God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions

A special issue of Religions (ISSN 2077-1444). This special issue belongs to the section "Religions and Humanities/Philosophies".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 June 2021) | Viewed by 43930

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of History, Politics, and Philosophy, Lipscomb University, Nashville, TN 37204, USA
Interests: moral philosophy; philosophy of religion; history of philosophy

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
College of Bible and Ministry, Harding University, Searcy, AR 72149-5615, USA
Interests: epistemology; philosophy of religion; metaethics

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue of Religions is focused on philosophical questions pertaining to the relationship between God (as conceived both in classical monotheism and in historic Christian traditions) and ethics (broadly conceived). Does God’s existence and nature make any difference with respect to morality? And if so, in what ways? This line of inquiry naturally connects up to a variety of debates in metaethics, moral psychology, normative moral theory, applied ethics, and other related areas. We invite papers that attend to these questions.

Additionally, we welcome papers that address these questions by thinking out of, or by engaging with, specific Christian traditions or denominational heritages. In other words, while this Special Issue is not limited to such engagements, we welcome papers that pertain not just to a generalized form of Christian thought, but to the specific traditions from which, or within which, one might live and work. What can be learned by taking a look at this or that distinctive stream within the broader Christian tradition? How might the particularities of this or that narrower tradition inform debates in ethics? While the literature on God and ethics is sometimes incidentally or implicitly informed by specific Christian traditions, this Special Issue aims to expand the literature by welcoming authors to think intentionally and unapologetically with, and out of, specific Christian lineages.

This Special Issue will publish papers that address such questions as:

In metaethics and moral psychology:

  • How does God’s existence and nature inform debates pertaining to the metaphysical foundations of morality? How do moral obligations arise in relation to God?  In the ways explained by theological voluntarism or divine command theory?  Natural law theory?  Virtue theory?  Some combination thereof?  Some alternative altogether? 
  • Is a classical monotheistic conception of God necessary for moral realism? Does a Christian conception of God entail moral realism?
  • What difference does God’s existence and nature make with respect to moral epistemology? Does it affect how we come to have knowledge of morality? What difference does believing in God make with respect to how we come to this knowledge?
  • What difference does God’s existence and nature make with respect to whether and what extent we are motivated to be moral? How, and in what ways, does religious faith affect the moral life? Are we made morally better by having religious faith?

In normative ethics:

  • What implications does an acceptance of the Christian conception of God have on normative moral theory?
  • Does the Christian conception of God stand in conflict with consequentialism? Deontology?
  • Does the Christian conception of God entail virtue ethics? If so, what is the relationship between virtue ethics and other normative theories?
  • What is the relationship between Christian metaethics and normative theories? Does an acceptance of a natural law metaethics, for example, have any implications for normative ethics?

In applied ethics:

  • Are there specific salient issues that are informed by God’s existence and nature? How might the proper reflection on God’s relationship to morality influence one’s views on issues of race, policing, gender identity, genetic engineering, recreational drug use, distributive justice, etc.?
  • What entailments does an affirmation of this or that specific Christian tradition have on some given issue of applied ethics (for example, in sexual ethics or in debates about the role of religion in politics?)

With respect to specific Christian traditions:

  • What can be learned about morality by taking a look at a specific religious heritage—e.g., the Reformed tradition, evangelicalism, Pentecostalism, Methodism, the Baptist tradition, the Stone-Campbell Tradition, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Orthodoxy,etc.?
  • What are the limitations of those traditions?
  • How do specific traditions shape our views of God, and hence our views about the relation between God and metaethics, normative moral theory, or applied ethics?
  • Are there neglected or underexplored religious thinkers in the history of philosophy and theology—or in this or that specific religious tradition—with whom it would be helpful to think in sorting through issues in metaethics, normative moral theory, and applied ethics?

