Author, Adam.
Published, January 15, 2009.
I fear that what I am about to write will be horribly over-simplified. Given my tendency to take on big and lofty without the means to do so, I am resigned to the fact that this will most likely only scratch the surface, especially considering the mountains of literature on morality already. The main thrust of my question, ‘How do we decide what is good and what is evil?’, stems from inconsistencies that I have encountered in the way some religious believers talk about morality. An action that one would normally deem as bad or wrong, may be deemed good or right if performed by a particular party who has claims over what constitutes morality. For example, if we hold to be true that abortion is wrong because life is sacred how then can we consider the murder of men, women and children at the behest of the Lord as being right? (Read chapters 6 and 7 of the book of Joshua)
I don’t believe it is sufficient to label something as ‘justified’ or ‘good’ without any prior conception in our minds of what constitutes justice or goodness. For, if we cannot decide within our minds of what goodness or justice looks like, then how are we able to call something good without the risk of it becoming a completely meaningless and arbitrary term. A Christian may point towards the love, compassion and non-violence of Jesus as a reason for being a Christian, whilst simultaneously ignoring the God-ordained killing of men, women and children as contained in the Bible. The same Christian may well accuse Islam of its evils in commanding Muslims to kill ‘infidels’ as apparently instructed in the Koran (Sura 9:5), and deduce that obviously the Muslims have it wrong. There is little comparable difference, to my knowledge, between the stories contained in the book of Joshua and the commands made in the Koran of what God’s righteousness demands.
My contention is that our conception of what makes something good or evil ought to exist prior to an over-arching belief system or ideology that demands your submission - that categorises ‘this’ as ‘good’ and ‘that’ as ‘bad’ before you have a chance to ask why. We need reasons to accept something as being good or bad. Otherwise, any old competing ideology could demand your allegiance claiming its absolute moral superiority.
If a deity or prophet comes to you claiming the goodness or justice of its actions, how is it possible for you to decide whether or not its actions are as they are claimed to be without having any prior conception of what that goodness would entail? Without an innate ability to decide right from wrong we are left to the powers that be to dictate to us what is right and wrong. And, if that’s the case, it is meaningless for us to call anything good. For all we are doing is allowing a myriad of actions or ideas to attach themselves to the label ‘good’ and so dictate the meaning of goodness to us, rather than having a prior sense of goodness by which to judge actions or ideas by.
I think deciding on the morality of actions is a pointless task, but is the only option for those who pertain to the latter group below.
Instead of deciding on the morality of each action, we must first decide on the source of our morality. Thus everyone can be split into two groups. The first sources it morality from somewhere else, the second from themselves. Obective and subjective morality respectively.
The former, like the entirety of civilisation until the industrial revolution, ascribe to an existing, external moral standard. Because this standard is outside of themselves, this group seek to reconcile their situation with that which they observe, and decide on an action thereupon. Therefore this type of morality is concerned primarily with the context, and person involved in the action.
The latter group ascribes to a relative, personal morality. This is kind of a paradox, for if morality is totally relative there is no morality at all (or at best we will forever disagree) and as such this “morality” is a discussion of pragmatism (see Rorty), i.e. “Which action, when performed universaly, will cause the least division and damage?”. This morality is primarily concerned with the action, for having no external source, there is no standard to compare to. We are all equal in opinion and belief, so is it yes or no? Good or evil?
This, I think, is how everyone decides on good or evil. Objectively or subjectively.
Roger, I find your statement, “I think deciding on the morality of actions is a pointless task” an astounding thing to say. Morality has everything to do with action. Morality is pragmatic, even from a Biblical point of view.
The split you make between objectivity and subjectivity in deciding upon morality is, I believe, a false one. I also think your claim of the objectivity found prior to the Industrial Revolution was situated within a particular historical and cultural context - not from the beginning of time. It has only ever been centres of political and religious power that have worked against autonomous thought and therefore claimed objectivity. Ignorance and objectivity are not the same thing.
The claim of an objectively knowable source of morality is, I presume, a belief in God. If that is the case, and your belief in God is as subjective as anything else – which it is - then the claim to objectivity collapses into subjectivity.
What is objectively known is the consequences of our actions; historical and observable. I think you could also lump into ‘what is objectively known’ our collective conscious, capable of identifying good and bad things. I admit that this is a grey area. Whilst some people conceive of good and bad pertaining only to the individual, others ground it more broadly into a collectivity (national or international society), and still others will ground it in a deity or ultimate reality of some sort. What is true, however, is our ability to discern morality.
