is now widely called the argument from desire. Lewis appears to give at least two versions of the argument, one inductive and the other deductive. Both versions focus on a special form of spiritual or transcendental longing that Lewis calls “Joy.” The gist of his deductive argument is this: Joy is an innate, natural desire.
    [Show full text]
  • What Has Athens to Do with Mormonism?
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Arrington Student Writing Award Winners Leonard J. Arrington Mormon History Lectures 12-2012 What has Athens to do with Mormonism? Benjamin Wade Harman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/arrington_stwriting Part of the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Harman, Benjamin Wade, "What has Athens to do with Mormonism?" (2012). Arrington Student Writing Award Winners. Paper 9. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/arrington_stwriting/9 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Leonard J. Arrington Mormon History Lectures at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Arrington Student Writing Award Winners by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. What has Athens to do with Mormonism? Benjamin Wade Harman In his lecture, Terryl Givens presents one with a new way to approach the prophecy of Enoch that was received by Joseph Smith. Contained in this short narrative is a new, innovative conception about God that differs greatly from traditional Christianity. This notion is that of a passible deity, a God that is susceptible to feeling and emotion. It is a God who weeps, a God who is vulnerable and suffers emotional pain. God, as defined by the Christian creeds, is one who lacks passions.1 Givens, in drawing attention to the passible deity, is illuminating just a small portion of a much larger tension that exists between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. The God of Mormonism is not just a slight modification of the God of the creeds. Traditionally Christians, who now will be referred to as orthodox, have endorsed a view of deity that is more or less in line with the God of Classical Theism, or the God of the philosophers.
    [Show full text]
  • Informal Fallacies 2
    Ashford University - Ed Tech | Informal_Fallacies_2 JUSTIN Hi, everybody. This is going to be a continuation of the informal logical fallacy HARRISON: discussion. The next one we're going to be talking about is the relativist fallacy. This is a common one that you see. Even in intellectual circles, you see really smart people falling into this fallacy. Well, I guess you can be consistent, but it's very hard to be consistent. The relativist fallacy occurs when you say that, for example, different cultures have different beliefs so what's right in one culture or what's right for one group is right and good. And then something that's opposite in another group is considered right and good. And those two things are right and good for both cultures or groups or whatever it might be. Well, there are different types of relativism, but cultural relativism would say things like, well, we can't judge other cultures because their actions are right based on their own definitions of what is right. And our definitions of what is right and wrong are different. Therefore, what they believe is right is right and what we believe is right is right. And hopefully you can see the problem with this is that-- let's say that we're confronting a culture that subjugates women. And in that culture, it is right or morally acceptable to gang rape a woman, which is actually-- this happens in the world-- when she's been accused of some crime-- often a crime that she didn't commit, but she's just been accused of it.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Screwtape Letters</I> and <I>The Great Divorce
    Volume 17 Number 1 Article 7 Fall 10-15-1990 Immortal Horrors and Everlasting Splendours: C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce Douglas Loney Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore Part of the Children's and Young Adult Literature Commons Recommended Citation Loney, Douglas (1990) "Immortal Horrors and Everlasting Splendours: C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters and The Great Divorce," Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature: Vol. 17 : No. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://dc.swosu.edu/mythlore/vol17/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Mythopoeic Society at SWOSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mythlore: A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, and Mythopoeic Literature by an authorized editor of SWOSU Digital Commons. An ADA compliant document is available upon request. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To join the Mythopoeic Society go to: http://www.mythsoc.org/join.htm Mythcon 51: A VIRTUAL “HALFLING” MYTHCON July 31 - August 1, 2021 (Saturday and Sunday) http://www.mythsoc.org/mythcon/mythcon-51.htm Mythcon 52: The Mythic, the Fantastic, and the Alien Albuquerque, New Mexico; July 29 - August 1, 2022 http://www.mythsoc.org/mythcon/mythcon-52.htm Abstract Sees Screwtape and The Great Divorce as constituting “something like a sub-genre within the Lewis canon.” Both have explicit religious intention, were written during WWII, and use a “rather informal, episodic structure.” Analyzes the different perspectives of each work, and their treatment of the themes of Body and Spirit, Time and Eternity, and Love.
