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 1 Ethics in the Bible 1.1 Ethics in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible 1.2 Ethics in the New Testament 2 Ethical issues 2.1 The Divine command theory of ethics 2.2 God's benevolence 2.3 Teleological ethics vs. Deontological ethics 2.4 Biblical violence and importance of context 3 Selected ethical theories contrasted with the Bible 3.1 Aristotle / Virtue ethics 3.2 Utilitarianism 3.3 Kant 3.4 Ethical skepticism 4 References 5 See also

[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 Euthyphro, 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

Further information: Theodicy

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 was raised by some gnostic sects.^{[citation needed]} This led to several stories being revised,^{[citation needed]} 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 ("dystheism").

Some Jews, Christians, and Muslims say that God is not exclusively good, but transcends all opposites; or cannot be described. Thus, to call him "good" is as inadequate as to call him "evil" (see mysticism).

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.
• God's infliction of original sin on humanity for an offence of their forbears in the spirit of Sippenhaft.
• In the Tower of Babel story, people are punished for relying on their own strength and collaboration.
• In the book of Exodus, God deliberately "hardened Pharaoh's heart", making him even more unwilling to free the Hebrew slaves.
• Cruel or genocidal commands of God in Deutoronomy, such as the call to eradicate the certain Canaanite tribes.
• In the Book of Job, God allows Satan to plague His loyal servant Job with devastating tragedies.

Modern criticism points out further Biblical prohibitions that are difficult to reconcile with modern notions of justice, especially the death penalty for sexual behaviour such as adultery or "sodomy" (see the Bible and homosexuality), and endorsement of slavery, and excessive divine punishments such as that in Leviticus 26:29 , Deuteronomy 28:53, Jeremiah 19:9, and Ezekiel 5:10, where people are forced to eat the flesh of their own children, or Deuteronomy 13, where God instructs his followers to stone to death any friend or family member who attempts to secretly entice a believer into worshipping other gods.

[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] Biblical violence and importance of context

A recent study by four researchers suggests a positive relationship between exposure to scriptural violence, said to be condoned by God, and increased real-life aggression. 205 male and 285 female students at two different universities were shown isolated Old Testament passages containing references to violent acts such as rape, beatings and murder. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/BRDKB07.pdf

Half of the survey group was then shown a passage from the bible without additional context which indicating that God sanctioned violent retribution. That half responded with increased aggression in a subsequent measurement. overall, the study concluded that People who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves. ^[2]

The lead researcher, Brad J. Bushman of Insitute for Social Research in University of Michigan (also researches other effects of violence, such as violence in Video Games^[3]), sees the study as reinforcing the need to read scripture with an understanding of its historical context and a desire to hear what God is trying to teach. Otherwise, reading a violent passage in isolation could elicit aggressive tendencies. Such out-of-context reading is not only related to bible; this also related to any violence committed in the name-of-deity (such as religious extremeist), which is commonly conducted when a single violent episode is taken out of its overall context. However, he said that instead of avoiding reading the scriptures (or the violent media altogether), read those that teach moral lessons or that are balanced with descriptions of victims’ suffering or the aggressor’s remorse, which can teach important lessons and have legitimate merit. Furthermore, in his quotations, he believed that overall speaking, a well-rounded religion has actually played a role in curbing violence.

[edit] Selected ethical theories contrasted with the Bible

[edit] Aristotle / Virtue ethics

Aristotle in his ethical works focuses on virtues--i.e. laudable 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 someone is considering killing someone just to watch them die. One could not possibly (Kant argues) wish for someone else to kill oneself thus, so the rule which one implicitly proposes--that killing people just to watch them die is okay--cannot be consistently supported. That is, one cannot possibly wish others to "do unto me" as one is 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. Friedrich Nietzsche is sometimes interpreted as a proponent of such views (which he certaintly considers, though he may or may not espouse them himself).

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Ethics in religion
• Christian anarchism
• Criticism of the Bible