I think the question of ‘source’ is a rather secondary concern, and depending on what this means it can be a misleading factor. For instance, source could mean the goodness or badness which emanates from a finite action or event, that we could either label as good or bad. Alternatively, source could correlate to the origin of a particular standard of morality; i.e. God. As I have already argued, without having within us the ability to discern between right and wrong, good and bad, it is meaningless to ascribe anything outside of us with certain moral characteristics. Furthermore, if God is the ground of all being, if we are a finite moment within the infinite and are therefore somewhat a part of the mind of God, then we must possess the capability to discern our morality. Source is, however, a second step beyond the first step of the determining what is good and what is bad.
If morality is not an end in itself and consequently cannot refer to the innate qualities found within particular actions and their respective consequences, then it must depend upon an end higher than itself. That end, what Tillich calls ‘ultimate concern’ is precisely what is highly contested and is therefore within the realm of subjectivity. However, this ought not be a giant threat to what we hold in faith to be true. It should, rather, push us deeper into thinking about why some things are good and others bad, especially when there is so much at stake. We cannot be so complacent in our conception of morality when we assume so much. The recent conflict in Gaza, which has left over 1,000 Palestinians dead is an example where there are many who assume the moral superiority of Israel and therefore allow them the right to take such unjust action.
Gentlemen. To decide what is good, I would argue that we must look at our own ability to discern what is good. In observing this, we can possibly observe (as I do) that our ability to discern what is good (and evil, of course) comes from somewhere outside of us. The thing which grants us this discernment is, in my opinion, God. Therefore, instead of asking ‘What is good?’, we should start by asking ‘What/Who is God?’. From there, in gazing at God, we can see what is good, and from that perspective, what is evil.
On the other hand, if there is no God, then there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil either.
Are you able to explain why it is good that God requests the Israelites to kill the men, women, and children of Jericho; his own creation? And, why assume that our ability to discern comes from outside us?
I cannot explain why it is good that God made that request. Are you able to explain why it is not good? My explanation of the situation is that God chose to bring that event about, and I trust that his decision is better than one I would have made. I believe that God did not think it was partiularly “good” that all of those people should be killed. Look at Ezekiel 33:11, and Lamentations 3:32,33.
Ez. 33:11 - ‘…As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked should turn from his way and live.’
Lam. 3:32,33 - ‘But, though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men.’
The word ‘willingly’, in the Lamentations verse, is translated from the Hebrew word ‘millibbô’, which literally means “from his heart”. ‘He does not from his heart afflict or grieve the children of men.’
So, despite the horror of the fact that countless people died brutal deaths, are we to view God’s decision as unwise, and cruel? The fact that it was surely horrible and brutal doesn’t change. Yet, we should be careful when deciding what God has done is good or bad. I suppose we cannot tell what the outcome would have been had God decided not to command the deaths of those people. Perhaps all of the Jews would have been slaughtered by the Canaanites? So, would that have been a prefereble outcome? How are we to decide? If we decide that God made a bad decision, we assume too much. We assume that we can safely make a better decision. That is arrogance. So, in short, I cannot and will not even try to explain why it is good that God ordered the death of his own creatures. I can only come to conclusion that God judgement is more trustworthy than my own.
On your second point, I do not merely assume that our ability to discern comes from outside of us. I have thought about it, pondered it, talked about it, considered it, and believe that the most reasonable and logical explanation is just that.
The killing of men, women and children is not good for obvious and intuitive reasons. Within the context of the on-going story told in the Bible of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, I understand that the account of the fall of Jericho has over-riding themes of victory and ultimate trust in God. That is why I have never questioned it up until now. The conquest of Jericho was a good thing - at least for the Israelites. But upon reflection, it is very perplexing that the same God who had only just delivered the 10 Commandments (including the command ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’), makes a request that very clearly goes against what he had said.
I identify that it was not good that men, women and children be killed, because I live by the maxim ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. This maxim is expressed in many different ways these days, by believers and non-believers alike. Modern conceptions of ethics are universal to the degree that morality extends beyond the individual and beyond a particular people group, but to everyone.
From a historical point of view (and as objective as I can make out), it would seem that the Israelites had assumed their divine right to a piece of land, and had elevated their worth above the Other (in this case the people of Jericho). They have taken the name of God and used it to justify their actions; actions that serve their own interests, and not the interests of all people. Much like the divine right that some Americans assumed when invading Iraq. If God is on their side, then who can question their actions? So, in this story of contradiction, then I am left with a few options.