    [Show full text]
  • Surrounded! “C. S. LEWIS: SURPRISED by JOY!”
    June 21, 2015 Surrounded! “C. S. LEWIS: SURPRISED BY JOY!” Rev. Gary Haller First United Methodist Church Birmingham, Michigan John 16:19-22 Jesus knew that they wanted to ask him, so he said to them, “Are you discussing among yourselves what I meant when I said, ‘A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me’? Very truly, I tell you, you will weep and mourn, but the world will rejoice; you will have pain, but your pain will turn into joy. When a woman is in labor, she has pain, because her hour has come. But when her child is born, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy of having brought a human being into the world. So you have pain now; but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you.” Matthew 13:44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” “Once there were four children whose names were Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy. This story is about something that happened to them when they were sent away from London during the war because of the air-raids. They were sent to the house of an old Professor who lived in the heart of the country, ten miles from the nearest railway station and two miles from the nearest post office.” Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy soon realize that they have a lot of freedom due to the lack of supervision and decide to play a game of hide and seek in the house.
    [Show full text]
  • Fitting Words Textbook
    FITTING WORDS Classical Rhetoric for the Christian Student TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface: How to Use this Book . 1 Introduction: The Goal and Purpose of This Book . .5 UNIT 1 FOUNDATIONS OF RHETORIC Lesson 1: A Christian View of Rhetoric . 9 Lesson 2: The Birth of Rhetoric . 15 Lesson 3: First Excerpt of Phaedrus . 21 Lesson 4: Second Excerpt of Phaedrus . 31 UNIT 2 INVENTION AND ARRANGEMENT Lesson 5: The Five Faculties of Oratory; Invention . 45 Lesson 6: Arrangement: Overview; Introduction . 51 Lesson 7: Arrangement: Narration and Division . 59 Lesson 8: Arrangement: Proof and Refutation . 67 Lesson 9: Arrangement: Conclusion . 73 UNIT 3 UNDERSTANDING EMOTIONS: ETHOS AND PATHOS Lesson 10: Ethos and Copiousness .........................85 Lesson 11: Pathos ......................................95 Lesson 12: Emotions, Part One ...........................103 Lesson 13: Emotions—Part Two ..........................113 UNIT 4 FITTING WORDS TO THE TOPIC: SPECIAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 14: Special Lines of Argument; Forensic Oratory ......125 Lesson 15: Political Oratory .............................139 Lesson 16: Ceremonial Oratory ..........................155 UNIT 5 GENERAL LINES OF ARGUMENT Lesson 17: Logos: Introduction; Terms and Definitions .......169 Lesson 18: Statement Types and Their Relationships .........181 Lesson 19: Statements and Truth .........................189 Lesson 20: Maxims and Their Use ........................201 Lesson 21: Argument by Example ........................209 Lesson 22: Deductive Arguments .........................217
    [Show full text]
  • The Argument from Desire
    THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIRE Robert Holyer In this essay I offer a reformulation and defense of the argument from desire as it is presented in the works of C. S. Lewis. Specifically, I try to answer the criticisms of the argument made by John Beversluis in his recent book C. S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion. However, my concern is not so much Lewis as it is the argument itself, which I argue is worthy of serious and more extended philosophical treatment. In his critical discussion of C. S. Lewis's case for Christianity, John Beversluis extracts from Lewis's writings something he calls the argument from desire. I Although Lewis himself never presented it as a philosophical argument, he did insinuate it at several points in his writings, especially in the autobiographical works, The Pilgrim's Regress and Surprised by Joy, and it was arguably the most important consideration in his own conversion. What Beversluis does is to present this facet of Lewis's development as a philosophical argument, which he then goes on to reject for both "logical and theological" reasons. In what follows I shall consider Lewis's argument only from a philosophical point of view. My intention is to reformulate and defend it, and this not primarily to vindicate Lewis from what I think are some superficial criticisms (though I hope that what I have to say will have this effect), but more importantly, because I think Lewis offers us in rough form an argument from religious experience that is both different from the one that is most commonly discussed and deserving of a more careful philosophical treatment than it receives from Beversluis.
