DOCSLIB.ORG

A Proposed Prolegomenon for Normative Theological Ethics with a Special Emphasis on the Usus Didacticus of God's Law John Tape Concordia Seminary, St

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Proposed Prolegomenon for Normative Theological Ethics with a Special Emphasis on the Usus Didacticus of God's Law John Tape Concordia Seminary, St Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary Doctor of Theology Dissertation Concordia Seminary Scholarship 5-1-1993 A Proposed Prolegomenon for Normative Theological Ethics with a Special Emphasis on the Usus Didacticus of God's Law John Tape Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.csl.edu/thd Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Tape, John, "A Proposed Prolegomenon for Normative Theological Ethics with a Special Emphasis on the Usus Didacticus of God's Law" (1993). Doctor of Theology Dissertation. 18. http://scholar.csl.edu/thd/18 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctor of Theology Dissertation by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. O it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing this faith. Luther, "Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans" CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PART ONE: THE DEONTOLOGICAL AND TELEOLOGICAL ELEMENTS IN THEOLOGICAL ETHICS 5 CHAPTER ONE: The Deontological Method Defined and Illustrated 7 Pure Act Deontology 9 Modified Act Deontology 15 Rule Deontology 23 Characteristics of Rule Deontology in the Holy Scriptures 36 Characteristics of Rule Deontology in the Writings of Martin Luther 53 CHAPTER TWO: The Teleological Method Defined and Illustrated 59 Pure Act Teleology 62 Modified Act Teleology 73 Rule Teleology 80 Characteristics of Rule Teleology in the Holy Scriptures 98 Summary and Conclusion of Part One 118 PART TWO: A CASE FOR CONFLICTING ABSOLUTISM 122 CHAPTER THREE: Non-Conflicting Absolutism 127 CHAPTER FOUR: Hierarchicalism 203 CHAPTER FIVE: Conflicting Absolutism 221 A Critique of the Most Common Objections to Conflicting Absolutism 233 Summary and Conclusion of Part Two 243 CONCLUSION 245 APPENDIX I: Biblical Testimony Concerning the Present Invalidity of the Old Testament Ceremonial and Political Laws 248 APPENDIX II: Luther on the Purpose of Good Works 252 APPENDIX III: Luther on the Relationship Between Love and the Law 256 APPENDIX IV: Utilitarian Calculations Versus Quantitative Agapistic Analysis 267 APPENDIX V: Edmund Santurri and Helmut Thielicke on the Question of Genuine Moral Dilemmas 270 BIBLIOGRAPHY 277 ii INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to examine and organize some of the current contrasting methodologies of theological ethics in an attempt to determine the Biblical method of choosing the moral option. This will be done in two different ways. In the first part, two common methods in moral philosophy, the deontological method and the teleological method, will be defined and illustrated. It will be demonstrated that Scriptural ethics has elements in common with both rule deontology and rule teleology. In the second part, the Scriptural method of moral reasoning will be examined more closely by comparing three different ways that numerous absolute prescriptive commands are used in theological ethics. Of the three methods discussed it will be shown that two contradict the moral methodology of the Holy Scriptures. Only the method of conflicting absolutism will prove to be satisfactory. This is the only method that contains elements in common with both rule deontology and rule teleology. 1 2 The conclusion reached will stress that the Scriptural method of theological ethics not only emphasizes characteris- tics of both deontology and teleology, but it also emphasizes that these characteristics are to be used in a very precise and specific way. The Scriptural method is similar to rule deontology; however, when there is a conflict of duties the rule teleological element serves as the arbitrator to deter- mine the lesser evil. When this is understood one can begin to have a prolegomenon for theological ethics that properly incorporates the usus didacticus of God's law. This investigation also assumes three basic presuppo- sitions which, while not directly discussed, nevertheless, need to be underscored since they form an essential back- ground for the method proposed herein. The first presupposi- tion of this dissertation is that the Holy Scriptures are the inspired Word of God and inerrant in the autograph manu- scripts. It is assumed that Moses is the author of the Pentateuch, the four gospels each bear the name of their one and only author, and St. Paul is the author of the pastoral epistles. Since the Holy Spirit is the divine author of the entire Holy Scriptures, the numerous human authors inspired by the Holy Spirit do not conflict with, or contradict one another, but rather, confirm and complement one another. 3 This is the case not only with respect to theological content but also with references to history as well as with the method and content of all moral teaching. The second presupposition of this dissertation is the Pauline emphasis that one's salvation precedes any good works. In this way any type of synergism or works righteous- ness which understands good works to precede, contribute to, or result in one's salvation is necessarily precluded. St. Paul taught, and Luther reemphasized, that salvation has already been freely and completely earned for all by the gracious work of Christ. It is only after one receives this salvation by faith that one is then motivated, inspired, and strengthened to live the Christian life (that is, do good works). In this way it is the gospel alone that provides the motivation and strength for good works. A truly good work can only be performed by the "new man" in Christ. The third presupposition is the continuing necessity of the third use of the law in the life of the regenerate. The first problem in living a moral life, incentive and power, is