Thursday, January 06, 2005
The Golden Rule's Problem
I wanted to respond to a comment from my last post. The pertinent part of the comment follows:
"What would happen if you remove the religious connotations and incentives, and did "good works" and "right actions" simply because they are the right things to be done.
Then, if you do a "wrong thing" you should appeal first to those wronged for forgiveness, before forgiving yourself.
It happens too that if someone should "wrong" you, then you should be forgiving in your turn.
But that sounds too much like religious teaching. No?
Now, in those terms how does one define "right" and "wrong"? Again very simple -
If an act is one that I would consider a "wrong" when it is done to me, then it must be "wrong" when inflicted upon any other person.
If an act is one that I would consider "right" when it is done to me, then it must be "right" when done to another person.
Are there shades of grey and "excuses"? Not, I think, if one is honest with oneself. "
The first line is the most interesting. To be truthful, men do not do something simply because it is the right thing to do. Always in the heart of man there resides evil. Jeremiah 17:9 states,
"The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?" In other words, I can be sure that in most every decision a man makes from day to day, sin will be involved. That's because men are sinners. I mean that most mathematically. Man=sinner.
So, when you take away true goodness from men's hearts (as happened in the fall), the rest of my commentator's comments fall away. I won't forgive. I won't ask for forgiveness. I will not abide by my own moral code of the golden rule. I won't. Read world history to see this.
Moreover, to make that which is good "that which I would like done to me" and that which is bad "that which I would not like done to me" is completely hopeless outside Christ. Christ gave that command to the faithful, those who have the Holy Spirit of God within them, and they have a hard enough time doing it! To make good and bad so relativistic is dangerous.
"What would happen if you remove the religious connotations and incentives, and did "good works" and "right actions" simply because they are the right things to be done.
Then, if you do a "wrong thing" you should appeal first to those wronged for forgiveness, before forgiving yourself.
It happens too that if someone should "wrong" you, then you should be forgiving in your turn.
But that sounds too much like religious teaching. No?
Now, in those terms how does one define "right" and "wrong"? Again very simple -
If an act is one that I would consider a "wrong" when it is done to me, then it must be "wrong" when inflicted upon any other person.
If an act is one that I would consider "right" when it is done to me, then it must be "right" when done to another person.
Are there shades of grey and "excuses"? Not, I think, if one is honest with oneself. "
The first line is the most interesting. To be truthful, men do not do something simply because it is the right thing to do. Always in the heart of man there resides evil. Jeremiah 17:9 states,
"The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?" In other words, I can be sure that in most every decision a man makes from day to day, sin will be involved. That's because men are sinners. I mean that most mathematically. Man=sinner.
So, when you take away true goodness from men's hearts (as happened in the fall), the rest of my commentator's comments fall away. I won't forgive. I won't ask for forgiveness. I will not abide by my own moral code of the golden rule. I won't. Read world history to see this.
Moreover, to make that which is good "that which I would like done to me" and that which is bad "that which I would not like done to me" is completely hopeless outside Christ. Christ gave that command to the faithful, those who have the Holy Spirit of God within them, and they have a hard enough time doing it! To make good and bad so relativistic is dangerous.
// posted by BLP @ 5:58 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
I am (I think this is the right word) honoured that you have picked on this.
Can I comment just a little further, again as an observation on the principles involved rather than personal...
The idea of -
"Always in the heart of man there resides evil. Jeremiah 17:9 states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"
you follow directly with the qualification of "choice"...."In other words, I can be sure that in most every decision a man makes from day to day, sin will be involved. That's because men are sinners."
For me THAT is where the matter starts and finishes.
It is not some outside evil, nor any original sin, that leads me to beating up on my neighbour, or taking his car without his permission, or sleeping with his wife.
Every time, I have the CHOICE of doing or not doing.
The same can be argued in relation to omission - the not doing of a good act. Again it is choice, as you have pointed out, that leads to the wrong, not an externalised "the devil made me do it".
That really is the crux of the matter. In my mind, the religious connotations follow at all manner of levels.
I am by no means perfect. There are matters of conscience that I have going back some many years that need to be set right. Some I might still be able to correct, others I know I can not. This, if I am frank about it, is where "religious forgiveness" for those wrongs might be applied. But I have also to be honest with my self and my own beliefs. That manner of "religious forgiveness" is in fact no more than a salve for the conscience, an antibiotic against the Greek Erynnes (?sp), a "self applied forgiveness bandaid" to make me feel better about myself and what I have done.
It does nothing to correct my wrong. The person I have wronged knows nothing of my acceptance of my guilt.
Where is the "rightness" of that?
On the wider scale of your comment, the same rationale applies, in my mind, to every moment of history.
Some choices have led to "good outcomes" - I have seen the assassination of Julius Caesar mentioned in this light as "justification" for the assassination of enemies such as terorists.
