As we noted in the previous blog, laws play a significant role in our development toward the people that God desired for us to be. In other words, the law takes nature where nature wants to go... most of the time. This was particularly true for the Israelites, God's chosen people. They received an assortment of commandments, some written, some communicated orally, some inscribed on tablets, destroyed, and others inscribed on more tablets; roughly 613 total. And a lot of these commandments were weird. You couldn't wear clothing of mixed material, eat grapes skins, plant different seeds in the same field.. odd stuff like that. But with we understand this smorgasbord of laws in the context that they were given to Israel, we come to realize that they weren't actually a smorgasbord at all. They all served a very specific purpose. They were designed to set the Israelites apart so that they could remain in relationship with God and avoid going astray. The tribes that surrounded them had their own variety of peculiar behaviours, and we all know what happens when we hang out with people with face tatoos... ideologies are soon to follow.
None of these laws were more prominent however than the decalogue or the ten commandments. The commandments given to Moses were designed to set the Israelites up for ultimate success. If they could abide by these commandments, both literally and thematically, they would not be led astray. So takes a look at what exactly these laws were, and how they were designed to set them, and ultimately us, apart.
Commandment one: No other gods.
This commandment is the first commandment, and thematically, it is the commandment of love. Love the Lord your God, love your neighbor as yourself, love, love, love. And it is no surprise that this one is first. Jesus tells us: "If you love me, you will follow my commands". It is pretty easy, love and then follow because you love. Therefore, this commandment comes first because if we don't love, we won't follow, but if we do, we are more likely to buy into the rest. However, there is another part of this commandment that cannot be overlooked. It is the "only one God" clause. This serves the purpose of eliminating any conflict when it comes to who to follow. Nothing can be more difficult than navigating authorities that are telling you to do different things, and thus, God does away with it all together. He says, follow Him, don't follow anyone else, unless they are preaching the same thing. Because then, they too, are following Him. That's why this commandment speaks out against tarot cards, magic, seances, and stuff like that. We have to be weary of making ourselves vulnerable to other masters... worldly and otherwise.
Commandment two: Don't use the Lord's name in vain.
This commandment is rather straight forward. Don't curse the name. Don't lie with the name. Don't claim to know what God will do. That kind of thing. This commandment is all about proceeding respectfully toward the Lord, which is a key to understanding the relationship we are meant to have with Him. It should be intimate while simultaneously filling us with awe.
Commandment three: Keep holy the sabbath.
This commandment does not mean that we always have to attend church (there are extenuating circumstances), it does not mean that only Christians can have a relationship with God, and it certainly doesn't mean you can't do anything on Sundays... What it does mean is that we are meant to take time to build our relationship with God. And we should also be willing to make sacrifices for that relationship. That is a sign that it is genuine and that we are grateful for it.
These three commandments come together to create the theological principles. They govern what Christians are meant to believe: that there is only one God, that He is deserving of our respect, and that we are meant to be in relationship with Him. If we cling to these understandings, the rest of the commandments become quite simple. Love Him, and we will treat His creation with love as well. The brilliance of this lies in the fact that God knows us so well. We are loyal to those we respect and with whom we share relationship. For them, we will do anything.
The commandments that follow are known as the moral principles (what we should do).
Commandment four: Honor your mother and father and you'll get the land (i.e. heaven).
This commandment illustrates the importance of adhering to authority while also establishing that there is a reward for doing so. But not in the sense of a prize, but rather in the way that there are natural rewards for doing the good. (If you don't drink under age, you don't get MIPs) In the same way, following the commands leads you to holiness, heaven, and a relationship with God.
Commandment five: Don't kill (or more accurately, treat everyone with dignity.)
This commandment centers around dignity. It is the foundational notion of no harm to self or others. It covers all kinds of death, drug use, and the killing of things physically, metaphysically, emotionally, and otherwise. The importance of the commandment lies in the fact that if we can treat others with dignity (an ourselves) we will never find ourselves in violation of the commandments that follow.
Commandment Six: Do not commit adultery (or do anything else sexually immoral...)
