I think much of this depends on how we want to dice it up, and may be extremely tangential at this point; but being concerned about agent neutral “good” outcomes seems to be a general characteristic of a consequentialist ethic. Also, he “slays” the wicked.

“I don’t think duty implies deontological ethics.”

That is true. Within Utilitarianism, there is a duty/obligation to promote happiness and reduce suffering. See Peter Singers work on Famine.

Sure, but duty in the sense as I expressed it about can also be construed as an agent relative obligation that I have to my family, at least in this case. That duty, may in the end, conflict with a good state of affairs–Nephi ends up with blood on his hands (and on his conscience).

That is true. Within Utilitarianism, there is a duty/obligation to promote happiness and reduce suffering. See Peter Singers work on Famine.

“I also don’t think the idea that the Lord uses the wicked to bring about his purposes is consequentialist.”

Not sure if it is consequentialist or not. Also not sure if it is true.

I also don’t think the idea that the Lord uses the wicked to bring about his purposes is consequentialist. It is a type (and rather common one) in the scriptures though. I don’t think it particularly fits either consequentialism nor deontological concepts of ethics. It’s more a comment about God being a tricky bugger.

J. Madsen, that gets brought up quite a bit in Sunday School every time one of the passages is read. I tend to think that the saying is probably some common Jewish adage that Nephi knew.

I’m not sure this implies “he will continue to seek to take my life and the life of my family”. The latter I see as claiming “I have a duty to protect my own life and the life of my family from unjust violence”, which in essence is a deontological justification. The former seems to be more of an “I’d better stop him before he gets another chance”, which I see as an attempt to generate a good outcome. I suppose I could be persuaded that the two in this case aren’t really all that different; but the line “Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes”, which I take as a general explanation seems to be overtly consequentialist.

I think we have taken this post far off from the original intent. I have quite a few things to think about and many future posts to contemplate. Peace.

But please take anything I write to be written as me leaning back in my chair, rubbing my chin, thinking, and writing more dispassionately.

And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property. And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands; Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief. And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

So the justification is explicitly consequentialist and includes (1) Nephi and his family’s life is in danger (2) Laban stole Nephi’s property (3) he is wicked (4) the future nation of Nephi would dwindle in unbelief.

Everyone focuses in on (4) but the justifications given are much more extensive.