solved by the gospel. The second problem becomes one of moral knowledge. This is solved by the third use of the law. While the "new man" in Christ no longer needs the direction and guidance of God's moral law, the "old man," who 4 is with us to the grave, nevertheless, needs to be instructed and admonished by the law. Thus as far as the "new man" is concerned the law is merely indicative-descriptive, but as far as the "old man" is concerned, the law is imperative- prescriptive. As long as the regenerate life contains both the "new man" and the "old man" there will be conflict, confusion and struggle in making moral decisions. To help the Christian clarify and distinguish right from wrong God has revealed his divine will to mankind in the Holy Scriptures. The vast majority of this dissertation is referring to this imperative-prescriptive third use of the law which God uses to guide the regenerate in moral living. General normative ethics is that field of endeavor which seeks to discover the basic principles with which one can discern right from wrong. Applied normative ethics then seeks to apply these general principles to specific situations. The focus of this dissertation is solely on general normative ethics. PART ONE The Deontological and Teleological Elements in Theological Ethics Throughout the history of general normative ethics the moral option has often been determined either by a deontological method, which focuses on one's duty and obligation, or by a teleological method, which focuses on the end results of the act or rule in question.' These two methods are not 'According to Peter Vallentyne, "The Teleological/ Deontological Distinction," The Journal of Value Inquiry 21(1987):21-32, the first one to contrast deontology and teleology as two contradictory moral methodologies was Charles D. Broad, Five Types of Ethical Theory (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 1930), 206-16. For more information on the contrast between the deontological and the teleological methods of moral reasoning the reader may wish to consult one or more of the following: Heinrick Richard Niebuhr, The Responsible Self (1963) (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978), 47-54. William Frankena, "Love and Principle in Christian Ethics," chap. in Faith and Philosophy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), 203-25. Richard Garner and Bernard Rosen, Moral Philosophy (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1967), 55-113. William Frankena, Ethics 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973), 14-16. Ethel Albert, Theodore Denise and Sheldon Peterfreund, Great Traditions in Ethics (New York: D. Van Norstrand Co., 1975), 5-6. James Childs, Christian Anthropology and Ethics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 153-56. Samuel Gorovitz, Doctor's Dilemmas: Moral Conflict and Medical Care 5 6 necessarily mutually exclusive. It is the purpose of this first chapter to give a fuller exposition of these two methods. It will be shown that Scripture does not choose one method to the complete exclusion of the other; rather, Scripture allows elements of both methods to be brought together and used in a very specific way. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 83-90. Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, Principles of Biomedical Ethics 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 25 - 47. Neil Brown, "Teleology or Deontology?" Irish Theological Quarterly 53(1987):36-51. Norman L. Geisler, Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1989), 24-25. Thomas M. Garrett, Harold W. Baillie, and Rosellen M. Garrett, Health Care Ethics: Principles and Problems (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989), 2-3. Franklin I. Gamwell, The Divine Good (New York: Harper Collins, 1990), 19-84. John Klotz, Men, Medicine and Their Maker (Univeristy City, MO: Torelion Productions, 1991), 9-12. Frequently the distinction between deontology and teleology is made by authors who differentiate between the concepts of right (deontology) and good (teleology). For an example of this right (deontology)/good (teleology) distinction see Philip P. Wiener, ed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding Human Sexuality in John Paul II's Theology of the Body
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 5-6-2016 Understanding Human Sexuality in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body: An Analysis of the Historical Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Tradition John Segun Odeyemi Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Odeyemi, J. (2016). Understanding Human Sexuality in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body: An Analysis of the Historical Development of Doctrine in the Catholic Tradition (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/1548 This One-year Embargo is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. UNDERSTANDING HUMAN SEXUALITY IN JOHN PAUL II’S THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION. A Dissertation Submitted to Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By John Segun Odeyemi May 2016 Copyright by John Segun Odeyemi 2016 UNDERSTANDING HUMAN SEXUALITY IN JOHN PAUL II’S THEOLOGY OF THE BODY: AN ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION. By John Segun Odeyemi Approved on March 31, 2016 _______________________________ __________________________ Prof. George S. Worgul Jr. S.T.D., Ph.D. Dr. Elizabeth Cochran Professor of Theology Associate Professor of Theology (Dissertation Director) (Committee Member) ________________________________ ________________________________ Rev. Dr. Gregory I. Olikenyen C.S.Sp. Dr. James Swindal Assistant Professor of Theology Dean, McAnulty College and Graduate (Committee Member) School of Liberal Arts iii DEDICATION In honor of my dearly beloved parents on the 50th anniversary of their marriage, (October 30th, 1965 – October 30th 2015) Richard Tunji and Agnes Morolayo Odeyemi.