This is a big commandment that covers all manners of activity; however, the key to it lies in its requirement for self control. It does not call for celibacy, it calls for chastity, and these are very different concepts. Everyone is called to chastity (married, unmarried, priests, etc.) because everyone is called to be in control of their sexual urges and exploits. And this self control then helps going forward. Self mastery not only leads to a healthy sex life, but it also helps us to control our envy and desire, the issues that lie at the root of subsequent commandments.
Commandment seven: don't steal
Anything. Intellectual property. Physical property. Someone's dignity.
However, feel free to own property, own things, borrow things, just be clear what your are doing and do it.
Commandment eight: don't bear false witness
Essentially, do not defamate another's character through the telling of lies, rumors, or the keeping of secrets. Avoid the gossip. But do know that this doesn't mean the fifth amendment is nullified, the seal of confession still holds, and you are allowed to keep the secret ingredients in grandma's salsa a secret ;). This one is complicated - but it is made easier when we pursue the truth, when we provide the truth, and when we don't with hold it from others. At least not those who are entitled to it. (That is a way more complicated conversation than what we have time for though, so feel free to follow up.
Commandment nine and ten: don't covet your neighbors wife and stuff.
In other words, be happy with the life you've been given. Trust God, love Him, and you won't want for anything more. Which brings us full circle. Find the love, establish the relationship and the happiness will follow because so will the natural law and eventually your purpose.
If only it were that easy though. Follow the law, be happy, the end. However, the problem lies in how we fulfill this law of love in our lives today. Which is a task easier said than done.
But that is where the beatitudes come in to play. In the very etymology of the word, the beatitudes suggest that we must learn to "be of a certain attitude". And what exactly is that attitude? Well one in which we recognize a need for God in our lives. We need to become poor in spirit. This is both the first and "most important" beatitude in that our recognition of a need for God will lay the ground work for everything else to come. We will mourn for the state of the world as it is, we will feel powerless in our ability to change it, we will then hunger for righteousness, become more merciful, patient, and moral in the process, and then eventually we will seek to change the world. And what will be our reward? Well ultimately the kingdom of heaven, but here, in this world, we will be persecuted. You see, that is the key to understanding the beatitudes. The poor in spirit are the mourning, they are the peacemakers, they are the persecuted.
But that is the way of life, those who seek the truth are challenged for it. Those who seek to align themselves with the objective good are bullied, marginalized and ostracized. But there is blessing in that. How do you know you're on the right track? Someone is probably trying to steer you off...
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Theological Dialogue #17: It's the law ;)
For all intents and purposes, there has always been law.
However, that idea is slightly complicated. There has always been eternal law. There has always been a natural law. We know this to be the case because these laws have existed as long as God has existed... always.
As for the nature of civil law, we have reason to believe that as long as there has been society, there has been law. In the 22nd century humanity makes its first conditional laws (If you do this, then this will happen...) and from that point forward we see an assortment of laws emerge: Hammurabi's code, the Torah, laws of various republics and tribes, constitutions and religious laws, the list is endless. But it does leave us with one conclusion: all societies make/create/abide by laws.
That isn't actually the starting place though. To best understand why you abide by civil laws every day, you first need to understand the goal (the telos) behind establishing laws. In the book of Jeremiah, we are introduced to the concept that God "knows us" and "appoints us" before He forms us in the womb. This has massive implications. The idea of us is as infinite as God is infinite. In other words, we have, at least in concept, always existed. That's remarkable. And furthermore, there is an eternal law meant to govern what we could become if we pursue the best version of ourselves. However, we are free to choose whether or not we abide. We are free to choose whether or not we accept this appointment.
But if we do, we are called to listen to our hearts (the place where the natural law resides) that it might guide us toward our eternal/divine plan.
The problem is this: the world is often too loud for us to hear anything. We walk around with head phones in our ears, we are constantly staring at screens, we spend very little time listening. And it is for this reason that every society institutes laws designed to help us "hear better" or more accurately, to guide us toward the natural law. The struggle comes when we are then forced to navigate civil laws in light of what is lawfully permissible vs. what is moral. The two are not one in the same. You have to remember that civil laws are ultimately there to regulate behaviour, and keep civilization afloat. However, they simultaneously have to refrain from being too strict or they run the risk of inciting revolution. That is why we see this interesting balance in regard to how most laws appear moral, but others are questionable at best, yet all are instituted. If society feels as if they played a role in the choosing of the laws and if they feel like those laws protect them without inhibiting too many of their freedoms, they remain content with the system as it is.
