Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Therefore, on rigorously non-eudaimonist ethical grounds, Edwards's God fails to genuinely adopt the creature's good as an ultimate rather than derivative end.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Edwards's God can simultaneously hold creature good as ultimate within the divine nature while expressing it through self-glorification without contradiction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-eudaimonist frameworks may illegitimately presuppose agent-relative autonomy that doesn't apply to a maximally benevolent God's motivation structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Deriving creature good from God's ends need not make it merely derivative if God's essence necessarily includes creature flourishing as intrinsic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Edwards derives creature good from God's self-glorification, making it instrumentally dependent on divine ends rather than intrinsically valued.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A non-eudaimonist ethics requires ends valued for themselves; if creature welfare serves only God's happiness, it remains derivative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Edwards's theological determinism means creature flourishing couldn't have been otherwise pursued, suggesting it wasn't genuinely chosen as an end.
      ?

      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.