Was Hitler "forced by some evil" to invade Poland? No. Was Napoleon "forced" to invade the Low Countries and threaten Britain? No. Was Yamamoto and the Japanese leadership "forced" to bomb Pearl Harbour? No. Was Ghenghis Khan "forced" to cut his swathe of invasion, murder and destruction across Asia? No.
EVERY event of history is the consequence of human decision. There are no supernatural forces involved.
The outcome of those decisions is more fundamental in the long term in determining the "goodness" or the "evilness".
If Hitler had successfully overcome Britain and eventually the US, I have no doubt that his invasion of Poland would now be seen as a "great moment of history".
It is the result of great numbers of events and decisions that has led to the world we now have rather than the other.
What must be said is that nothing, but absolutely nothing, can unravel that history. To that extent, the wrongs that I have done can not be undone either, and have their own microscopic place in the present.
That, I believe, is something that not even "religious forgiveness" can right.
Finally, "the evil that lurks in men's hearts" I do not dispute. But it is not the "evil forces" that religion portrays it as. It is in our nature as animals that brings this survival and self-preservation instinct to the fore. That makes NO EXCUSE for the act of evil - the "wrong". As sentient beings, we should be able to recognise the fact, and we should be able to control the instinct.
And that is one reason why I think that your final paragraph is an incorrect conclusion.
Taken literally, you are saying that any person not a Christian is ipso facto evil. That is just plain wrong. You can not make such a sweeping generalisation.
If you were correct, then over 80% of the world's population would be, in your definition, evil. Try telling that to the ordinary, law abiding, good folks who happen to be Bhuddist, or Hindu, or Moslem, or Jewish, or Taoist, or even atheist like myself.
Post a Comment
Can I comment just a little further, again as an observation on the principles involved rather than personal...
The idea of -
"Always in the heart of man there resides evil. Jeremiah 17:9 states, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick;
who can understand it?"
you follow directly with the qualification of "choice"...."In other words, I can be sure that in most every decision a man makes from day to day, sin will be involved. That's because men are sinners."
For me THAT is where the matter starts and finishes.
It is not some outside evil, nor any original sin, that leads me to beating up on my neighbour, or taking his car without his permission, or sleeping with his wife.
Every time, I have the CHOICE of doing or not doing.
The same can be argued in relation to omission - the not doing of a good act. Again it is choice, as you have pointed out, that leads to the wrong, not an externalised "the devil made me do it".
That really is the crux of the matter. In my mind, the religious connotations follow at all manner of levels.
I am by no means perfect. There are matters of conscience that I have going back some many years that need to be set right. Some I might still be able to correct, others I know I can not. This, if I am frank about it, is where "religious forgiveness" for those wrongs might be applied. But I have also to be honest with my self and my own beliefs. That manner of "religious forgiveness" is in fact no more than a salve for the conscience, an antibiotic against the Greek Erynnes (?sp), a "self applied forgiveness bandaid" to make me feel better about myself and what I have done.
It does nothing to correct my wrong. The person I have wronged knows nothing of my acceptance of my guilt.
Where is the "rightness" of that?
On the wider scale of your comment, the same rationale applies, in my mind, to every moment of history.
Some choices have led to "good outcomes" - I have seen the assassination of Julius Caesar mentioned in this light as "justification" for the assassination of enemies such as terorists.
Was Hitler "forced by some evil" to invade Poland? No. Was Napoleon "forced" to invade the Low Countries and threaten Britain? No. Was Yamamoto and the Japanese leadership "forced" to bomb Pearl Harbour? No. Was Ghenghis Khan "forced" to cut his swathe of invasion, murder and destruction across Asia? No.
EVERY event of history is the consequence of human decision. There are no supernatural forces involved.
The outcome of those decisions is more fundamental in the long term in determining the "goodness" or the "evilness".
If Hitler had successfully overcome Britain and eventually the US, I have no doubt that his invasion of Poland would now be seen as a "great moment of history".
It is the result of great numbers of events and decisions that has led to the world we now have rather than the other.
What must be said is that nothing, but absolutely nothing, can unravel that history. To that extent, the wrongs that I have done can not be undone either, and have their own microscopic place in the present.
That, I believe, is something that not even "religious forgiveness" can right.
Finally, "the evil that lurks in men's hearts" I do not dispute. But it is not the "evil forces" that religion portrays it as. It is in our nature as animals that brings this survival and self-preservation instinct to the fore. That makes NO EXCUSE for the act of evil - the "wrong". As sentient beings, we should be able to recognise the fact, and we should be able to control the instinct.
And that is one reason why I think that your final paragraph is an incorrect conclusion.
Taken literally, you are saying that any person not a Christian is ipso facto evil. That is just plain wrong. You can not make such a sweeping generalisation.
If you were correct, then over 80% of the world's population would be, in your definition, evil. Try telling that to the ordinary, law abiding, good folks who happen to be Bhuddist, or Hindu, or Moslem, or Jewish, or Taoist, or even atheist like myself.
<< Home
