Ethics in the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethics is the branch of philosophy which examines the question of what actions are morally right or wrong--and why. The Bible contains numerous prescriptions for how the recipients of its message (whether we understand this to be the ancient Israelites, Jews today, or humanity in general) ought to live. Ethics in the Bible therefore examines these prescriptions, as well as the related issues of whether these are consistent throughout the Bible; whether they really do describe a superior ethical teaching; and what the underlying meta-ethical principles are. This entry also examines the question of whether God behaves ethically.
Contents |
[edit] Ethics in the Bible
[edit] Ethics in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible
The books of the Tanakh (almost exactly equivalent to the Old Testament) cover a period of many centuries and reflect a rich variety of conditions and beliefs, ranging from the culture of ancient nomadic shepherd tribes to the refinement of life and law of an urban population, from primitive clan henotheism to the ethical monotheism of the prophets[1].
The Hebrew Bible's broad historical scope discourages treating its ethical teachings as a unit. And yet, close study uncovers a number of recurring ethical themes. Prescriptive utterances, for example, are found throughout, as are themes such as sanctification and covenantal relationships with God and one's religious community.
The Hebrew Bible gives numerous examples of prescriptive utterances which are attributed to God. Jewish tradition classically schematizes these into 613 mitzvot ("commandments"), beginning with "Be fruitful and multiply" (God's command to all life) and continuing on to the seven laws of Noah (addressed to all humanity) and the several hundred laws which apply specifically to Jews (such as the kashrut dietary laws). Christians generally accept the Ten Commandments, but not Jewish law as a whole. Also, although Jews generally agree that there are 613 mitzvot, they disagree on the exact classification.
The Bible generally does not explain its ethical reasoning. The utility of some commandments (e.g., against murder and theft) can be surmised; others (e.g., avoidance of pork) conjectured. Many (e.g., levirate marriage) seem to be rooted in ancient cultural or cultic situations which no longer apply. Often, God commands something which most modern readers would ordinarily regard as unethical. The Israelite conquest of Canaan (which some scholars hold never to have occurred, since they contend the ancient Israelites were indigenous, i.e. were the Canaanites) affords numerous examples of God commanding the slaughter of whole peoples. Furthermore, the Bible's ethical injuctions are not discussed in a systematic form. Murder may be discussed in one section, while the next may deal with a different topic.
Among religions which treat these scriptures as divinely sourced, there is controversy as to whether there are immoral acts which the Bible does not discuss. Rape is treated as an offense against property (of the father or husband) rather than as a crime against human dignity. Modern concerns such as abortion and cloning are not mentioned, so readers who object to these practices must either rely on extrabiblical sources of authority, or tease these prohibitions from the biblical text.
[edit] Ethics in the New Testament
Jesus is recorded as having said, "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill." (at the start of the Antithesis of the Law) It is, however, apparent that his ethical views were not based solely on the Old Testament laws. According to the authors of the New Testament, in some ways, the laws put forward by Jesus are easier to follow than those in the Old Testament, while in some ways they are harder.
The text depicts Jesus as observing the Old Testament dietary laws. "Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?" (Mark 7:18) We know that the Jewish laws were controversial in the early church; see Acts 15 for example. It is possible that Mark was taking Jesus' words slightly further than Jesus had intended, in order to make a point on one side of the debate.
In other ways, Jesus' ethical standards were more strict than those of the Old Testament laws. The Old Testament rules on divorce were simple from the point of view of the man. In most cases, he only was required to give his ex-wife a certificate of divorce. Jesus altered this completely: "I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31) This change does not seem to have been made for the benefit of women, who would have been permitted to remarry under the Old Testament system.
Many of the exhortations attributed to Jesus are, by general consensus, impossible to follow completely. For example, the Sermon on the Mount contains instructions to love one's enemies, and to "give to all who ask." Since one commonly-accepted ethical rule is "ought implies can"--that is, if one is unable to do something, then it makes no sense to say that one ought to do it--then Jesus' ethical system may be unrealistic. Christians tend to interpret such utterances as expression of ideals, which propel ordinary people to open their heart a little more, and a few gifted individuals like Albert Schweitzer or Mother Teresa to devote their lives to the less fortunate.
Where Jewish law traditionally assumes that we have different ethical duties toward different people--arranged, perhaps, in concentric circles with one's family towards the middle--Jesus seems to want everyone to be treated identically. A moment's reflection will reveal perhaps insurmountable practical difficulties.