    [Show full text]
  • A Case Study of Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Norman L. Geisler
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2012 God and Integrity: a Case Study of Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Norman L. Geisler Augustin Tchamba Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Tchamba, Augustin, "God and Integrity: a Case Study of Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Norman L. Geisler" (2012). Dissertations. 153. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/153 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ABSTRACT GOD AND INTEGRITY: A CASE STUDY OF WALTER C. KAISER JR. AND NORMAN L. GEISLER by Augustin Tchamba Adviser: Miroslav M. Kiš ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: GOD AND INTEGRITY: A CASE STUDY OF WALTER C. KAISER JR. AND NORMAN L. GEISLER Name of researcher: Augustin Tchamba Name and degree of faculty adviser: Miroslav M. Kiš, Ph.D. Date completed: April 2012 The God of the Bible is sometimes portrayed as using and condoning deceit to achieve His purpose, especially when human life is at stake. Two evangelical scholars, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Norman L. Geisler, with a shared theological heritage, differ in their interpretation of Exod 1:15-21 and Josh 2:1-7 that addresses the ethical issue of lying to save life.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Morality Shawn Nelson
    February 11, 2018 Understanding Morality Shawn Nelson What is Morality? • When we say, “Humans are moral beings,” what do we really mean? o It means that people are able to make choices. o To understand this, compare humans with other life forms: ▪ Spiders (always spin the same web) ▪ Dogs (can’t help being dogs!) o In contrast, people are in the “image of God.” Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” • Part of being created in God’s image means free will. Free will = the ability to “do otherwise.” People can do the right thing –or– wrong thing. Examples of right things: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Examples of wrong things: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Who decides what’s Right/Wrong? Imagine you could live on a large island where people could do ANYTHING they wanted to. You could rob banks, loot stores, lie in court, cheat on tests, sleep with whomever you want... What do you think would happen? Would people be happy? Moral laws come from God. • God is an absolute moral lawgiver 1 • Moral laws exude from His unchanging nature • These laws are traced to His moral attributes (truthfulness, love/omnibenevolence, mercy) • Morality is prescribed through special revelation (Bible). • Moral laws are understood intuitively through general revelation. We know right from wrong by our own reaction when wrong is done to us, and we intuitively know we should not treat people this way (Rom. 2:14-15). Why should we care about what’s “Right”? Objection: Nobody is righteous! We’re saved by faith in Christ.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Unit 4 Ethics in the History of Western Philosophy
    1 UNIT 4 ETHICS IN THE HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY Contents 4.0 Objectives 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Epicurus 4.3 Aristotle 4.4 Thomas Aquinas 4.5 William of Ockham 4.6 Thomas Hobbes 4.7 Jeremy Bentham 4.8 Immanuel Kant 4.9 John Stuart Mill 4.10 Emile Durkheim 4.11 Let Us Sum Up 4.12 Key Words 4.13 Further Readings and References 4.0 OBJECTIVES As Sir David Ross points out, in a classical work Foundations of Ethics, written over sixty years ago, there are, broadly speaking, two approaches to ethics. This is better known as the distinction between deontological and teleological ethics. The Greek word for an ‘end’, in the sense of a goal to be achieved, is telos. Hence, ‘teleological’ ethics comprises all those kinds of ethics which see the criterion of morality in terms of whether an action fulfills the overall total end of human life in general and of moral activity in particular. The word ‘deontological’ was coined by the British moralist, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), from the Greek word, deon, literally, that which is binding. Deontological ethics views the morally good in terms of doing ones duty. Deontology would be the science of moral duties. We shall see that these two approaches differ more in emphasis than anything else; they are not mutually exclusive water- tight compartments. 4.1 INTRODUCTION Let us start with teleological approach. Ever since Aristotle, practically the entire Western tradition of philosophizing has accepted his contention that the ultimate human end is “happiness.” Now this could be understood as either exclusively, or with a strong stress on, individual or private happiness.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Economics, Or, Is
