[civil] Whose utility is divine morality trying to maximize?

[Elok]

This is an interesting point that is often lost on people who are especially committed to a particular ideology. A system of morality might be preferable because it is (a) correct or (b) effective. We often assume the two are linked when this might not the be case. With libertarians, for example, their morality is based on some inalienable rights regarding property and all that jazz. Making sure people are free to exercise their rights might be the correct course of action (if you believe that rights have some metaphysical significance), but it does not necessarily follow that upholding rights will make everyone/most people/the average person better off. Most libertarians, however, seem to believe that a maximally free society is both morally correct and better for people.

As I noted to Imran a while ago (shortly before he started his sabbatical, not that there's any link there), Christian morality is otherworldly, and in fact runs contrary to everything that makes the world "work." If most people actually resolved to spend within their means, give more cash to purely charitable endeavors, and renounce vanity, greed, gluttony, lust, sloth and idolatry, the economy would collapse. It's very hard to sell contented, disciplined, moderate people anything but bare necessities. Such people argue that they are, in fact, happier and more free. The world at large disagrees, I think in part because its bottom line requires it to. And most people probably don't want to be happy at such a cost (cf. Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor).

Ultimately, the impracticality of our morality on a worldly level doesn't matter, from our perspective; the existence of an afterlife necessarily and irrevocably alters the whole calculation.

[Bereta_Eder]

Imran tried to transpose christian teachings into applicable social models using biblical quotes that allegendly said that you HAD to do that, and you nailed his ass to the wall (and you know I like Imran).
That was actually one of the most interesting discussions in poly and maybe an instance where I really changed opinion.

[Aeson]

As I noted to Imran a while ago (shortly before he started his sabbatical, not that there's any link there), Christian morality is otherworldly, and in fact runs contrary to everything that makes the world "work." If most people actually resolved to spend within their means, give more cash to purely charitable endeavors, and renounce vanity, greed, gluttony, lust, sloth and idolatry, the economy would collapse. It's very hard to sell contented, disciplined, moderate people anything but bare necessities. Such people argue that they are, in fact, happier and more free. The world at large disagrees, I think in part because its bottom line requires it to. And most people probably don't want to be happy at such a cost (cf. Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor).

I don't think this is true. The economy would change dramatically, but for the better. To actually get rid of sloth ... people would have to be doing something productive. It would just result in more health care, housing, infrastructure, travel ... less luxury items, weapons, walls, and transporting goods/materials around the world to get to cheap labor. Rather than IP being tied up for decades and R&D having to be duplicated over and over again, working together would allow for faster technological progress.

From any perspective worth having, it would be a far more efficient economy with far more value being created. (Whatever the nominal value would end up as... If everyone was a perfect Christian you could get rid of money altogether, nominal GDP could be 0, but the economy would still function just fine.)

[The Mad Monk]

There is no such thing as a perfect Christian. We are all flawed and that is the point.

With that in mind, how would you enforce the banishment of sloth?

[Aeson]

It was a hypothetical. It's not going to happen of course.

[Elok]

The economy as it exists now would be essentially destroyed, is what I mean. If you remove all the war profiteering, ambulance-chasing, porn, drugs, gossip, and just flat out needless products marketed to people's fears, insecurities and failings, you've cut out at least twenty percent of our goods and services, likely much more. As for getting rid of sloth, it depends what you mean by "productive." Monks are not slothful, but ours, at least, only do enough labor to support their existence as a community, and sometimes it's something of marginal utility, like the monastery that breeds and trains German Shepherds. Meanwhile, monks are terrible at being consumers. Unless the abbot is doing it all wrong, they don't buy designer clothes, watch Game of Thrones or go out to restaurants.

[Elok]

Generally, it's Orthodox policy to treat sin not as a crime to be punished, but as an illness to be cured. The analogy works better than you might expect. You can be living a grossly unhealthy lifestyle, and know that it's getting you in trouble, and know all the steps you ought to take, and agree that they are desirable . . . and still continue that grossly unhealthy lifestyle, because it's just easier. Exercise hurts, and it makes you feel like crap, and while a steady diet of Doritos and Mountain Dew doesn't make you feel good, exactly--really the net effect is to leave you feeling heavy, bloated and tired--it does give you a cheap and immediate rush that can be obtained over and over again. And that same rush can be used to deaden any and all bad feelings you might have. Along with the good ones. You wind up existing in a state of numbed, and therefore tolerable, malaise.

Sin works much the same way. Or so we think, and it agrees with my experience. It doesn't really make me feel better to be vicious to people, or neglect my duties, or overindulge in one thing or another. But it is agreeable while it lasts, and if it feels bad when I'm done I can always do it again. It takes sustained effort to get out of self-destructive habits.

[giblets]

How does Hell work for Orthodox Christians?

[Elok]

There's no clear consensus on the matter that I'm aware of. Some sources say it's the state of being confronted with God's grace after rejecting it, which is painful. Other sources say the exact opposite, that God doesn't intrude where He isn't wanted and so Hell is an agonizing state where we are deprived of grace. There isn't even a clear agreement on duration; some will tell you it's eternal, others that it's closer to the Catholic conception of Purgatory. I'm inclined to the latter view, but the general rule is that we don't know enough to say for certain what God's will is on the matter. We are allowed to hope for the eventual salvation of the entire universe, but not to teach it as a certainty.

The NT is conflicted on the subject; the most definite argument for eternal comes from the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where Abraham tells the rich man that there's a permanent gulf between them, while OTOH Paul tells Timothy (IIRC) that it's the will of God that all men shall be saved. Jesus says something roughly similar in John 6:39: "This is the will of the Father, that I shall lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the Last Day." Now, in context, this seems to be referring to specifically believers, but still.

In general, we focus far more on the carrot than the stick. Most of the priests I've heard sermonizing about damnation have been converts from a Protestant tradition, which we get a fair number of. And we do consistently stress the disease-and-cure model, which makes a lot of things seem more reasonable. For example, "easy" forgiveness; even a murderer can sincerely repent and be forgiven by God. Under a punitive model, he's skipping the punishment he justly had coming. Our way, he was sick and now he has recovered, and if harsh medicine was not needed to cure him it makes no sense to put him through chemo now out of rigid loyalty to prescribed treatment.

[The Mad Monk]

That is a wonderful way to think about it. Thank you.