Monotheistic Ethics are Unethical

[Into It]

Humanity acquires knowledge over time that replaces old ideas and reveals their impotence. We have come a long way since the ancient immorality of the Old Testament. We no longer murder children for cursing their parents. We no longer murder a person for working on the Sabbath, and the only time we slay entire cities, sparing none, for following a different God, is when we do it for religious reasons. All of these behaviors are not simply condoned but demanded in several books of the Old Testament with no exceptions (Deuteronomy and Leviticus specifically). We have done away with slavery today, and most people see the act as one of the most egregious offenses against human dignity. The Old Testament condones slavery - it even condones beating slaves (with stipulations) - and Jesus clearly took no issue with slavery. Many Biblical demands are immoral, and if we wish to behave ethically, we must disobey them.

It is at this point that Christians may begin to interject in defense of their faith, so I will deal with two likely objections for a moment.

The first foreseeable objection is that Christians rely primarily on the New Testament for ethics. The New Testament speaks mostly of loving thy neighbor, displaying meekness, and accepting subordination and servitude before all others. To hold a Christian to the standards of the Old Testament is to misrepresent the Christian. Following in Jesus' footsteps is surely ethical.

(Whether subordinating one's self before his enemy is or is not ethical requires a long digression - but it is a debate which I will gladly take part in if anyone wishes it.)

My response to this objection is fourfold. First, notice that this objection does not deal with the central issue of the initial argument, which is that the Old Testament allows no lenience in cherry-picking which laws to follow. If Christianity could exist without the Old Testament, then my initial argument would be flawed. It cannot. The entire reason that Jesus is believed to be the son of God is precisely because he fulfilled prophecies laid out in the Old Testament.

Another reason that Christian ethics cannot be divorced from the Old Testament is because Christianity relies solely on the Old Testament for its chief code of ethical law - the Ten Commandments.

A third reason that the Old and New Testament laws are inextricably linked is that Jesus said specifically that each and every word of the Old Testament laws must be followed, without changing a "jot"

A fourth reason is the concept of the Trinity. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, though appearing to be wholly distinct entities, are actually one in the same.

The second objection I foresee is that my argument attempts to judge God by human standards. We are myopic and small, and our limited view of good and evil just doesn't cut it when we speak of ethics on the Godly level. God is perfect - infinitely loving and infinitely just. If and only if God exists is there an objective set of ethics. God does exist, and so his ethical code is objective and immune to criticism.

For the purpose of responding to this argument directly, we will assume that God certainly exists. There are really two pieces to this argument, so I will take it one step at a time.

The first argument to deal with is 1)We are short-sighted and incapable of discerning good and evil by ourselves, especially on the Godly level. 2)God is infinitely loving and perfect. 3)Therefore, following his will is the most ethical course of action.

This appears to be a valid argument, but it is internally contradictory. I will set up a dilemma to further elucidate this. Either we are incapable of discerning right and wrong or good and evil by ourselves, or we are capable of this discernment. If we are incapable of determining morality on a Godly level, as the argument suggests, then we are incapable of being able to tell whether or not God is good to begin with. If this is the case, then there is no reason to assume that following his will is an ethical course to take. If we do give ourselves the freedom to say "God is good," however, then we should also have the ability to say "God is bad," if indeed that is the case, and to create our own ethical code. Why should we be able to ascribe goodness to God but not to anything else?

The next argument is 1)Ethics are only subjective or nonexistent if there is no God, but objective if there is. 2)There is a God. 3)God's Ethics are objective and should be followed.

Again, for the sake of argument, I will be pretending that God certainly exists, because these arguments would hold no water otherwise. For something to be objective, it must be based on fact alone or at least be completely external to the mind. It cannot be swayed by prejudice or emotions, nor can it be created out of them. Ethics are never objective. Objectivity deals with the way things are, not with how they ought to be. Normative laws, those subjective laws that dictate how one should behave, are created to the end of obedience. Obedience implies a level of subservience, which in turn implies authority. There is never a reason to follow God's laws if they are not in our best interest. This is because he has no authority over anyone. Authority must be granted by the subordinate party, which means that the subordinate party is actually in control. God only has authority over those who grant it to him; the rest of us are free to do as we please.