    THE END OF ECONOMICS, OR, IS UTILITARIANISM FINISHED? By John D. Mueller James Madison Program Fellow Fellow of The Lehrman Institute President, LBMC LLC Princeton University, 127 Corwin Hall, 15 April 2002 Summary. According to Lionel Robbins’ classic definition, “Economics is the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means that have alternate uses.” Yet most modern economists assume that economic choice involves only the means and not to the ends of human action. The reason seems to be that most modern economists are ignorant of the history of their own discipline before Adam Smith or Jeremy Bentham. Leading economists like Gary Becker attempt to explain all human behavior, including love and hate, as a maximization of “utility.” But historically and logically, an adequate description of economic choice has always required both a ranking of persons as ends and a ranking of scarce goods as means. What is missing from modern economics is an adequate description of the ranking of persons as ends. This is reflected in the absence of a satisfactory microeconomic explanation (for example, within the household) as to how goods are distributed to their final users, and in an overemphasis at the political level on an “individualistic social welfare function,” by which policymakers are purported to add up the preferences of a society of selfish individuals and determine all distribution from the government downwards, as if the nation or the world were one large household. As this “hole” in economic theory is recognized, an army of “neo-scholastic” economists will find full employment for the first few decades of the 21st Century, busily rewriting the Utilitarian “economic approach to human behavior” that dominated the last three decades of the 20th Century.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohist Theoretic System: the Rivalry Theory of Confucianism and Interconnections with the Universal Values and Global Sustainability
    Cultural and Religious Studies, March 2020, Vol. 8, No. 3, 178-186 doi: 10.17265/2328-2177/2020.03.006 D DAVID PUBLISHING Mohist Theoretic System: The Rivalry Theory of Confucianism and Interconnections With the Universal Values and Global Sustainability SONG Jinzhou East China Normal University, Shanghai, China Mohism was established in the Warring State period for two centuries and half. It is the third biggest schools following Confucianism and Daoism. Mozi (468 B.C.-376 B.C.) was the first major intellectual rivalry to Confucianism and he was taken as the second biggest philosophy in his times. However, Mohism is seldom studied during more than 2,000 years from Han dynasty to the middle Qing dynasty due to his opposition claims to the dominant Confucian ideology. In this article, the author tries to illustrate the three potential functions of Mohism: First, the critical/revision function of dominant Confucianism ethics which has DNA functions of Chinese culture even in current China; second, the interconnections with the universal values of the world; third, the biological constructive function for global sustainability. Mohist had the fame of one of two well-known philosophers of his times, Confucian and Mohist. His ideas had a decisive influence upon the early Chinese thinkers while his visions of meritocracy and the public good helps shape the political philosophies and policy decisions till Qin and Han (202 B.C.-220 C.E.) dynasties. Sun Yet-sen (1902) adopted Mohist concepts “to take the world as one community” (tian xia wei gong) as the rationale of his democratic theory and he highly appraised Mohist concepts of equity and “impartial love” (jian ai).