Prof. Dr. J. Caleb Clanton
Dr. Kraig Martin
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Religions is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • religion
  • theism
  • Christianity
  • God
  • tradition
  • philosophy
  • ethics
  • morality
  • metaethics
  • moral psychology
  • normative ethics
  • applied ethics
  • practical ethics
  • virtue theory
  • consequentialism
  • deontology
  • divine command theory
  • natural law theory

Published Papers (11 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

14 pages, 240 KiB  
Article
Do Everything for the Glory of God
by W. Scott Cleveland
Religions 2021, 12(9), 754; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12090754 - 13 Sep 2021
Viewed by 2292
Abstract
St. Paul writes, “whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10: 31 NABRE).” This essay employs the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and the recent philosophical work of Daniel Johnson (2020) on this command to investigate a series [...] Read more.
St. Paul writes, “whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10: 31 NABRE).” This essay employs the work of St. Thomas Aquinas and the recent philosophical work of Daniel Johnson (2020) on this command to investigate a series of questions that the command raises. What is glory? How does one properly act for glory and for the glory of another? How is it possible to do everything for the glory of God? I begin with Aquinas’ account of glory and the pursuit of glory for God’s glory and Aquinas’s answers to some of the above questions that can be drawn from his discussion in De Malo. I defend Aquinas against criticisms from Daniel Johnson and present his own interpretation of the command. I advance the discussion through adding two additional interpretations that do not rely on a controversial assumption Johnson makes. Next, I address the puzzle of how we can intend everything for the glory of God using Aquinas’s three-fold account of intention. Finally, I discuss the relation between charity and the desire for God’s glory and how regular, actual intentions of one’s actions for the glory of God increases charity. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
8 pages, 199 KiB  
Article
God, New Natural Law Theory, and Human Rights
by Christopher Tollefsen
Religions 2021, 12(8), 613; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12080613 - 6 Aug 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 3777
Abstract
Critics of the “New” Natural Law (NNL) theory have raised questions about the role of the divine in that theory. This paper considers that role in regard to its account of human rights: can the NNL account of human rights be sustained without [...] Read more.
Critics of the “New” Natural Law (NNL) theory have raised questions about the role of the divine in that theory. This paper considers that role in regard to its account of human rights: can the NNL account of human rights be sustained without a more or less explicit advertence to “the question of God’s existence or nature or will”? It might seem that Finnis’s “elaborate sketch” includes a full theory of human rights even prior to the introduction of his reflections on the divine in the concluding chapter of Natural Law and Natural Rights. But in this essay, I argue that an adequate account of human rights cannot, in fact, be sustained without some role for God’s creative activity in two dimensions, the ontological and the motivational. These dimensions must be distinguished from the epistemological dimension of human rights, that is, the question of whether epistemological access to truths about human rights is possible without reference to God’s existence, nature, or will. The NNL view is that such access is possible. However, I will argue, the epistemological cannot be entirely cabined off from the relevant ontological and motivational issues and the NNL framework can accommodate this fact without difficulty. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
11 pages, 356 KiB  
Article
Love and Do What You Want: Augustine’s Pneumatological Love Ethics
by Mac S. Sandlin
Religions 2021, 12(8), 585; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12080585 - 29 Jul 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 10601
Abstract
Augustine famously summarizes all of ethics in the maxim, “Love and do what you want” in his Homilies on the First Epistle of John, but also describes sin as misdirected love and humanity as characterized by sin. This raises the question as [...] Read more.
Augustine famously summarizes all of ethics in the maxim, “Love and do what you want” in his Homilies on the First Epistle of John, but also describes sin as misdirected love and humanity as characterized by sin. This raises the question as to how Augustine can offer such a maxim given humanity’s tendency to love so poorly. Aimed at ethicists and theologians with only a general knowledge of Augustine, this paper examines Augustine’s approach to ethics and its relationship to his theology of the Holy Spirit. By exploring the ordo amoris, the uti/frui distinction, and the doctrine of the Spirit as the inner-Trinitarian Love of the Father and the Son, I attempt to show how Augustine’s maxim can fit with his hamartiology. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
15 pages, 250 KiB  
Article
Correcting Acedia through Wonder and Gratitude
by Brandon Dahm
Religions 2021, 12(7), 458; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12070458 - 23 Jun 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2740
Abstract
In the capital vices tradition, acedia was fought through perseverance and manual labor. In this paper, I argue that we can also fight acedia through practicing wonder and gratitude. I show this through an account of moral formation developed out of the insight [...] Read more.
