I read a terrific book by Stanley Fish once, called The Trouble with Principle.
That was a while ago; but for some reason I was thinking about it again this morning. Principled people - and there are Christians among them, granted - are some of the most dangerous people there are. That is: everything in moral reasoning becomes ordered to a set of ideals (or even a single ideal). That means, in practice that anything is justifiable in the name of these ideals or principles. You can invade Iraq and torture prisoners in the name of freedom, for example. In the name of fairer and better government with more integrity you can knife your political opponents in the back. Do evil, that good may result. It is (so the calculation runs) a lesser evil than the evil that may result if the ultimate good is not defended.
There is, naturally, a deal of suspicion of these kind of principles, too. What alternative is there to them is the problem - to be unprincipled?
But Christian discipleship is not the following of a set of principles. It is discipleship: it is following a master, imitation of an example (while at the same time being spiritually united to this master). It isn't a set of truths (though it is TRUE, and it trades in TRUTH, for sure) from which all else must be deduced in some process of ethical calculation. Even 'love' can't be held as a mere principle: it must be worked out in the light of the example of love given to us and worked in us.
Away then with principles!
6 comments:
Come now Michael, isn't there some abuse of language in this discussion? (I have not read the book by Fish, and so speak in ignorance of it.)
In normal usage there would be no contradiction in describing as "a principled man" someone who has said (as the leader of my previous experiment once indeed stated) that "I do not make decisions based on first principles".
There is an ambiguity --- or perhaps it is just a breadth --- in the meaning of the word, which I think you are pretending not to notice.
One is naturally suspicious of those who put principle ahead of people - after all, love thy neighbour trumps the "thou shalt nots". And this is precisely what Jesus does when he models love. And similarly, I assume that adherence to principles (or ideals) has a purpose - to realise the 'perfect' (or ideal). I'd have though. Our purpose is to glorify God, which we are more than capable of doing in our weakness, ignorance, compromises, and of course, our love for each other. So I'm backing the Snoz-meister on this, knowing with certainty that he will not like being referred to as such on his Blog, but competent in his forgiveness.
Michael,
I agree ethics that is all principle falls short of being Christian (sounds more Kantian). (Gielser's garded absolutism is an example of an all principle approach).
Yet ethics without principle is incoherent. Isn't O'Donovan's point that there is a real generic ordering important for exactly this reason. He is reminding us that because creation is an 'order' then we can recognise genuine commonalities across diverse situations and decisions. We talk about 'principles' as one way of getting a handle on the common features.
There are other factors - character and consequence which need to be taken into account. But principle has a place in moral reflection.
John
Bruce: well, perhaps! I am not sure that the slippage in the word is as significant for my point as you are making it out to be.
Edmo-Tuft: yes, I think you have given a good account here. I guess my target is a kind of idealism that I see excersised even by Christians, whereby the ideals are abstract concepts to which all is ordered.
John: and, yes, I think I ought to modify my point as you suggest. 'Principles' act as useful carry bags for us in talking about how our discipleship is applied: but it can be very misleading. Think of the talk of 'Christian values' in schools...when i hear that, I want to reach for my gun...
BTW, JM, I notice you endorsing Chris Wright's Mission book. Have you seen the review article I wrote for Anvil? I can send you a copy if you like...
Michael,
haven't seen it would be glad to see it.
email me - jmcclean@ptcsydney.org
You've probably read/heard Hauwerwas criticise Christian values along similar lines.
John
Michael I guess my argument is that your criticism of monomaniacal "principle" is to some extent already present in the received usage of the word, and even the usage on the street; the point you (and perhaps also Fish) are making is not being made for the first time, and the language retains a memory of it.
You clearly mean to be provocative in the way you've phrased the point, and I don't (in this instance!) mean to criticise this as a choice of tone. My concern is rather with what one does when going beyond the criticism to construct some positive position. I think you will inevitably end up embracing principles in a weaker sense of the word --- as subject to criticism, and not necessarily ultimate in ambition --- but as necessary in ordering moral and other practical insight.
I certainly agree that subordination of all decisions to some simple set of propositions is overweening and dangerous, most especially in ethics, whose subject matter is intrinsically complex. (That is, it is not complicated merely due to obscurantism or opposition by godless men, but complex and difficult in its own nature.) As to Christian discipleship, it doesn't help our own tradition that the wider Australian culture, including its intellectual life, is ethically naive.
Post a Comment