    [Show full text]
  • 5. What Matters Is the Motive / Immanuel Kant
    This excerpt is from Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, pp. 103-116, by permission of the publisher. 5. WHAT MATTERS IS THE MOTIVE / IMMANUEL KANT If you believe in universal human rights, you are probably not a utili- tarian. If all human beings are worthy of respect, regardless of who they are or where they live, then it’s wrong to treat them as mere in- struments of the collective happiness. (Recall the story of the mal- nourished child languishing in the cellar for the sake of the “city of happiness.”) You might defend human rights on the grounds that respecting them will maximize utility in the long run. In that case, however, your reason for respecting rights is not to respect the person who holds them but to make things better for everyone. It is one thing to con- demn the scenario of the su! ering child because it reduces overall util- ity, and something else to condemn it as an intrinsic moral wrong, an injustice to the child. If rights don’t rest on utility, what is their moral basis? Libertarians o! er a possible answer: Persons should not be used merely as means to the welfare of others, because doing so violates the fundamental right of self-ownership. My life, labor, and person belong to me and me alone. They are not at the disposal of the society as a whole. As we have seen, however, the idea of self-ownership, consistently applied, has implications that only an ardent libertarian can love—an unfettered market without a safety net for those who fall behind; a 104 JUSTICE minimal state that rules out most mea sures to ease inequality and pro- mote the common good; and a celebration of consent so complete that it permits self-in" icted a! ronts to human dignity such as consensual cannibalism or selling oneself into slav ery.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Dimensions of Classical Utilitarian Economic Thought ––Bentham, J.S
    July 2012 Three Dimensions of Classical Utilitarian Economic Thought ––Bentham, J.S. Mill, and Sidgwick–– Daisuke Nakai∗ 1. Utilitarianism in the History of Economic Ideas Utilitarianism is a many-sided conception, in which we can discern various aspects: hedonistic, consequentialistic, aggregation or maximization-oriented, and so forth.1 While we see its impact in several academic fields, such as ethics, economics, and political philosophy, it is often dragged out as a problematic or negative idea. Aside from its essential and imperative nature, one reason might be in the fact that utilitarianism has been only vaguely understood, and has been given different roles, “on the one hand as a theory of personal morality, and on the other as a theory of public choice, or of the criteria applicable to public policy” (Sen and Williams 1982, 1-2). In this context, if we turn our eyes on economics, we can find intimate but subtle connections with utilitarian ideas. In 1938, Samuelson described the formulation of utility analysis in economic theory since Jevons, Menger, and Walras, and the controversies following upon it, as follows: First, there has been a steady tendency toward the removal of moral, utilitarian, welfare connotations from the concept. Secondly, there has been a progressive movement toward the rejection of hedonistic, introspective, psychological elements. These tendencies are evidenced by the names suggested to replace utility and satisfaction––ophélimité, desirability, wantability, etc. (Samuelson 1938) Thus, Samuelson felt the need of “squeezing out of the utility analysis its empirical implications”. In any case, it is somewhat unusual for economists to regard themselves as utilitarians, even if their theories are relying on utility analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Kingdom of God Became the Kingdom of Ends: Altruism’S Development Into a Normative Ideal
    When the Kingdom of God Became the Kingdom of Ends: Altruism’s Development into a Normative Ideal A Senior Honor Thesis Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with distinction in Political Science in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences by Benjamin T. Jones The Ohio State University December 10, 2006 Project Advisors: John M. Parrish, Department of Political Science (Loyola Marymount University) Michael A. Neblo, Department of Political Science (The Ohio State University) Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Introduction 1 The Paradox at the Heart of Altruism 4 Defining Altruism and Normativity 6 What Are We Looking For? 11 Roadmap of What’s to Come 14 Part I Towards a Problem: The Ancient Debate over Public Life 17 Eudaimonia and Ancient Ethics 18 Plato and Aristotle 24 Epicurus and the Stoics 40 A Solution from an Unlikely Source 47 Augustine’s Reconciliation of the Two Cities 55 Conclusion 63 Part II Self-Love’s Fall from Grace: How Normative Altruism Developed out of the Augustinian Tradition 65 Entangled in Self-love: Augustine’s Normative Argument 67 Augustine Goes Secular 75 Kant’s Problematic Solution 83 Reworking Kant—And Altruism 89 Conclusion 91 Part III The Problems with Normative Altruism 93 Two Conceptions of Altruism 93 Evidence for Altruism on a Descriptive Level 95 Motivational Barriers to Normative Altruism 113 Changing the Way We Talk About Altruism 121 Conclusion 126 Bibliography 131 i Abstract In contemporary moral philosophy, altruism holds a place of prominence. Although a complex idea, the term seeps into everyday discourse, by no means confined to the esoteric language of philosophers and psychologists.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Ethics
