Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that An aim is ultimate only if it would be pursued even when not subordinate to a higher end; Edwards's framework denies this independence to creaturely good.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
A good can be both subordinate to a higher end AND pursued for its own sake; these aren't mutually exclusive.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The definition of 'ultimate' as requiring complete independence is stipulative, not philosophically necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Edwards could argue creaturely good is ultimate *within its proper sphere*, without absolute independence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If all creaturely goods serve God's glory, they lack the independence required for true ultimacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An ultimate aim cannot derive its worth from another source; Edwards makes creaturely good derivative.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Only self-justifying purposes (needing no external validation) qualify as truly ultimate ends.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.