This becomes tricky as we attempt to evolve beyond the 4th stage of moral development. At some point, we have to learn to see the law for what it is and understand that while it has the ability to guide us to the natural law, simply following it to the tee will not provide the desired outcome. Philosophically however, there is a way to navigate this quagmire and determine which laws are just, and which laws demand a reaction of civil disobedience. The defining characteristics of a just law are quite simple in their nature. In order to be just, a law must follow an ordinance of reason (it must be reasonable/make sense) it must be directed toward the benefit of the common good, not simply the powerful majority, it must be established by a proper authority, and it must be promulgated (made known). Every law should be subject to this scrutiny in the respective order. If a law is unreasonable, it is unjust, and thus should be resisted. And in the same way, if a law seems reasonable, but it only benefits the few, then it too should be resisted. It should be resisted nonviolently; we should never justify immoral behaviour simply because it is lawfully permitted. (Remember slavery...)
Ultimately, we should strive to be the best version of ourselves, seek holiness, and quest to discover what God's divine (eternal) law has in store for us. But if we are going to do this, we must learn to listen to our heart, and critically look at what society is asking from us or what it is permitting us to do, and determine whether or not those things are in alignment with the objective good. Once we can begin to work our way through the labyrinth of societies demands, we are sure to discover what it is that God has in store for us.
However, that idea is slightly complicated. There has always been eternal law. There has always been a natural law. We know this to be the case because these laws have existed as long as God has existed... always.
As for the nature of civil law, we have reason to believe that as long as there has been society, there has been law. In the 22nd century humanity makes its first conditional laws (If you do this, then this will happen...) and from that point forward we see an assortment of laws emerge: Hammurabi's code, the Torah, laws of various republics and tribes, constitutions and religious laws, the list is endless. But it does leave us with one conclusion: all societies make/create/abide by laws.
That isn't actually the starting place though. To best understand why you abide by civil laws every day, you first need to understand the goal (the telos) behind establishing laws. In the book of Jeremiah, we are introduced to the concept that God "knows us" and "appoints us" before He forms us in the womb. This has massive implications. The idea of us is as infinite as God is infinite. In other words, we have, at least in concept, always existed. That's remarkable. And furthermore, there is an eternal law meant to govern what we could become if we pursue the best version of ourselves. However, we are free to choose whether or not we abide. We are free to choose whether or not we accept this appointment.
But if we do, we are called to listen to our hearts (the place where the natural law resides) that it might guide us toward our eternal/divine plan.
The problem is this: the world is often too loud for us to hear anything. We walk around with head phones in our ears, we are constantly staring at screens, we spend very little time listening. And it is for this reason that every society institutes laws designed to help us "hear better" or more accurately, to guide us toward the natural law. The struggle comes when we are then forced to navigate civil laws in light of what is lawfully permissible vs. what is moral. The two are not one in the same. You have to remember that civil laws are ultimately there to regulate behaviour, and keep civilization afloat. However, they simultaneously have to refrain from being too strict or they run the risk of inciting revolution. That is why we see this interesting balance in regard to how most laws appear moral, but others are questionable at best, yet all are instituted. If society feels as if they played a role in the choosing of the laws and if they feel like those laws protect them without inhibiting too many of their freedoms, they remain content with the system as it is.
This becomes tricky as we attempt to evolve beyond the 4th stage of moral development. At some point, we have to learn to see the law for what it is and understand that while it has the ability to guide us to the natural law, simply following it to the tee will not provide the desired outcome. Philosophically however, there is a way to navigate this quagmire and determine which laws are just, and which laws demand a reaction of civil disobedience. The defining characteristics of a just law are quite simple in their nature. In order to be just, a law must follow an ordinance of reason (it must be reasonable/make sense) it must be directed toward the benefit of the common good, not simply the powerful majority, it must be established by a proper authority, and it must be promulgated (made known). Every law should be subject to this scrutiny in the respective order. If a law is unreasonable, it is unjust, and thus should be resisted. And in the same way, if a law seems reasonable, but it only benefits the few, then it too should be resisted. It should be resisted nonviolently; we should never justify immoral behaviour simply because it is lawfully permitted. (Remember slavery...)