 

[Owl]

If this is a paper for a class, (and I admit it's well written even if I'd rather you argue the other side), you might want to include a response to the potential theistic objection, (to your first argument against the theist's second objection), that it's possible to know what is good without having a decision procedure that enables one to know every good act. That is, the theist may deny your first premise by asserting that our short-sightedness doesn't extend to the axiological domain.

Why should we be able to ascribe goodness to God but not to anything else?

If you're not familiar with it, you may want to investigate the natural law tradition. Your paper seems to be an attack against a heteronomy, or a view that the moral law is externally imposed upon us by another. (Divine Command Theory specifically).

Natural law theory, (a branch of virtue ethics), is more in line with your assertion:

There is never a reason to follow God's laws if they are not in our best interest.

And this tradition also denies that Christianity relies on the OT for the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are in the OT, but they are also part of the natural law, knowable apart from the OT. (The law is written on the hearts of all men.)

Based on you final paragraph, I'd like to ask you a question.

Ought we to be rational?

 

[Lark]

Is that like Solitary Walkers evil make up wearing twin or something?

 

[Into It]

1 If this is a paper for a class



2 If you're not familiar with it, you may want to investigate the natural law tradition. Your paper seems to be an attack against a hereonomy, or a view that the moral law is externally imposed upon us by another. (Divine Command Theory specifically).

Natural law theory, (a branch of virtue ethics), is more in line with your assertion:



And this tradition also denies that Christianity relies on the OT for the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments are in the OT, but they are also part of the natural law, knowable apart from the OT. (The law is written on the hearts of all men.)

Based on you final paragraph, I'd like to ask you a question.

3 Ought we to be rational?

1.No, this is just a rant.

2.If the "ethical truth" can be best represented in such a way that it necessitates the use of the word "should," it is an imposition. Put another way, any moral law that may make me act in such a way that is contrary to my own will, (which means any moral law) must be written with authority. A number of the Ten Commandments are not at all intuitive. Envy, Resting on the Sabbath, Graven Images...You must read the OT to get these. If you're saying that the *important* commandments are intuitive, then I agree with you.

3.No. We ought to be rational if we want to describe and understand the natural world as accurately as possible. But no, "We should be rational" doesn't stand alone - it only works if it is a necessary condition for something else (Part of an *if* statement)

Edit: I admit I may not have understood your post as well as I should have.

 

[Owl]

3. I agree that "we should be rational" doesn't stand alone. (I think it's part of an ordered set of propositions, with the meaning of each member of that set interdependent/interdetermined by the inclusion and order of the other members of that set. (This is all very rough. It should all be worked out in my book. Look for it on shelves the summer of 2014)).

Ought we desire "to describe and understand the natural world as accurately as possible"?

 

[Lark]

The real short answer to this thread is No.

 

[Mole]

Humanity acquires knowledge over time that replaces old ideas and reveals their impotence.

Yes, in 1833 institutional slavery was abolished for the first time in human history by the House of Commons.

In the early part of the 20th Century women gained their emancipation for the first time in human history. And it was in Australia and New Zealand where women gained the vote for the first time in human history.

And it was in the last decade of the 20th Century that child, sexual abuse was prosecuted in the Criminal Courts for the first time in human history.

Until then child, sexual abuse was taken for granted and protected. So it only now that we are waking up to the enormous damage child, sexual abuse does to children.

And it is only now that we can see that God's order to Abraham to murder his son was child abuse.

And it is only now that the Father, being offended by us and in order to forgive us, tortured his Son to death, can now be seen as child abuse.

And of course Mohammed's marriage to a nine year old girl can be seen today as child, sexual abuse.

These are theological interpretations only available to us today because for the first time in human history we are prosecuting child, sexual abuse in our Criminal Courts.

But it takes time for our minds to catch up with the freeing of children from sexual abuse, just as it took time for our minds to catch up with the abolition of slavery by the House of Commons in 1833.

So just as it is important to read the history of slavery, it is important to read the history of child abuse. In that way our minds can start to catch up with our new reality.

One place to start is by clicking on -

Contents - FOUNDATIONS OF PSYCHOHISTORY

 

[Nyx]

God did not create Hell.

But, He did create Free Will. So yes, you are free to do whatever you want.