In the capital vices tradition, acedia was fought through perseverance and manual labor. In this paper, I argue that we can also fight acedia through practicing wonder and gratitude. I show this through an account of moral formation developed out of the insight of the virtues and vices traditions that character traits affect how we see things. In the first section, I use Robert Roberts’s account of emotions to explain a mechanism by which virtues and vices affect vision and thus moral formation. Then, by looking at the capital vices tradition, I argue that restless boredom is a primary construal of the vice of acedia. Third, I explain wonder and gratitude through the work of G.K. Chesterton and Roberts, respectively. In light of their accounts, I explain how the construals of wonder and gratitude are contrary to the construal of acedia. Finally, I offer some practices that encourage gratitude and wonder. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
16 pages, 233 KiB  
Article
John Calvin’s Multiplicity Thesis
by Daniel Bonevac
Religions 2021, 12(6), 399; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12060399 - 31 May 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3098
Abstract
John Calvin holds that the fall radically changed humanity’s moral and epistemic capacities. Recognizing that should lead Christian philosophers to see that philosophical questions require at least two sets of answers: one reflecting our nature and capacities before the fall, and the other [...] Read more.
John Calvin holds that the fall radically changed humanity’s moral and epistemic capacities. Recognizing that should lead Christian philosophers to see that philosophical questions require at least two sets of answers: one reflecting our nature and capacities before the fall, and the other reflecting our nature and capacities after the fall. Our prelapsarian knowledge of God, the right, and the good is direct and noninferential; our postlapsarian knowledge of them is mostly indirect, inferential, and filled with moral and epistemic risk. Only revelation can move us beyond fragmentary and indeterminate moral and theological knowledge. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
10 pages, 197 KiB  
Article
Catholicism and the Natural Law: A Response to Four Misunderstandings
by Francis J. Beckwith
Religions 2021, 12(6), 379; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12060379 - 24 May 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 5503
Abstract
This article responds to four criticisms of the Catholic view of natural law: (1) it commits the naturalistic fallacy, (2) it makes divine revelation unnecessary, (3) it implausibly claims to establish a shared universal set of moral beliefs, and (4) it disregards the [...] Read more.
This article responds to four criticisms of the Catholic view of natural law: (1) it commits the naturalistic fallacy, (2) it makes divine revelation unnecessary, (3) it implausibly claims to establish a shared universal set of moral beliefs, and (4) it disregards the noetic effects of sin. Relying largely on the Church’s most important theologian on the natural law, St. Thomas Aquinas, the author argues that each criticism rests on a misunderstanding of the Catholic view. To accomplish this end, the author first introduces the reader to the natural law by way of an illustration he calls the “the ten (bogus) rules.” He then presents Aquinas’ primary precepts of the natural law and shows how our rejection of the ten bogus rules ultimately relies on these precepts (and inferences from them). In the second half of the article, he responds directly to each of the four criticisms. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
11 pages, 222 KiB  
Article
God’s Will as the Foundation of Morality: A Medieval Historical Perspective
by Janine Idziak
Religions 2021, 12(5), 362; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12050362 - 19 May 2021
Viewed by 2460
Abstract
Theological voluntarism places the foundation of morality in the will of God. The formulation of such a thesis warrants further refinement. Different formulations of theological voluntarism were put forward in medieval philosophical theology involving the relation of God’s will to the divine intellect [...] Read more.
Theological voluntarism places the foundation of morality in the will of God. The formulation of such a thesis warrants further refinement. Different formulations of theological voluntarism were put forward in medieval philosophical theology involving the relation of God’s will to the divine intellect (reason) in determining ethical status. The fourteenth century Franciscan Andrew of Neufchateau maintained a purely voluntaristic theory in which it is God’s will alone (and not the divine intellect) that determines ethical status. Subsequently Pierre d’Ailly worked with a divine will which is identical with the divine intellect in a strong sense while still maintaining that it is properly assigned to the divine will to be an obligatory law. Later, Jean Gerson, a student of Pierre d’Ailly, spoke explicitly of God’s will and reason together as involved in God’s activity in the ethical realm. In this paper, we set out these three different formulations of theological voluntarism, tracing the evolution of medieval formulations of theological voluntarism. Although the paper is historical in nature, we conclude with some reflections on how contemporary philosophers and theologians interested in theological voluntarism might profit from study of this historical literature. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
10 pages, 200 KiB  
Article
Militant Liturgies: Practicing Christianity with Kierkegaard, Bonhoeffer, and Weil
by J. Aaron Simmons
Religions 2021, 12(5), 340; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12050340 - 12 May 2021
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3441
Abstract
Traditional philosophy of religion has tended to focus on the doxastic dimension of religious life, which although a vitally important area of research, has often come at the cost of philosophical engagements with religious practice. Focusing particularly on Christian traditions, this essay offers [...] Read more.