    An Introduction to Ethics: From the Greeks to Applied Behavior Analysis Michael F. Dorsey, Ph.D., LABA, BCBA-D Professor of Education Director, The Institute for Behavioral Studies 1 Ethics: What’s all the Fuss? 2 Ethics “Relating to what is good or bad, having to do with moral duty and obligation.” (Moral is defined as relating to principles of right and wrong.) “Ethics is not about being better than someone else; it’s about being the best we can be.” 1Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd College Edition 2 © 2000 Josephson Institute of Ethics. 3 What is Ethics Acting with an awareness of the need for complying with rules, such as the laws of the land, the customs and expectations of the community, the principles of morality, the policies of the organization, and such general concerns as the needs of others and fairness. 4 Code of Ethics Sometimes referred to as a Value Statement, with general principles to guide behavior, outlining a set of principles that affect decision making. 5 Perhaps the BEST Example: The US Constitution We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America 6 Code of Conduct A “code of conduct” is a set of rules outlining the social norms and rules and responsibilities of, or proper practices for, an individual, party or organization.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Liberal Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill Piers Norris
    The Rise of Liberal Utilitarianism: Bentham and Mill Piers Norris Turner, Ohio State University [DRAFT: final version forthcoming in The Blackwell Companion to 19th Century Philosophy, ed. J.A. Shand] I. Introduction By the turn of the nineteenth century, Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was a well-known moral and legal reformer. A child of the Enlightenment, writing at the time of the American and French revolutions, Bentham had offered wide-ranging critiques of customary institutions and ways of thinking. He was particularly critical of appeals to natural law and intuition that, consciously or not, provided mere cover stories for people’s preferences. Such appeals, he argued, fail to provide real reasons: The various systems that have been formed concerning the standard of right and wrong… consist all of them in so many contrivances for avoiding the obligation of appealing to any external standard, and for prevailing upon the reader to accept of the author’s sentiment or opinion as a reason in itself. (An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation [IPML], II.14; B i.8)1 Because these cover stories are guided by people’s preferences, Bentham also argued that they are incapable of grounding a principled and well-organized set of public institutions. They instead protect established powers, whose likes and dislikes carry the most weight. His earliest writings, for instance, detail how the vagaries of the common law served entrenched interests rather than the public at large. What Bentham needed was a public principle that could guide a scientific program of legal codification and political reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Spiritually Formative Experiences of Female Seminary Spouses: a Phenomenological Inquiry Benjamin Forrest Liberty University School of Education
    EXPLORING THE SPIRITUALLY FORMATIVE EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE SEMINARY SPOUSES: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL INQUIRY by Benjamin Kelly Forrest Liberty University A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University June, 2013 EXPLORING THE SPIRITUALLY FORMATIVE EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE SEMINARY SPOUSES: A PHENOMENOLOGICAL INQUIRY By Benjamin Kelly Forrest A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA June, 2013 APPROVED BY: FRED A. MILACCI, D.Ed., Committee Chair JAMES L. ZABLOSKI, Ed.D., Committee Member JERRY W. POUNDS, Ed.D., Committee Member SCOTT B. WATSON, Ph.D., Associate Dean, Advanced Programs ii EXPLORING THE SPIRITUALLY FORMATIVE EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE SEMINARY SPOUSES: A PHENOMENOLOGY INQUIRY ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a qualitative research study exploring the spiritually formative experiences of nonstudent, female, seminary spouses whose student spouses are beyond the halfway point in their pursuit of an M.Div. at a large evangelical seminary in the eastern United States. Fifteen participants (twelve online nonstudent spouses and three residential nonstudent spouses) were purposefully sampled. The data, which was collected through questionnaires, in-depth interviews, and discussion forums, was analyzed using transcendental phenomenological analysis. Through this analysis it became apparent that seminary spouses did in fact experience spiritual formation through their husband’s education. Spouses experienced enhancements in their spiritual formation as well as detractors in their formation. Formation enhancements included relational, intellectual, and practical enhancements whereas detractors were not thematically segmented. Descriptors: Graduate education, seminary, spiritual formation, nonstudent spouse, female spouse, formative experiences, transcendental phenomenology, enhancements, detractors, spillover, crossover, Work/Family Enrichment, Work/Family Border Theory.
    [Show full text]