Transcendent Views of Global Accountability

Abstract

AbstractThis chapter explores various forms of transcendent accountability, which see global accountability as requiring some higher, transcendent ground. Since some might see transcendence as a high cost, the chapter first argues that giving up global accountability also would come at a high cost, as can be seen by a brief look at popular culture and some exploration of human psychological tendencies. Transcendent accountability comes in three forms: theistic accountability sees it as accountability to a personal God. Metaphysical accountability rejects a personal God and thus rejects literal accountability, but claims that there is a metaphysical order or structure, which is often called karma, that provides an existential equivalent. Ideal accountability believes we are accountable for living in accord with transcendent principles, but denies we are accountable to a person. This chapter argues that all three forms of accountability have insights and strong points, but that theistic accountability can incorporate the strengths of the other two views. However, the other views, without a personal God, cannot account for the possibility of grace and mercy, which accountable humans certainly need. It also argues, contrary to some popular understandings of God, that accountability to God is not grounded in divine punishment. A loving God would not punish for retributive reasons but would only correct and discipline humans for their ultimate good.