Graded absolutism, just a few questions

[Stevo]

This is my first post about theology in this forum so go easy on me yeah :smile:

I just had a argument with my House group. It was of course if lying is ever the right thing to do. They took the position of UNQUALIFIED ABSOLUTISM and I took the position of what I now know to be GRADED ABSOLUTISM. We did'nt really agree on anything because I hav'nt really got what I believe sorted out(like so many things).

I understand that Jesus teaches that some rules are more important then others and that there are times in the Bible where the concept of lower and higher moral rules are demenstrated. I consider Exodus 1:15-21 as proof that saving innocent life is more important then obeying the do not lie command. There are other examples but I won't go into them.

Lying to save a life I don't have a problem with, but how far could you take moral hierarchy, i mean would you steal to save a life? Would you commit adultery to save a life? Would you lie to save your own life? I would say no to all three but just because I happen to find them more morally repungent then lying. I would rather trust in God then steal as a result. It all seems a bit arbitary to me. If moral hierarchy was'nt supported by the Bible then believing in unqualified absolution would be so much more clear cut.

[BronzeArcher]

You will find different hierarchies even within C phil. But what would answer those questions is one's hierarchy. I'm slowly starting to specify mine; what I regard as having intrinsic value and instrumental value, etc. Your questions are vague though, because it is not at all clear what situation it is and therefore it is not clear what moral rules are relevant. :shrug:

[Stevo]

I realise that talking about hypothetical situations is a bit silly because in real life things tend to be more complex.

I've heard of the God>Man>Things rule in determining hierarchy is there any scripture to make a case for this?

[BronzeArcher]

I won't cite things at you, but here's a simple case for that (I haven't heard of it, but it seems fairly common sense):

God is presented as the ultimate, the holiest and therefore most valuable. Also contrast trusting God (cf. Jer 17.7) with trusting in other things (cf. Prov 11.28, Ps 62.10, Jer 5:17).

Are two sparrows sold for a farthing? Or whatever that is. How much more are you worth then? Also, animals don't have the imago dei.

That leaves things, which, unless they 'belong' to God in some special way i.e. temple, are not given special status.

[TrinityKicker]

Wow, I've never know that formal term for that view. I've always considered it absurd, but none of the people I've spoken too have ever shown me those versus.

You have me something to study... Thank you.

[BronzeArcher]

There's really basic one about God desiring mercy over sacrifice. :huh:

[Darth Executor]

Is lying automatically wrong? I thought "bearing false witness" was a bit more complex than that although I haven't done much research on the subject.

[BronzeArcher]

Do you want a Western or Eastern answer?

[Darth Executor]

Do you want a Western or Eastern answer?

Eastern.

[BronzeArcher]

Decieving outsiders can be very honorable.

In general, think of graded absolutism as deontological morality (see the chart here (http://www.equip.org/free/DE198.htm)). It goes from the grand questions of what the function of humans are, down to the very specific questions of what the goal of something is. The means with which you achieve the goal matter, in contrast to utilitarianism (which does not require good means).

[Darth Executor]

Decieving outsiders can be very honorable.

In general, think of graded absolutism as deontological morality (see the chart here (http://www.equip.org/free/DE198.htm)). It goes from the grand questions of what the function of humans are, down to the very specific questions of what the goal of something is. The means with which you achieve the goal matter, in contrast to utilitarianism (which does not require good means).

Ok good stuff. Thanks. :smile:











Bot. :haha:

[jason]

Is lying automatically wrong? I thought "bearing false witness" was a bit more complex than that although I haven't done much research on the subject.
"bearing false witness" is something that you do in a specifically legal context. You can think of it as "lying under oath".

So it is not the same as a lie as such, but related.

Though I would not consider such a specific commandment as a license to lie in all other contexts.

Jason

[BronzeArcher]

Hm. I wonder if justice is to be held in greater esteem than truth, at least in some situations--for example, what of the case where you are a witness in a corrupt court, and only some well-placed deceptions would secure the defendant's safety?