Calvinists definitely believe ethical improvement is possible (see John Calvin on free will). Rather, the claim is that there is a certain standard of goodness that no one reaches.
When all are damned from the very beginning, when “everything is problematic”, then who in fact gets condemned, what gets problematised, and who are the elect, are determined by political struggle for the seat of judgement.
This is true. Most of the world is under a scapegoating system, where punishment is generally unjust (see: Moral Mazes), and unethical behavior is pervasive. In such a circumstance, punishing all unethical behavior would be catastrophic, so such punishment would itself be unethical.
It would be desirable to establish justice, by designing social systems where the norms are clear, it’s not hard to follow them, and people have a realistic path to improvement when they break them. But, the systems of today are generally unjust.
Calvinists definitely believe ethical improvement is possible
I’m a stranger to theology so maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it sounds like Calvin thought people had free will, but other “Calvinists” thought one’s moral status was predestined by God, prohibiting ethical improvement. (I assume John Calvin isn’t going to exercise a Dennett/Conway Perspective Flip Get-Out-Clause, because if he does, the universe is trolling me).
(Aside: I sometimes think atheists with Judeo-Christian heritage risk losing the grace and keeping the damnation)
Yes, it’s complicated. According to Calvinism, God has already decided who is elect. However, this doctrine is compatible with motivations for ethical behavior, in the case of the Protestant work ethic. Quoting Wikipedia:
Since it was impossible to know who was predestined, the notion developed that it might be possible to discern that a person was elect (predestined) by observing their way of life. Hard work and frugality were thought to be two important consequences of being one of the elect. Protestants were thus attracted to these qualities and supposed to strive for reaching them.
This seems like some pretty wonky decision theory (striving for reaching ethical qualities because they’re signs of already being elect). Similar to the smoking lesion problem. Perhaps Calvinists are evidential decision theorists :)
Perhaps evidential non-decision theorists. Fallen man is unable to choose between good and evil, for in his fallen state he will always and inevitably choose evil.
There is no greater mockery than to call a sinner a free man. Show me a convict toiling in the chain gang, and call him a free man if you will; point out to me the galley slave chained to the oar, and smarting under the taskmaster’s lash whenever he pauses to draw breath, and call him a free man if you will; but never call a sinner a free man, even in his will, so long as he is the slave of his own corruptions.
Man is totally depraved:
The fact is, that man is a reeking mass of corruption. His whole soul is by nature so debased and so depraved, that no description which can be given of him even by inspired tongues can fully tell how base and vile a thing he is.
Man is incapable of the slightest urge to do good, unless the Lord extend his divine grace; and then, such good as he may do is done not by him but by the Lord working in him. And then, such outer works may be seen as evidence of inward grace.
Quotes are from the 19th century Calvinist C.M. Spurgeon, here and here. He wrote thousands of sermons, and they’re all like this.
Calvinists definitely believe ethical improvement is possible (see John Calvin on free will). Rather, the claim is that there is a certain standard of goodness that no one reaches.
This is true. Most of the world is under a scapegoating system, where punishment is generally unjust (see: Moral Mazes), and unethical behavior is pervasive. In such a circumstance, punishing all unethical behavior would be catastrophic, so such punishment would itself be unethical.
It would be desirable to establish justice, by designing social systems where the norms are clear, it’s not hard to follow them, and people have a realistic path to improvement when they break them. But, the systems of today are generally unjust.
I’m a stranger to theology so maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it sounds like Calvin thought people had free will, but other “Calvinists” thought one’s moral status was predestined by God, prohibiting ethical improvement. (I assume John Calvin isn’t going to exercise a Dennett/Conway Perspective Flip Get-Out-Clause, because if he does, the universe is trolling me).
(Aside: I sometimes think atheists with Judeo-Christian heritage risk losing the grace and keeping the damnation)
Yes, it’s complicated. According to Calvinism, God has already decided who is elect. However, this doctrine is compatible with motivations for ethical behavior, in the case of the Protestant work ethic. Quoting Wikipedia:
This seems like some pretty wonky decision theory (striving for reaching ethical qualities because they’re signs of already being elect). Similar to the smoking lesion problem. Perhaps Calvinists are evidential decision theorists :)
Perhaps evidential non-decision theorists. Fallen man is unable to choose between good and evil, for in his fallen state he will always and inevitably choose evil.
Man is totally depraved:
Man is incapable of the slightest urge to do good, unless the Lord extend his divine grace; and then, such good as he may do is done not by him but by the Lord working in him. And then, such outer works may be seen as evidence of inward grace.
Quotes are from the 19th century Calvinist C.M. Spurgeon, here and here. He wrote thousands of sermons, and they’re all like this.