# Anybody read Geisler on Ethics?



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2007)

I just ordered (very cheaply) Geisler's book on ethics. The structure of it looks good. He deals with ethics in a systematic fashion. The negative part is...well...


----------



## elnwood (Oct 3, 2007)

I own it. I've only looked through his section on capital punishment, but it was excellent in presenting both sides fairly. In fact, I was surprised that he came to the position that he did because he presented the other side so well.


----------



## caddy (Oct 3, 2007)

No, but I did read his book on book _Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective. _Good book.

Then I read his book, _Chosen but Free_ and thought it was pretty well reasoned till I read White's Critique of the Book _The Potter's Freedom_ where White systematically dismantled him.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 3, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I just ordered (very cheaply) Geisler's book on ethics. The structure of it looks good. He deals with ethics in a systematic fashion. The negative part is...well...



Yes. 

He's a hierarchialist (or, graded absolutism). That is, when in an ethical dilemma, do the greater of two goods (or, is it the lesser of two _evils_?!). So, if the Nazis come to your door and ask where you're hiding the Jews, it is better to save a life than to break the 9th commandment. So, you do the "lesser sin." Conversly, I'd say that it is not a violation of the 9th commandment to deceive the Nazis in that situation (and of course, the great John Murray would disagree with me here. He thought Rahab did an immoral act in lying to hide the spies). So, if you're not a graded absolutist, then there'll be some disagreement here.

Also, it seems he leans a bit to heavy toward the deontologist side of things. If you like the triperspectival approach, viz., Frame and Bahnsen, then you won't like the de-emphasis on teleological and existential justifications for moral acts.

He also offers some standard ( and rather dusty, In my humble opinion) critiques of non-Christian approaches to ethics, viz., utilitarianism, relativism, etc. (Contrary to Don (Elnwood), I'd say Geisler erected some seriously strawy straw-men, too. But, I always say to get info from the horses mouth, anyway. If you're strictly going to a Geisler or a Bahnsen to get your presentation of non-Christian positions, I'd say you're going to end up in trouble when you actually meet the real deal one day.) I actually like some of Russ Shaefer-Landau's critiques of those ethical systems (see his Moral Realism). He's a non-naturalist realist, and a non-Christian, but nevertheless, he makes for good plundering the Egyptian material.

Lastly, even though there's disagreement here too, I like Robert Adam's "Finite and Infinite Goods: _A Framework for Ethics_." If you think 'virture' belongs in a justification for ethics, you might like this.


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Oct 3, 2007)

> If you're strictly going to a Geisler or a Bahnsen to get your presentation of non-Christian positions, I'd say you're going to end up in trouble when you actually meet the real deal one day



Paul, can you elaborate it a bit more for someone who is just starting to get into Bahnsen? Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 3, 2007)

I am taking Pastoral and Social Ethics with the late Harold OJ Brown. He interacts with Geisler. My ethical format isn't as clearly defined. I am generally theonomic but I try to interact with natural law theorists. Some of what they say is good, some I am not persuaded. 

I really like Bahnsen/Frame tri-perspectivals, but I would like to see more systematic formulations of those three perspectives.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 3, 2007)

aleksanderpolo said:


> > If you're strictly going to a Geisler or a Bahnsen to get your presentation of non-Christian positions, I'd say you're going to end up in trouble when you actually meet the real deal one day
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, can you elaborate it a bit more for someone who is just starting to get into Bahnsen? Thanks.



I'm just saying that you should read the people who present the theory if you want to do the best job at understanding them and representing them properly. It wasn't meant to be a slam against Bahnsen or Geisler. I've just read them both where they have misunderstood their opponant or attacked weakened versions of this or that thesis. For example, I read baptists themselves over against reading paedobaptist representations of baptist arguments. I read atheists themselves over against what so and so Christian apologist says the atheist says.

Granted, we can't read everything, and so it is helpful to read someone who has done the work. But, if you're going to publicly attack a position, I think you had better be familiar with what the best adherents of that system have to say.


----------



## Jim Johnston (Oct 3, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> I really like Bahnsen/Frame tri-perspectivals, but I would like to see more systematic formulations of those three perspectives.




Sure. Read the detailed work by ethicists, get the terminology down, become skilled in the analytic tradition, and take what Bahnsen/Frame have to say and put it into more rigerous language. Frame isn't going to be around forever, and someone has got to do it, why not you?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 9, 2007)

Steve Hays (I think) has a helpful discussion on this.
Triablogue: Christian meta-ethics


----------