In contrast with the Old Testament, Jesus does appear to give considerable thought to the issue of meta-ethics. One of the Pharisees asked Jesus, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?" (Matthew 22:36) The author of Matthew believed that this question was asked in order to trap Jesus into a heresy for which he could be punished. Jesus answered the question saying "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' ..."
This reply was, in context, conservative. Jesus' first commandment is actually the second line of the Shema, a passage from the Torah that priests recited in the Temple, and that other Jews recited in their prayers, twice a day; the Pharisees, like most Jews, considered this to be the most important principle in Judaism. Jesus' second commandment echoes the principle of Hillel, one of the most important Pharisees in the decades prior to Jesus' birth. In short, Jesus answers the Pharisee by quoting the two most important Pharisaic principles.
Elsewhere in the New Testament (for example, the "Farewell Discourses" of John 14 through 16) Jesus elaborates on what has become known as the "Greatest Commandment"--love. Since Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 13) uses similar language, this is highly likely to be a genuine teaching. It may be that "love" is the meta-ethical principle against which Jesus would have us weigh all the others (and if necessary, decide between them).
The New Testament, like the Old Testament, does not usually argue for its ethical conclusions, but relies heavily on appeals to authority.
[edit] Ethical issues
[edit] The Divine command theory of ethics
One familiar answer to the question of "Why is x morally right" (or wrong) is, "Because God says so." But why should we obey God?
It is easy to think of reasons as to why (assuming God exists) it might be prudent to obey God, out of fear of divine punishment. However, this is obviously a very different matter from ethics. We do not say that the emergence of a powerful ruler (e.g. Hitler) determines what is right and wrong in the moral sense. Why, then, would the existence of a powerful ruler in heaven determine the truth about what is ethical? Rather than admit his right to determine morality, should we not be willing to say--if God violates certain ethical principles--that God is evil?
This line of reasoning is introduced most famously in Plato's dialogue Euthyrphro, which asks whether something is right because the gods love it, or whether the gods love it because it is right. If the former, then moral rules may seem arbitrary--the gods might just as easily have commanded the opposite. If the latter, then there exists a morality higher than the gods, to which even they are in a sense subject.
Some religious people will say that the question is moot, as God could not possibly command anything unethical. Believers in the Bible do not have this option. For example, Søren Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling meditates on the Binding of Isaac from Genesis 22. While God ultimately cancelled his command (for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac), Abraham had no way of knowing this, yet he obeyed. An ethicist would ask, should he have done so? And if so, why? (The reader will recall various modern cases of parents killing their children because they believed this to be God's will.)
Does the Bible propose that our duty is to obediently submit to the divine will, as Abraham did? Or is our relationship with God subject to balance and negotiation, like a human contract? Kierkegaard reminds us that several chapters previously, Abraham bargains with God (in vain, as it turns out) in order to save the people of Sodom. Jewish tradition is rather fond of the notion that the biblical covenants were agreed to by both parties, rather than simply imposed from above; and by the suggestion that the Torah needs its people as much as they need the Torah. Some believers would argue that it is hazardous to generalize too quickly about what the Bible actually teaches.
[edit] God's benevolence
Is God good? One potent challenge to this presumption is the problem of evil, which states that the following four axioms are inconsistent--that at least one of them must be wrong:
- God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
- God is omniscient (all-knowing).
- God is omnibenevolent (all-loving).
- Evil exists.
Theodicy seeks to explain why we may simultaneously affirm God's goodness, and the presence of evil in the world.
The possibility that God is evil is raised by some ancient gnostic sects. This led to several stories being revised, with Cain treated as the first victim of an evil god not the first villain (particularly by the Cainite sect), Judas as the hero of the resurrection not the traitor, and the serpent in the Garden of Eden as the saviour not the demon (particularly by the Ophite sect). Descartes in his Meditations considers, but rejects, the possibility that God is an evil demon.
Some Jews, Christians, and Muslims say that God is not only good, but transcends all opposites; or cannot be described. Thus, to call him "good" is as inadequate as to call him "evil". In this light it may be relevant to note that many of our ethical maxims relate to our actions in the world, while God's role is surely different.