Either 1) I have no sense of right and wrong and therefore unable to discern anything as being good or bad, or 2) my previous conception of God was flawed and he does command bad things to happen without much need for justification and so my idea of God needs to change, or 3) that whoever wrote the story contained in Joshua was convinced (much like some people today when a ‘Christian’ country invades another) that the Israelites had a divine right to the land and so allowed them to also kill people for its conquest. And in re-telling this story, the author wrote into the account of Jercho’s conquest a parallel story of how God led them there and gave them victory. A story that gives meaning, that provides identity to the Israelites despite some inherent philosophical problems. It seems as though they have made God in their image - a God of war, tribal, partial and the like.
I am more inclined to go with the third option. It makes the most sense to me. Human beings, from what we know of history, haven’t changed that much. We all want to justify our actions. We all need meaning. I would sooner question the literal integrity and meaning of the story told in Joshua than start telling God I know better, or accuse him of evil. Although, this is what some guy in the Old Testament did, and God repented of ‘the evil he thought’. I’ll have to look that up… in Genesis maybe?
Anyway. I fear that this is getting a bit personal. However, I think this whole topic is worth our consideration, and it’s good to talk about.
I agree; it is definitely worth our consideration, and it’s important to talk about. I think we are having a good discussion, by the way! We will probably struggle to find common ground along the path you are going with your thoughts. Our view of scripture is too different. I find what you are saying interesting, though I do disagree with it.
wow. heavy. I’d like to try and make a comment into the “God commanded Israel to kill people” issue and it’s all conjecture of course because I don’t propose to represent God categorically, but at the same time we can reason certain things. I’d like to draw attention to what Jesus said in the New Testiment “Mat 19:8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been so.” Here we can see that Moses set out a law (a command) that was arguably the right thing to do in the context he was in, however, Jesus has the Authority to review that and give a greater context to the issue -the greater context being an understanding of God’s original plan for marriage and also the Greater Spiritual Understanding that Jesus was actually ushering in. My point is that given the extraordinary situation of the people of God found themselves in at that time where this kind of warfare was happening (what Simon said) and also where there were issues of ceremonial cleanness involved that illustrate God’s views on Holiness, sin and redemption which were to be more fully illustrated when Messiah came later.
I think you are really getting at something Rodger, with the idea of subjective and objective morality. And the question that we all seem to be striving to put into adequate words is, ‘how do we Define a Rock solid foundational basis for all morality and Truth?’ So, it’s kind of amazing that morality is really an Eternal issue, It’s all tied up in the same issue of what is of any WORTH in our existence if everything (including the Earth) will one day cease to exist. The arguments for Creationism come into play here, that if our wonderful human existence appeared from eternity past by chance to only appear for a brief blink (in comparison to the vast blackness of Eternity) If Existence appeared without any Intelligent Design then how do we define who determines ultimate right and wrong? Only by a revelation of this truth, by faith we find a morality outside ourselves. Leaving mankind in it’s current state of corruption unable to define this belief. It’s like asking ‘where does music come from?’ or define ‘Love’. All humans know it’s true but there are Spiritual elements that are beyond our ability to scrutinise completely.
This begs an interesting topic (that you’ve probably already delved into above as I haven’t been able to take in everything yet) about how is Christianity really set apart from say, Islam as you’ve discussed Adam- as both beliefs rest ultimately on Faith. Is one view of ‘Martyrdom’ dying with love for others and by no means killing anyone in the process and is the other violent hate- or simply a different morality (love from different eyes?) Is our own call to duty to fight and perhaps kill in armed Defence force (such as in the Old Testiment) seen in a similar light as ‘Martyrdom’ that kills innocent people for Religious zealotry? I’m only scratching the surface here but the great example of Jesus’ ministry that is set apart from any other Prophet or Teacher by His claim to be the Very Son Of God- and then to AVOID polical bloodshed but create Worldwide movement of selflessness by His example of Dying on a cross for the World’s sin. “Mat 20:27 And whoever has a desire to be first among you, let him take the lowest place: “
If we are trying to find a solid rock conception of morality - one which is eternal - then whatever happens in the past, present or future must be measured against it. The finite is found within the infinite. If that is the case, we can measure what has happened in the past to this ‘objective’ standard. This also means that I can observe a specific occurence in history, find its inherent goodness or badness, and then assume that whatever is good about it is in no conflict with this ‘objective and eternal’ morality. But this is not the case when we come to the stories told in the Bible. Countless examples are presented of immoral behaviour coming from supposedly moral beings. There are too many inconsistencies. So, when we come to the N.T. and we find verses like “Whatever is good, noble, pure etc - focus on these things” or “Love your neighbour as yourself” or “Without love you are a clanging gong”, I think you would agree that this is very different to what is presented earlier in the Bible. And it is this difference that points towards a growing evolution of the concept of God.