"The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden."

I would say more, but I grow weary of these topics.

 

[wank]

And it is only now that we can see that God's order to Abraham to murder his son was child abuse.

I've seen you bring this one up a few times in the past. I rather believe you may have missed the point of that part of the story...
God did not let him do this, He stopped him. A test of faith in the Lord, to impart an understanding to those the story would be writ about and those who would read it; regarding the extent of faith in the Lord one could and/or has, ideally have/(, )had, as well as the ensuing consequences.

And it is only now that the Father, being offended by us and in order to forgive us, tortured his Son to death, can now be seen as child abuse.

In the old testament, blood atoned for sin, by the new testament it turned out we had become too sinful for the mere blood of this world, but the lamb of God, his blood, would save us from sin. Jesus was God, he knew what would happen before he was born, but still went through it, and let people make their choice about he, and do what they did to him, for he loved us so.

 

[Mole]

I've seen you bring this one up a few times in the past. I rather believe you may have missed the point of that part of the story...
God did not let him do this, He stopped him. A test of faith in the Lord, to impart an understanding to those the story would be writ about and those who would read it; regarding the extent of faith in the Lord one could and/or has, ideally have/(, )had, as well as the ensuing consequences.

In the old testament, blood atoned for sin, by the new testament it turned out we had become too sinful for the mere blood of this world, but the lamb of God, his blood, would save us from sin. Jesus was God, he knew what would happen before he was born, but still went through it, and let people make their choice about he, and do what they did to him, for he loved us so.

Yes, before we started prosecuting child abuse in our Criminal Courts, this was our interpretation of the Bible.

Just as before the abolition of slavery by the House of Commons, we interpreted slavery in the Bible one one. And after the abolition, we interpreted slavery in the Bible in another way.

So after the prosecution of child abuse in our Criminal Courts for the first time in history, we have a new way of interpreting the Bible.

I understand this is disturbing to those who hold to the traditional interpretation, just as the abolition of slavery was disturbing to slave holders.

But difficult as it is for you to accept, just as the abolition meant freedom for slaves, so this means freedom for children from the curse of child abuse.

How do you have the heart to cling to your traditional interpretation of the Bible in the face of child abuse?

 

[Owl]

How do you have the heart to cling to your traditional interpretation of the Bible in the face of child abuse?

The Atonement is the lynch-pin of the Christian worldview. Theism cannot make sense of the problem of evil without it; thus, theism would lose its explanatory power, and God would become unknowable.

It's the Atonement that allows the Christian to hurdle the gap between the grounds and content of his beliefs under a realist interpretation of experience.

For those interested in Scripture here are some verses to back up the traditional interpretation. (I'll adduce Romans 4, but not quote it here.)

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back (Heb 11:17-19, ESV)

"But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad" (John 8:55-56, ESV)

Though he slay me, I will hope in him; yet I will argue my ways to his face (Job 13:15, ESV)

Then he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me." And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will" (Mat 26:38-39, ESV)

Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you came to do. "Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so" (Mat 26:50-54, ESV)

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:6-8, ESV).

^Not child abuse.

 

[Into It]

I've seen you bring this one up a few times in the past. I rather believe you may have missed the point of that part of the story...
God did not let him do this, He stopped him. A test of faith in the Lord, to impart an understanding to those the story would be writ about and those who would read it; regarding the extent of faith in the Lord one could and/or has, ideally have/(, )had, as well as the ensuing consequences.

I don't want to nitpick, but God didn't stop Abraham until he was about to kill his son. He led Issac up to the sacrificial altar, laid him down on it, and was probably preparing to grip his knife. You had better believe that child was crying, screaming, and bartering for his life with the father that he never quite saw the same way again. I would agree that this is child abuse. If you were kidding with your son, would you let it get this far? Of course not - and the story also serves to illustrate the dangers of accepting Divine Command Theory with a capricious God.

 

[Into It]

Ought we desire "to describe and understand the natural world as accurately as possible"?

No. The problem is the same with the other statement. It took me a long time to come to the realization that being rational is simply no better than being irrational. There is nothing sacred about truth - I accept this, much as I don't like it, until someone puts up a strong argument in the defense of truth.