    [Show full text]
  • Can God's Goodness Save the Divine Command Theory
    CAN GOD’S GOODNESS SAVE THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY FROM EUTHYPHRO? JEREMY KOONS Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar Abstract. Recent defenders of the divine command theory like Adams and Alston have confronted the Euthyphro dilemma by arguing that although God’s commands make right actions right, God is morally perfect and hence would never issue unjust or immoral commandments. On their view, God’s nature is the standard of moral goodness, and God’s commands are the source of all obligation. I argue that this view of divine goodness fails because it strips God’s nature of any features that would make His goodness intelligible. An adequate solution to the Euthyphro dilemma may require that God be constrained by a standard of goodness that is external to Himself – itself a problematic proposal for many theists. The Euthyphro dilemma is often thought to present a fatal problem for the divine command theory (aka theological voluntarism). Are right acts commanded by God because they are right, or are they right because they are commanded by God? If the former, then there is a standard of right and wrong independent of God’s commands; God’s commands are not relevant in determining the content of morality. This option seems to compromise God’s sovereignty in an important way. But the second horn of the dilemma presents seemingly insurmountable problems, as well. First, if God’s commands make right actions right, and there is no standard of morality independent of God’s commands, then that seems to make morality arbitrary. Thus, murder is not wrong because it harms someone unjustly, but merely because God forbids it; there is (it seems) no good connection between reason and the wrongness of murder.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Realism in the Hebrew Bible Original Research Gericke
    Original Research BEYOND DIVINE COMMAND THEORY : MORAL REALISM IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Author: Jaco W. Gericke1 ABSTRACT Philosophical approaches to ancient Israelite religion are rare, as is metaethical refl ection on the A f fi l i a t i o n : Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, many biblical scholars and philosophers of religion tend to take it for 1Faculty of Humanities, granted that the biblical metaethical assumptions about the relation between divinity and morality North-West University involve a pre-philosophical version of Divine Command Theory by default. In this paper the (Vaal Triangle Campus), author challenges the popular consensus with several arguments demonstrating the presence of South Africa moral realism in the text. It is furthermore suggested that the popular consensus came about as a result of prima facie assessments informed by anachronistic metatheistic assumptions about what Correspondence to: the Hebrew Bible assumed to be essential in the deity–morality relation. The study concludes with Jaco W. Gericke the observation that in the texts where Divine Command Theory is absent from the underlying moral epistemology the Euthyphro Dilemma disappears as a false dichotomy. e-mail: [email protected] INTRODUCTION Postal address: 22 Dromedaris, Toon van den Heever Street, (Gn 18:25) Sasolburg, 1947, South Africa ‘Far be it from you to act in this way; to slay the righteous with the wicked, that so the righteous should be as the wicked. Far it be from you; shall not the Judge of all the earth do justly?’ Keywords: (translation by author) HTS Studies/Theological Teologiese Studies Divine Command The term ‘morality’ does not appear in the Hebrew Bible.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Utilitarianism
    Liberty University DIVINE UTILITARIANISM A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Masters of Arts in Philosophical Studies By Jimmy R. Lewis January 16, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………...……………..……....3 Statement of the Problem…………………………….………………………….3 Statement of the Purpose…………………………….………………………….5 Statement of the Importance of the Problem…………………….……………...6 Statement of Position on the Problem………………………...…………….......7 Limitations…………………………………………….………………………...8 Development of Thesis……………………………………………….…………9 Chapter Two: What is meant by “Divine Utilitarianism”..................................11 Introduction……………………………….…………………………………….11 A Definition of God.……………………………………………………………13 Anselm’s God …………………………………………………………..14 Thomas’ God …………………………………………………………...19 A Definition of Utility .…………………………………………………………22 Augustine and the Good .……………………………………………......23 Bentham and Mill on Utility ……………………………………………25 Divine Utilitarianism in the Past .……………………………………………….28 New Divine Utilitarianism .……………………………………………………..35 Chapter Three: The Ethics of God ……………………………………………45 Divine Command Theory: A Juxtaposition .……………………………………45 What Divine Command Theory Explains ………………….…………...47 What Divine Command Theory Fails to Explain ………………………47 What Divine Utilitarianism Explains …………………………………………...50 Assessing the Juxtaposition .…………………………………………………....58 Chapter Four: Summary and Conclusion……………………………………...60 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..64 2 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the
    [Show full text]