Ultimately, we should strive to be the best version of ourselves, seek holiness, and quest to discover what God's divine (eternal) law has in store for us. But if we are going to do this, we must learn to listen to our heart, and critically look at what society is asking from us or what it is permitting us to do, and determine whether or not those things are in alignment with the objective good. Once we can begin to work our way through the labyrinth of societies demands, we are sure to discover what it is that God has in store for us.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
Theological Dialogue #16: What you should know about the components of a moral choice.
The components of a moral choice are incredibly fascinating in their nature. We understand that every human act and thereby potentially moral act (remember, all moral acts are human acts, but not all human acts are moral) can be broken down into three very specific components: the object/action, the intentions, and the circumstances. In their simplest understanding, the object/action is essentially that which is actually done and thereby capable of being judged; the intention is the goal, what one desires to accomplish; and the circumstances are all the non moral components that surround every situation. In and of themselves, circumstances possess no moral quality; however, they have the remarkable ability to both increase accountability/malice/or even corrupt a good act. They are equally powerful and inconsequential simultaneously due to the fact that they are totally dependent on the execution of the action before they can have any influence.
But as we examine these individual components more specifically, we come to realize that they are actually incredibly complex in their essence.
First, the object/action. We begin here because it is the place where all decisions should begin. In other words, it is always the first thing that you look at when preparing quite literally "to act". The reason it is referred to as the object/action is due to the fact that it is, in all actuality, both of those things. It is the action associated with every decision. It is not what one desires to accomplish, but it is what one actually accomplishes, which we understand to be two very different things. And once it has been accomplished, once the action has been carried out, it becomes, definitively, an object. It is isolated in the past, there is no changing it, it is what happened and thus is can be looked at quite simply as an object in time. This quality is also what allows for the object/action to be judged. The action itself can be know with certainty, as can some of the more immediate consequences. It is our ability to "know" it that also allows us to judge it.
However, the doing of the action and the judging of it possess their own degree of complexity. Decisions are not necessarily easy to carry out in all circumstances, and sometimes we are riddled with conflict as to how to approach them. But once we have managed to act, the judgement of said act becomes dependent on another set of variables. Every object/action can be further broken down into three more components: the doer (the one acting), the done (the good that is willed), and the doee (the one acted upon). Sometimes each of the archetypes are one in the same. The doer is also the doee. Sometimes, they are completely separate. The doer and doee are not the same individual. And sometimes they are intricately interwoven. The doer is another doer's doee, while that other doer is the doee of the original doer ;) This happens when relationships, "get complicated".
How each of the individuals are impacted by what is done plays a huge role in determining the moral quality of the act. You see, there is a spectrum of analysis regarding the quality of the object/action. It can be an intrinsically evil act (one that is unable to be made good), it can be an unintended evil (a product of double effect), it can be a neutral act (possessing no good or bad qualities in an of itself) it can be a good act capable of being corrupted, or it can be an intrinsically good act (rare, but still possible to find. Something like authentic love that is incapable of corruption. Or rainbows...) How one proceeds when they encounter an object/action should thus be determined by its intrinsic quality. If it is deemed intrinsically evil, one should simply stop and not proceed. If it is an unintended evil, one must subject it to the requirements of double effect and/or examine it in regard to the notions of formal cooperation in evil (when the evil is desired, thus making it not unintended really...) vs. material cooperation in evil (when the evil isn't desired, but you are still doing something to promote it.) If the unintended evil is thought to be a product of double effect, one must subject it to the following questions: Is it the product of a good act? Or are you doing something bad to accomplish something good? Is the intention good and the unintended evil actually unintended? Are there any other choices? Does the good ultimately outweigh the bad? If it is a neutral act, one must then consider their intentions, and the circumstances. If it is a good act, but potentially subject to corruption, then one must ensure that their intentions and/or the circumstances do not risk the corrupting of said act. (Making babies while married =good, making babies while married and also at a public pool=corrupted good act).
And finally, if an act is intrinsically good, then it should be pursued with unceasing fervor. Ultimately, we should seek to do good and avoid evil.