Back in the day of Moses, Yahweh was a god of war. He is called ‘the Lord of Armies’. He was also one god amoungst a counsel of gods that the Israelites would have believed actually existed (Psalm 82). This why the Israelites made a golden calf and had worshipped Baal throughout te centuries. It makes perfect sense then, that if he was a god of war that he would war with neighbouring gods, and give his people victory over others. A God whose morality extended only to his own people. And even then permits some people to do some fairly questionable things. However, as time goes by Yahweh is considered the ONLY God (and not merely the god that the Israelites are loyal to amoungst ‘foreign’ gods). It is then that this morality starts to extend itself to not only the Israelites but to all people. By Jesus’ time God extended His favour to the gentiles - not just the Jews.
If God had commanded the Israelites to kill the people of Jericho (a land and city they were invading) to demonstrate his views on “Holiness, sin and redemption” then I would strongly question those views. Is it justifiable to make your point known about goodness, justive, love, redemption by doing the exact opposite? You cannot contextualise this by jumping straight to the New Testament and pointing out the love, truth and compassion of Christ. It had to make sense within their own context. The Israelites’ actions in Jericho were a means to an end. However, that end was fulfilled in their time - not in a time some 1,000 years later.
I’d have to disagree that God is different in the old and new Testiments. The God of the New Testiment is still a ‘God of War’ if you read Revelation. And you can also see attitudes of mercy (both to Jews and Gentiles) in the Old Testiment, such as laws of Jubilee and help for the stranger and migrant. But the People of Israel certainly did evolve in a sense, to where the context of their God’s instructions had changed quite a bit if you look at their relationship to other Nations and finally at the time of the Messiah was a different political circumstance. The main thing that we would aparantly be poles apart on is the Holiness of God and therefore God’s unique ability to Judge. This also implies the idea of Original Sin, that all of mankind is completley cursed because of their separation from the original Order of things (which harkens back to the garden of Eden where God plainly identifies His morals- don’t murder etc.) This may sound like a cop-out to some, but it clearly places God on a different playing field to the rest of the created order if you are trying to identify a universal moral code. It’s like the old story of a Child Molesterer, the good moral ethics of love and justice demand a certain retribution. This retribution may seem harsh or immoral from a person who doesn’t understand the complete picture. The Bible promises that one day we will see a clearer picture and that God will bring every deed and every word spoken into account. If you do not believe this then you are in effect saying there is simply No right or Wrong because there would be absolutely no eternal consequences only relativism. If this answer is acceptable (though a cursory one) there would still be the need to discuss what makes “I Am” any different from “Allah” or other religion. Perhaps you cannot base this faith on the ‘moral’ question (but base morals on faith) is there an argument for ‘accuracy of Holy Scriptures’ ? I’ve heard stories of the differences of accounts about dimensions of Noah’s Ark for example, there is a basis for God sending proof of His sovereinty by prophetic predictions that is also disprove false prophets.
eg> The Old Testament prophet ISAIAH (circa 700 B.C.) quotes as follows:
“It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE*
of the earth, and the inhabitants
thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent
to dwell in.” –Isaiah 40:22
*Circle=Hebrew “chuwg”,meaning “sphere”
In addition to that, Job (circa 1,800 B.C.)speaks of his Maker as follows:
“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place,
and hangeth the earth upon nothing.” Job 26:7
while other books were claiming the Earth was flat and sitting upon giant turtles this is what the Torah was teaching. there are apparently many other predictions.
Without weighing into the debate, I would question your interpretation of Psalm 82, Adam. (I was intrigued by what you said about it, and had a look at it.)
The Psalm is describing God holding human rulers to account for their injustice. The ‘gods’ judge among men (v. 2-4), and will die like men (v. 7). God is, here, holding those he has placed in authority to account. There is a definite differentiation made between God, and the gods. God inherits the earth, and judges it (v. 8). The ‘gods’ will die like any other man (v. 7). How could actual Gods die like men? The Psalm is bringing ‘little gods’, earthly rulers and authorities, back down to earth, as it were.
Also, Jesus quotes this Psalm in John 10:34-35, talking about how human rulers can be called gods, and how his title as the Son of God is, in this light, very appropriate. He says “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came”, clearly referring here to men. So Jesus interprets Psalm 82 as talking about men. See also 1 Samuel 28:13-14. Here, Samuel is referred to as a ‘god’, yet it is in reference to his authority, not divinity. I think that this reading of Psalm 82 is consistent with the rest of scripture.
I know that was referring to only one thing you’ve said, but I wanted to put my two cents in there.