Many other Christians present a different argument for the solution to this ethical dilemma: By emphasizing that God made man, and that God wanted to love and be loved. They place an emphasis on the word "made" because it provides a cogent reason for why God can be good and yet have made a world where there is evil. When a man makes something it is not human; or in other words, man can make statues and robots and look-alike humans but man cannot make a living and breathing man from scratch; the only way for man to produce man is by begetting man. Therefore, whenever man makes something that looks like man, it is not a heart-pumping man. Likewise, when God made man he obviously didn't make a perfect being like himself; he made a being slightly less than himself. And if man was not created perfect, then the capability of sinning for Adam and Eve existed. The Christians then gainsay suggestions such as "If God's desire to make something was so great, then why didn't he just create trees and shrubs only" by saying that God wanted to love and be loved. This part of the argument compliments the other, because (according to Christians) it provides further evidence for why there is evil -- man has a free will; God was not satisfied with mere trees because they could not choose to love him. Giving man the choice to love him and do good meant giving man the choice to disown him and to do evil. In conclusion, evil exist even with a perfect maker because, man was MADE (not begot) with a free will from a perfect being, so thus they were imperfect and capable of committing evil.
The rationalist counter-argument to this is that omniscience (knowing ALL) includes knowing everything that will happen in the future, including the outcome of man's decisions before man makes them. Not only does this undermine the notion of free will and choice somewhat, it also makes a nonsense of God giving man a free reign in order to see what man will do; omniscience would mean that God would already know the outcome, making it pre-determined and a forgone conclusion. Therefore, God's omniscience would suggest that He intentionally created a world in which evil and suffering would play a large part.
On the other hand, if God did not have total knowledge of future events, this would mean that God wasn't omniscient; in other words, He would not be God as most monotheists in the Abrahamic tradition would understand the term.
Yet what does the Bible say of such things?
The Bible contains numerous examples of what some might call the "dark side" of God.
-
- In the Garden of Eden, God creates humans to be curious, then places them in close proximity to a forbidden object. Distheists note that God lied about the effects of the forbidden fruit. Others say: The opinion above is a mis-representation of the very words of the Bible. Because first, God gave Adam and Eve an equally distanced choice between the "Tree of Life" and "The Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil," and second, the Bible explicitly proves that God didn't lie and we can know this by way of God's very words, "If you eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge Good and Evil you will surely die." Adam and Eve did perish (not instantly. God didn't say that they would).
- Though the Bible presents God as giving humanity free will, people are frequently punished for disobeying God-ordained laws. Many say: The Bible states that God created mankind in his image, but at the same time it goes on to imply that humanity is low and vile based on the original sin of Adam and Eve. Others say: Yes! God did create man in the image of himself, yet Adam and Eve were not created with sin, they were created with the capability of sinning; only after Adam and Eve chose to sin did man become vile and low.
- In the Tower of Babel story, it is unclear that the builders were doing anything wrong. Are God's glory and ego really more important than humanity working together?
- In the book of Exodus, God deliberately "hardened Pharaoh's heart", making him even more unwilling to free the Hebrew slaves. How, then, can Pharaoh be blamed for his actions?
- The Ten Commandments include "Do not kill (murder)", but God exhorts the Israelites to kill in his name at his behest (e.g., the slaughter of the native inhabitants of Canaan by the returning Hebrews). Also children and women were killed in many towns by God's command. It can only be said that only evil people were killed if all are evil. If every man in some town is evil, then either 1) there would be no free will since everybody who was born there, becomes evil or, 2) all choose to sin, being predisposed to selfish behavior.
- In the Book of Job, God allows Satan to plague His loyal servant Job with devastating tragedies.
To these uncertainties we may add modern humanist criticisms to the effect that the Bible advocates ethical views which are misguided and wrong:
-
- The Bible and homosexuality are difficult to reconcile. God orders capital punishment for anybody who is committed to homosexual acts. Among the more apparently obvious references are the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah] for what many read as homosexual rape, and the even clearer strongly worded attack on homosexual anal sex in the Holiness Code, casting it as an abomination. In the New Testament, there are direct references to these incidents, for example in 1 Corinthians. Conservative groups have often taken these passages to condemn homosexuality in general, while more liberal elements have attempted to alleviate the interpretation. As for those Christians, they say that there should be no confusion about what the Bible says concerning this subject, for two reasons: God himself said that marriage was to be between man and female, and that "thou shalt not commit adultery." Thus, they say, it is easy to see that God does not allow homosexuality, because you must marry in order to not commit adultery, and if you do marry it must be between man and female.
- Also many other laws that God is said to have given, are generally seen as immoral. Certain verses of Leviticus state that God orders people who commit adultery to be stoned to death, and allows owners to hit their slaves. Under specific circumstances, these biblical laws suggest that a rapist has to marry a woman he raped and cannot divorce her. Also wicked children are to be stoned and witches to be killed, though there is no historical evidence for or against the former ever occuring.
