[Milton-L] NB! CORRECTION OF PREVIOUS EMAIL!

Horace Jeffery Hodges jefferyhodges at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 12 17:28:23 EDT 2008


I don't think that Milton portrayed the prelapsarian Adam and Eve as living in a "pre-moral" state . . . though I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that.
 
As for "arbitrary," I think that you're using that term in a different way than Professor Skulsky and I are using it.
 
But I'll admit that I'm really not sure what you mean in your post, so I guess that I can't respond to it adequately.
 
Jeffery Hodges
 
* * *

--- On Sat, 7/12/08, Dr. Larry Gorman <larry at eastwest.edu> wrote:

From: Dr. Larry Gorman <larry at eastwest.edu>
Subject: RE: [Milton-L] NB! CORRECTION OF PREVIOUS EMAIL!
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Date: Saturday, July 12, 2008, 2:12 PM

I admit that I find this way of thinking amazing, although I agree it is
traditional.  It illustrates the difficulty of imagining God or the foundations
of a moral law.  Concepts like loyalty seem anthropomorphic here.  

Adam and Eve are moving from a pre-moral to a moral state.  What would a
pre-moral state be like?  Condemned to a moral state as we are, we can't
imagine innocence and so we attribute to it arbitrary commands and
prohibitions, and we justify these commands and prohibitions with observations
that a pre-moral state is morally vacuous (which I guess it is by definition. 
Fortunately this vacuousness will be filled by sin and guilt.  Felix culpa.





-----Original Message-----
From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu on behalf of Harold Skulsky
Sent: Sat 7/12/2008 12:44 PM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] NB! CORRECTION OF PREVIOUS EMAIL!
 
"Is the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge arbitrary? Put
differently, are there some commands that forbid acts that ordinarily would be
morally neutral? Could one say that Milton would never accept that God might
forbid the good or enjoin the bad but that Milton might accept that as a test,
God might forbid or enjoin something otherwise morally neutral?"
"What is your opinion?"


My opinion: Yes, Milton accepts the principle formalized in Stoic ethics that
some moral issues are "adiaphora," "indifferent" choice
situations in which no moral consideration tips the scale in favor of either
option and the chooser may choose as he pleases. The inaugural choice of a
symbolic test of loyalty to God is such a situation. As it happens, the symbol
of faith and constancy is a forbidden apple; but there are possible worlds
compatible with the justice of God in which A's & E's faith and
constancy are tested by their willingness to abstain from pears.

This doesn't mean, of course, (a) that God's decision to set up an
arbitary test is itself arbitrary, or (b) that the arbitrariness of the test
trivializes the moral consequences of failing it. 

As to (a), Milton holds (with the main stream of Christian theological opinion)
that a world in which there is no challenge to free moral decision is morally
vacuous and hence unworthy of a supremely good Creator. As to (b), the
magnitude of the Creator's gift to A&E (the emerging hexameral world
lovingly described in PL 7) establishes a debt of love and gratitude that (on
Milton's view) infinitely outweighs the sacrifice of abstaining from the
fruit, even if one adds the possible benefits implied by the name of the fruit.




_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
Manage your list membership and access list archives at
http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20080712/fff4cfbb/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Milton-L mailing list