

Rethinking "Christian ethics" in terms of Aristotelian ethics - jackpirate
http://izbicki.me/blog/putting-radical-christianity-in-the-framework-of-aristotelian-ethics

======
krapp
I don't see how this proves the premise that 'radical christian' ethics are
unique compared to non-christian or, presumably, non-radical christian ethics.
In my opinion, this seems to undermine its own validity by invoking the ideals
of a pagan philosopher to express the idea.

edit: sorry, just realized it might not be your site being linked to so I
rephrased my comment.

~~~
jackpirate
Well it's not trying to "prove" that radical Christian ethics are different so
much as just giving an example of a different thought process. I actually
think the fact that it can be expressed in terms of a pagan philosopher
strengthens the argument.

~~~
krapp
But isn't it no longer Christian if you do? Where is the Biblical principle
that "virtue is the mean between two vices?"

And if you can adequately frame radical Christian ethics this way, doesn't it
suggest that the ethics themselves are not Christian but human, and aside from
the particular cultural and mythopoeic trappings of radical christianity, not
even really fundamentally different? If so, different from what, and to what
value?

Let me use as an example the dilemma stated in the article, and the conclusion
reached using the "radical Christian" metric:

 _This leads us to our second option: redefining which spectrum of vices and
virtues we use. Let’s imagine the classic thought experiment against pacifism:
Someone is attacking your grandmother; do you fight the attacker or do
nothing? By the standard metric above, only a coward would not fight. The
courageous man—the virtuous and ethical man—would clearly fight.

But I make decisions based on a different metric. On the one hand, I weigh my
responsibility to the victim, and on the other hand I weigh my responsibility
to the perpetrator. The virtuous person under this schema is the one who is
able to treat both of them with perfect love; the vices are excessively
favoring one side at the expense of the other. That is, the virtuous man
intervenes but in a nonviolent way to stop the attack._

Surely the thesis can't be that only a 'radical Christian' would be able to
adopt this point of view? The final paragraph says "radical Christians tend to
adopt this perspective" but where is the evidence that non-radical Christians
of a pacifist nature tend not to? The provided charts don't really cut it.