Regarding the intentions of every human act, this is the area with which we struggle the most. We are very invested in what we want to accomplish, even to the point that we sometimes find it to be more important than what we actually accomplished. In fact, we are even prone to ignore the actual consequences of the object/action while arguing for what we wanted to accomplish, yet didn't. With all of that said, this is what we ultimately know about intentions:
1. We do not always accomplish what we intend to accomplish. Coming to terms with this is essential.
2. We masterfully justify all of our actions, ultimately based on our good intentions; however, good in this case is subjective. Good for you? Good for me? Good for all...
3. Intentions do have the ability to impact accountability, they do not have the ability to impact morality. If you hurt somebody, intending to hurt them or not is quite important when it comes to accountability, it is totally irrelevant when it comes to morality.
4. Intentions can not change the nature of an evil act; however, they can corrupt an otherwise good action.
5. Ultimately, our intentions matter very little when it comes to morality.
Therefore, it is so important for us to shift our focus. What we do matters, what we intend to do matters less. Do good, don't simply intend to do good.
Lastly, circumstances play an interesting side role in this whole conversation of components. Again, in and of themselves, they possess no moral quality. This is important to understand because it tells us a lot about what is actually circumstantial and what is attached to the object/action in every human act. Things like the quality possessed by an individual, because they influence the morality, are intrinsic to the object, not the circumstances. When a person is innocent, their innocence is tied up in their role as the doer or doee. It is not a circumstance. When a person is married, it too is a piece of them as a doer/doee, it is not circumstantial. This is important because it allows us to better determine the morality of an act. Killing an innocent person or sleeping with a married person possesses a different moral quality than killing someone who is trying to kill you, or even sleeping with someone that isn't married yet. Furthermore, when we are determining the action/object in each of these cases, the innocence or marital status of the individuals is a piece of the action/object, not the circumstances. So what can circumstances do? They can increase accountability (or decrease it if they are causing duress) and they can increase malice. Remember pushing the person in the hallway vs. off the cliffs of Mohr....
Thus, we have two decisions when acting as humans (i.e. making decisions):
1. We can proceed with objective ethics. Examine the moral quality of an act, objectively, and then proceed accordingly.
Or...
2. We can proceed with situational ethics (the understanding that the moral quality of an act changes from situation to situation).
Proportionalism: the understanding that every act is morally neutral and good is weighed against bad to determine the moral quality.
Consequentialism: there is no good and bad, simply good and bad consequences. An action is good if one is rewarded, bad if they are "punished" (Sound familiar? First level of moral development... babies...)
Utilitarianism: The moral quality of an act is determined by how useful it is to the doer.
If we insist on proceeding with situational ethics, we become the center of our decision making philosophy. And if we remain at the center, we never evolve morally.
But in the end, we are free, so the question becomes: where does your reason guide you?
But as we examine these individual components more specifically, we come to realize that they are actually incredibly complex in their essence.
First, the object/action. We begin here because it is the place where all decisions should begin. In other words, it is always the first thing that you look at when preparing quite literally "to act". The reason it is referred to as the object/action is due to the fact that it is, in all actuality, both of those things. It is the action associated with every decision. It is not what one desires to accomplish, but it is what one actually accomplishes, which we understand to be two very different things. And once it has been accomplished, once the action has been carried out, it becomes, definitively, an object. It is isolated in the past, there is no changing it, it is what happened and thus is can be looked at quite simply as an object in time. This quality is also what allows for the object/action to be judged. The action itself can be know with certainty, as can some of the more immediate consequences. It is our ability to "know" it that also allows us to judge it.
However, the doing of the action and the judging of it possess their own degree of complexity. Decisions are not necessarily easy to carry out in all circumstances, and sometimes we are riddled with conflict as to how to approach them. But once we have managed to act, the judgement of said act becomes dependent on another set of variables. Every object/action can be further broken down into three more components: the doer (the one acting), the done (the good that is willed), and the doee (the one acted upon). Sometimes each of the archetypes are one in the same. The doer is also the doee. Sometimes, they are completely separate. The doer and doee are not the same individual. And sometimes they are intricately interwoven. The doer is another doer's doee, while that other doer is the doee of the original doer ;) This happens when relationships, "get complicated".