- In Leviticus 26:29 , Deuteronomy 28:53, Jeremiah 19:9, and Ezekiel 5:10, people are caused to eat the flesh of their own children as a result of God punishing them for disobedience. Infanticide and cannibalism are generally frowned upon by modern humanists. Many see this situation as evidence of a God with serious problems (or as evidence that God was invented by distinctly strange human beings) yet many theologians and commentors do not see these verses as God directly commanding people to eat the flesh of their children, instead seeing them as situations where people merely turned to cannibalism on their own due to their distress or innate wickedness, [1][2][3][4] despite what skeptics see as an apparent directness to the verses. However, from an ethical humanist point of view, it could be argued that the difference is academic, given the notion of the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenovelent God allegedly speaking through the Bible.
- In Deuteronomy 13, God directly instructs his followers to stone to death any friend or family member who attempts to secretly entice a believer into worshipping other gods. A humanist viewpoint would be that stoning anyone to death is brutish and barbaric, but it would be especially disproportionate when applied to such a trivial matter.
[edit] Teleological ethics vs. Deontological ethics
When we say that one "should" do x, sometimes we are making a statement of the following pattern:
- If you want _________, then you should _______.
- Examples
- If you want to get rich, then you should work hard.
- If you want to go to heaven, then you should accept Jesus.
Are ethical statements of this type? That is, are ethics aimed at a certain purpose or "end" (telos in Greek, hence the name "teleological")? Or should be we do what is right for its own sake, and not for any benefit to be gotten out of it? ("Deontological ethics" refers to the second form.) Kant calls these "hypothetical" (if-then) imperatives and "categorical imperatives", respectively (and focuses on the latter).
Sometimes the Bible phrases commandments hypothetically / teleologically. For example, the Ten Commandments tell us to honor our parents "that your days may be long upon the earth." But what if I do not care about long life? Would it then be ethical not to honor my parents? Of course, it may be that the "end" or purpose of the commandment is something other than my own long life, such as the well-being of the world, or the will of God.
More often, the Bible does not give reasons for things, but simply issues various commandments. This leaves the ethicist with little to say.
[edit] Selected ethical theories contrasted with the Bible
[edit] Aristotle / Virtue ethics
Aristotle in his ethical works focuses on virtues--i.e. laudible characteristics which ought to be cultivated, such as courage and temperance. One focus of critique might be his choice of virtues. For example, some religious traditions value humility, while others see pride as superior. (Aristotle would probably refer us to the Golden Mean, i.e., that we ought to be neither too proud, nor not proud enough.)
A more fundamental critique might focus on the project of virtue ethics itself. Is the cultivation of various virtues really the most important aspect of the religious life? If this is the view of biblical authors, they do not seem to have said so explicitly.
[edit] Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill taught that what is right, is that action (or rule--see below) which produces "the greatest good for the greatest number," with "good" being defined as "happiness"--the principle of utilitarianism.
It is easy to see how utilitarianism might conflict with Biblical principles. For example, should Lady Chatterly commit adultery with her gardener? Since the act produces pleasure for them both, and her husband does not discover them, then Mill would say yes. That is, not only is it permitted for them to commit adultery, but it is in fact obligatory. (Of course we would need to weigh the opportunity costs, such as considering the possibility that one or both of them would be happier committing adultery with someone else, or no one.)
Some utilitarians say that it is ethical rules (or "maxims"), rather than individual acts, that are to be calculated thus. In this case we should ask ourselves, "Would the world be happier without an ethical rule against adultery, or with?" Presumably swingers and Puritans would then enter into calculations to show the various costs and benefits associated with adultery, and reach a conclusion which is by no means guaranteed to be similar to the biblical teaching.
[edit] Kant
Inspired by the Golden Rule, Kant formulated a theory of ethics which asks us to consider whether a certain behavior is "generalizable." Suppose I am considering killing someone just to watch them die. I could not possibly (Kant argues) wish for someone else to kill me thus, so the rule which I implicitly propose--that killing people just to watch them die is okay--cannot be consistently supported. That is, I cannot possibly wish others to "do unto me" as I am contemplating doing unto them.
[edit] Ethical skepticism
Ethical skepticism refers to views which say that our views of "good" or "evil" are mere opinion, which we project onto the universe, supposing that "God" agrees with our values. Ethics would then amount to a false belief or superstition. Nietzsche is sometimes interpreted as a proponent of such views (which he certaintly considers, though he may or may not espouse them himself).
