Recently during a conversation I had the opportunity once again to share my thoughts on the nature of sin. I shared with this individual how in my reading of the Genesis account, I see God command Adam and Eve not to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - that in the day they do, they shall surely die (Genesis 2:17). I asked, What is morality but the knowledge of good and evil?
We have built a whole system around this concept in the name of "Jesus" and yet he taught a different system; an ethic of love your neighbor as yourself. Morality is concerned with me, it breeds self loathing, or self righteousness - it's all about me. The fruit of this is the judgment of others; something else we're told by Jesus not to do (Luke 6:37). This Ethic of Jesus to love our neighbor is all about others, it compells us to act in the best interest of others, exemplified by Christ's own sacrifice of his life. It makes no categorical judgments but relies heavily upon the concepts of mercy and grace.
Paul's statement in Galatians 3, that the law is a school teacher makes much more sense in this context; It shows us that our natural compulsion to be "moral" puts us in an impossible situation, there is no other way that it can "lead us to Christ." Jesus made that even more clear in the sermon on the mount, for it is not just the deed that is immoral, but also the thought.
For those who think this lets us off the hook, let me ask you; which is easier, to act based on our judgments of right and wrong, or to act always in the interest of others. Let me express it another way with the analogy between a set of directions and a compass. A compass gives us a guiding direction, but no specifics - we have to judge whether to go to the left or right of the boulder, whether the best direction is to go straight up the mountain or around... and there is risk in the undertaking. A set of directions is less risky, we are assured these are the best directions available, and that the directions are absolute - and yet we know that no set of directions can get us to the goal, In fact the directions were given to us to show us how helpless we are following them - so what do we follow?
It is interesting how morality also causes us to judge others intentions, while an Ethic of loving your neighbor encourages us to judge our own (remember the splinter and the log?).
We have built a whole system around this concept in the name of "Jesus" and yet he taught a different system; an ethic of love your neighbor as yourself. Morality is concerned with me, it breeds self loathing, or self righteousness - it's all about me. The fruit of this is the judgment of others; something else we're told by Jesus not to do (Luke 6:37). This Ethic of Jesus to love our neighbor is all about others, it compells us to act in the best interest of others, exemplified by Christ's own sacrifice of his life. It makes no categorical judgments but relies heavily upon the concepts of mercy and grace.
Paul's statement in Galatians 3, that the law is a school teacher makes much more sense in this context; It shows us that our natural compulsion to be "moral" puts us in an impossible situation, there is no other way that it can "lead us to Christ." Jesus made that even more clear in the sermon on the mount, for it is not just the deed that is immoral, but also the thought.
For those who think this lets us off the hook, let me ask you; which is easier, to act based on our judgments of right and wrong, or to act always in the interest of others. Let me express it another way with the analogy between a set of directions and a compass. A compass gives us a guiding direction, but no specifics - we have to judge whether to go to the left or right of the boulder, whether the best direction is to go straight up the mountain or around... and there is risk in the undertaking. A set of directions is less risky, we are assured these are the best directions available, and that the directions are absolute - and yet we know that no set of directions can get us to the goal, In fact the directions were given to us to show us how helpless we are following them - so what do we follow?
It is interesting how morality also causes us to judge others intentions, while an Ethic of loving your neighbor encourages us to judge our own (remember the splinter and the log?).
Nothing is as simple as "black" verses "white" and many appear to be prone towards rash, even harsh, highly speculative judgements - indeed, in some, it appears to be an enduring, though increasingly limiting aspect of an evolving human species ensuring its emerging dominance over the last 55 million years of this planet's 4.6 billion year old history. But then, there are those within the human species, apparently capable of incredible adaptation able to employ exponentially an increasingly complex sense of reason, to such extent future generations may likely see themselves actually "go to heaven" inhabiting and colonizing other equally physical, dynamic worlds. Given this backdrop to your writing, maybe history informs us, that there is marginal difference between an evolving human "morality" based upon human delusion and its companion term of reference, "ethics" founded largely upon logic and reason?
ReplyDeleteHere then, are just a few borrowed thoughts for your further consideration:
"[Ethics is] the philosophical study of morality. The word is also commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual. Christian ethics and Albert Schweitzer's ethics are examples."
-- John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995
Etymology:
"The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) seems to show that, from the earliest times, the words had very similar meanings.
"Ethic" as a noun has the senses "The science of morals" and "A scheme of moral science", and these are treated as parts (a) and (b) of a single meaning. The earliest citation is from 1387.
"Ethics" (in the plural) divides into a number of meanings. The sense of "The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty" dates from 1602. The sense of "The moral principles or system of a particular leader or school of thought" dates from 1651.
"Morality" in the sense of "The doctrine or system concerned with conduct or duty; moral science" dates from 1449. In the sense of "Moral conduct; usually, good moral conduct; behaviour conformed to the moral law; moral virtue" it dates to 1609.
And finally, "morals" in the sense of "Moral habits or conduct; habits of life in regard to right and wrong conduct" dates to 1613. And the sense of "Moral science; moral doctrine; ethics" is said now to be rare, but dates at least as far back as 1651."