 

[Owl]

No. The problem is the same with the other statement. It took me a long time to come to the realization that being rational is simply no better than being irrational. There is nothing sacred about truth - I accept this, much as I don't like it, until someone puts up a strong argument in the defense of truth.

Do you think this is... true?

 

[Ginkgo]

Do you think this is... true?

:yim_rolling_on_the_

 

[wank]

You had better believe that child was crying, screaming, and bartering for his life with the father that he never quite saw the same way again.

Nope. He was 13, an adult for the time as I understand it, not a child.

Further, no struggle was mentioned against his predicament.
Since I've come to understand this as a foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, I have no reason to believe he to have struggled negatively against the situation.

 

[Into It]

Do you think this is... true?

I don't think truth doesn't exist. That isn't what I'm getting at. I'm merely saying that my intuition says it is ethical to know the truth even if it is painful, but that is a belief that I cannot back up. Truth is not inherently more valuable than illusion.

 

[Into It]

Nope. He was 13, an adult for the time as I understand it, not a child.

Further, no struggle was mentioned against his predicament.
Since I've come to understand this as a foreshadowing of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, I have no reason to believe he to have struggled negatively against the situation.

In all likelyhood, this never happened anyway. But I think every innocent person resists to some extent when he is about to have his life taken away.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't want to nitpick, but God didn't stop Abraham until he was about to kill his son. He led Issac up to the sacrificial altar, laid him down on it, and was probably preparing to grip his knife. You had better believe that child was crying, screaming, and bartering for his life with the father that he never quite saw the same way again. I would agree that this is child abuse. If you were kidding with your son, would you let it get this far? Of course not - and the story also serves to illustrate the dangers of accepting Divine Command Theory with a capricious God.

Um.... Haven't you run across the common supposition that Isaac was in his late teens/early 20's at the time of this incident? Here's one interesting comment: "In rabbinical tradition the age of Isaac at the time of binding is taken to be 37 which contrasts with common portrayals of Isaac as a child.[12]"

Another:

At the time that Isaac was conceived, we are told that Abraham was 99 years old, his wife Sarah was 90, and Ishmael was 13 (Genesis 17:1, 17, 25). Ishmael was sent out of Abraham's house at the time Isaac was weaned (Genesis 21). The age of weaning varies greatly between cultures but typically it would be between the ages of 2 and 5. The next given event is a covenant between Abraham and Abimelech, but no ages are given to tell us when this occurred. It was some time after this covenant that Isaac was offered. After the sacrifice of Isaac came news of Abraham's relatives in Haran and then we are told that Sarah died at the age of 127 (Genesis 23:1).

Hence, the sacrifice of Isaac must have occurred between the age of 5 and 36, which is quite a broad span. In addition, Isaac is referred to as a "lad" or na'ar in Hebrew in Genesis 22:5 and 12. This noun is used to refer to a male from infancy to young adult not yet married. For example, Joseph is called a lad at the age of seventeen (Genesis 37:2) and at the age of thirty (Genesis 41:12, 46).

We do have some further clues. Isaac is old enough to travel three days with Abraham but without his mother. His conversation with Abraham is that of an older child or a young adult. Finally, Isaac is the one who carried the wood for the sacrifice up the mountain (Genesis 22:6). The latter is strong evidence that Isaac was no longer a small child and serves as the main reason that our best guess is that he was at least in his late teens."

In any case, as Wank says, he was older... and Abraham was an old old man at this point. Remember, he thought it a joke that he could even FATHER a child at his age originally. Abraham probably could have been fended off, if necessary, by Isaac if he had been unwilling. Note that in the narrative, Isaac carried all the wood up unto the mountain himself, for his own sacrifice.

If that is the case, then Isaac was trusting his father with his life in allowing him to do this. It wasn't the same as tying down a toddler to butcher.

 

[Into It]

In any case, as Wank says, he was older... and Abraham was an old old man at this point. Remember, he thought it a joke that he could even FATHER a child at his age originally. Abraham probably could have been fended off, if necessary, by Isaac if he had been unwilling. Note that in the narrative, Isaac carried all the wood up unto the mountain himself, for his own sacrifice.

No, I always thought of Isaac as a young child. And here I was making Abraham out to be some unethical character.