How each of the individuals are impacted by what is done plays a huge role in determining the moral quality of the act. You see, there is a spectrum of analysis regarding the quality of the object/action. It can be an intrinsically evil act (one that is unable to be made good), it can be an unintended evil (a product of double effect), it can be a neutral act (possessing no good or bad qualities in an of itself) it can be a good act capable of being corrupted, or it can be an intrinsically good act (rare, but still possible to find. Something like authentic love that is incapable of corruption. Or rainbows...) How one proceeds when they encounter an object/action should thus be determined by its intrinsic quality. If it is deemed intrinsically evil, one should simply stop and not proceed. If it is an unintended evil, one must subject it to the requirements of double effect and/or examine it in regard to the notions of formal cooperation in evil (when the evil is desired, thus making it not unintended really...) vs. material cooperation in evil (when the evil isn't desired, but you are still doing something to promote it.) If the unintended evil is thought to be a product of double effect, one must subject it to the following questions: Is it the product of a good act? Or are you doing something bad to accomplish something good? Is the intention good and the unintended evil actually unintended? Are there any other choices? Does the good ultimately outweigh the bad? If it is a neutral act, one must then consider their intentions, and the circumstances. If it is a good act, but potentially subject to corruption, then one must ensure that their intentions and/or the circumstances do not risk the corrupting of said act. (Making babies while married =good, making babies while married and also at a public pool=corrupted good act).
And finally, if an act is intrinsically good, then it should be pursued with unceasing fervor. Ultimately, we should seek to do good and avoid evil.
Regarding the intentions of every human act, this is the area with which we struggle the most. We are very invested in what we want to accomplish, even to the point that we sometimes find it to be more important than what we actually accomplished. In fact, we are even prone to ignore the actual consequences of the object/action while arguing for what we wanted to accomplish, yet didn't. With all of that said, this is what we ultimately know about intentions:
1. We do not always accomplish what we intend to accomplish. Coming to terms with this is essential.
2. We masterfully justify all of our actions, ultimately based on our good intentions; however, good in this case is subjective. Good for you? Good for me? Good for all...
3. Intentions do have the ability to impact accountability, they do not have the ability to impact morality. If you hurt somebody, intending to hurt them or not is quite important when it comes to accountability, it is totally irrelevant when it comes to morality.
4. Intentions can not change the nature of an evil act; however, they can corrupt an otherwise good action.
5. Ultimately, our intentions matter very little when it comes to morality.
Therefore, it is so important for us to shift our focus. What we do matters, what we intend to do matters less. Do good, don't simply intend to do good.
Lastly, circumstances play an interesting side role in this whole conversation of components. Again, in and of themselves, they possess no moral quality. This is important to understand because it tells us a lot about what is actually circumstantial and what is attached to the object/action in every human act. Things like the quality possessed by an individual, because they influence the morality, are intrinsic to the object, not the circumstances. When a person is innocent, their innocence is tied up in their role as the doer or doee. It is not a circumstance. When a person is married, it too is a piece of them as a doer/doee, it is not circumstantial. This is important because it allows us to better determine the morality of an act. Killing an innocent person or sleeping with a married person possesses a different moral quality than killing someone who is trying to kill you, or even sleeping with someone that isn't married yet. Furthermore, when we are determining the action/object in each of these cases, the innocence or marital status of the individuals is a piece of the action/object, not the circumstances. So what can circumstances do? They can increase accountability (or decrease it if they are causing duress) and they can increase malice. Remember pushing the person in the hallway vs. off the cliffs of Mohr....
Thus, we have two decisions when acting as humans (i.e. making decisions):
1. We can proceed with objective ethics. Examine the moral quality of an act, objectively, and then proceed accordingly.
Or...
2. We can proceed with situational ethics (the understanding that the moral quality of an act changes from situation to situation).
Proportionalism: the understanding that every act is morally neutral and good is weighed against bad to determine the moral quality.
Consequentialism: there is no good and bad, simply good and bad consequences. An action is good if one is rewarded, bad if they are "punished" (Sound familiar? First level of moral development... babies...)
Utilitarianism: The moral quality of an act is determined by how useful it is to the doer.
If we insist on proceeding with situational ethics, we become the center of our decision making philosophy. And if we remain at the center, we never evolve morally.
But in the end, we are free, so the question becomes: where does your reason guide you?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)