From: Steve Petermann (steve@spetermann.org)
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 11:40:59 EDT
Hi Richard,
> I would be weary of allocating too much weight on the _outcome_ of things
> to delineate _true_ good and evil. This may be akin to the utilitarian,
> results-based conception of 'good' morals which is a deficient conception
> of moral reality.
A utilitarian framework would only apply when a moral ground in the divine
is rejected. If the moral is grounded in the divine life then outcomes will
automatically serve telos(the ultimate meaning and purpose of the cosmos).
> Good is intrinsic in its various facets and forms.
I'd have to know more of what you mean by facets and forms. Are these
Platonic references? Rather than intrinsicallity my view is that the "good"
is an emergent valuation that is driven by telos.
Best Regards,
Steve Petermann
----- Original Message -----
From: <Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au>
To: "Steve Petermann" <steve@spetermann.org>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: The Problem of Good
>
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> >>>What about playing cards or any other game? What do we enjoy about it?
> The
> challenge? The risk? Would it be fun to play cards if there was never a
> chance you could lose? We enjoy games *because* of the risk of failure.
It
> is the challenge and possibility of victory or growth that creates the
> "good".<<<
>
>
> I would be weary of allocating too much weight on the _outcome_ of things
> to delineate _true_ good and evil. This may be akin to the utilitarian,
> results-based conception of 'good' morals which is a deficient conception
> of moral reality.
>
> Good is intrinsic in its various facets and forms. Furthermore, Good, per
> se, is variously related to justice (even though justice is at times very
> specific to situations).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 11:45:27 EDT