Traditional philosophy of religion has tended to focus on the doxastic dimension of religious life, which although a vitally important area of research, has often come at the cost of philosophical engagements with religious practice. Focusing particularly on Christian traditions, this essay offers a sustained reflection on one particular model of embodied Christian practice as presented in the work of Søren Kierkegaard. After a discussion of different notions of practice and perfection, the paper turns to Kierkegaard’s conception of the two churches: the Church Triumphant and the Church Militant. Then, in light of Kierkegaard’s defense of the latter and critique of the former, it is shown that Kierkegaard’s specific account gets appropriated and expanded in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s account of “costly grace” and “religionless Christianity,” and Simone Weil’s conception of “afflicted love.” Ultimately, it is suggested that these three thinkers jointly present a notion of “militant liturgies” that offers critical and constructive resources for contemporary philosophy of religion. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
14 pages, 222 KiB  
Article
Understanding Moral Disagreement: A Christian Perspectivalist Approach
by Blake McAllister
Religions 2021, 12(5), 318; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12050318 - 30 Apr 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1994
Abstract
Deep moral disagreements exist between Christians and non-Christians. I argue that Christians should resist the temptation to pin all such disagreements on the irrationality of their disputants. To this end, I develop an epistemological framework on which both parties can be rational—the key [...] Read more.
Deep moral disagreements exist between Christians and non-Christians. I argue that Christians should resist the temptation to pin all such disagreements on the irrationality of their disputants. To this end, I develop an epistemological framework on which both parties can be rational—the key being that their beliefs are formed from different perspectives and, hence, on the basis of different sets of evidence. I then alleviate concerns that such moral perspectivalism leads to relativism or skepticism, or that it prohibits rational discourse. I end by exploring new avenues for resolving deep moral disagreements opened up by the perspectivalist approach. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
8 pages, 192 KiB  
Article
Does Darwall’s Morality of Accountability Require Moral Realism? (And Would It Be Strengthened by Adding God to the Story?)
by C. Stephen Evans
Religions 2021, 12(3), 187; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel12030187 - 11 Mar 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2209
Abstract
Stephen Darwall has developed an account of moral obligations as grounded in “second-personal reasons,” which was developed in conversation with early modern “theological voluntarists” who were divine command theorists. For Darwall, morality does not require accountability to God; humans as autonomous moral agents [...] Read more.
Stephen Darwall has developed an account of moral obligations as grounded in “second-personal reasons,” which was developed in conversation with early modern “theological voluntarists” who were divine command theorists. For Darwall, morality does not require accountability to God; humans as autonomous moral agents are the source of moral obligations. In this paper, I try to show that Darwall is vulnerable to some objections made against divine command theories. There are responses Darwall could make that have parallels to those given by divine command theorists. However, those responses require moral realism, while Darwall’s project is often seen as being inspired by metaethical constructivism. Finally, I suggest that Darwall’s view could be further strengthened by the addition of God to the story. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
14 pages, 216 KiB  
Article
Aquinas and Scotus on the Metaphysical Foundations of Morality
by J. Caleb Clanton and Kraig Martin
Religions 2019, 10(2), 107; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/rel10020107 - 14 Feb 2019
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 4170
Abstract
This paper retraces some of the contrast between Aquinas and Scotus with respect to the metaphysical foundations of morality in order to highlight how subtle differences pertaining to the relationship between the divine will and the divine intellect can tip a thinker toward [...] Read more.
This paper retraces some of the contrast between Aquinas and Scotus with respect to the metaphysical foundations of morality in order to highlight how subtle differences pertaining to the relationship between the divine will and the divine intellect can tip a thinker toward either an unalloyed natural law theory (NLT) or something that at least starts to move in the direction of divine command theory (DCT). The paper opens with a brief consideration of three distinct elements in Aquinas’s work that might tempt one to view him in a DCT light, namely: his discussion of the divine law in addition to the natural law; his position on the so-called immoralities of the patriarchs; and some of his assertions about the divine will in relation to justice. We then respond to each of those considerations. In the second and third of these cases, following Craig Boyd, we illustrate how Aquinas’s conviction that the divine will follows the ordering of the divine intellect can help inform the interpretive disputes in question. We then turn our attention to Scotus’s concern about the freedom of the divine will, before turning to his discussion of the natural law in relation to the Decalogue as a way of stressing how his two-source theory of the metaphysical foundations of morality represents a clear departure from Aquinas in the direction of DCT. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue God, Ethics, and Christian Traditions)
Back to TopTop