Many acts of kindness are regarded as basic elements of morality despite being merely supererogatory--that is, they are good, but not obligatory. A person might be benevolent for committing these acts, but he or she can completely avoid doing them without sinning. One controversial ramification of this is that when it comes to interpersonal relationships, people are morally free to arbitrarily treat some people better than others, such as by giving one person a second chance after a wrong but not offering the same to another person guilty of the same wrong. To illustrate the concept, I will use an analogy.
A hypothetical person named Jonathan gives his neighbor Samantha $1,000 because he feels like expressing appreciation for knowing her. Another neighbor, Kyle, thinks it is unfair that Samantha receives money while he does not. However, since Jonathan has no obligation to give his money to anyone in particular, he can give and withhold money from anyone he wants to [1]. His voluntary gift to Samantha is a supererogatory act.
In the exact same way, Jonathan can treat Samantha with other miscellaneous acts of additional kindness that he does not show to other people. As long as these acts are not based on factors like gender or race--preferential treatment on those grounds is morally abominable--Jonathan's special treatment is not sinful. Since there is nothing in the Bible that requires him to give money to her and nothing in the Bible that condemns doing so, he is free to do whatever he wants simply because he wants to do it.
This is what all matters that involve neither sin nor obligation reduce down to. In such scenarios, people are free to act upon their desires, whatever those desires may be (after all, they would not be sinning in acting upon them in these cases). Many acts of kindness fall into this category. There are benevolent actions that are owed to all humans because people deserve them by nature of being humans, and there are benevolent actions that are owed to no one.
The Bible alerts us of which benevolent acts are owed to all people with explicit clarity. For example, all humans have an obligation to fight injustice on behalf of those who cannot, since injustice is sinful (Isaiah 1:17). Contrarily, no one has an obligation to remain in a friendship after the friend engaged in a massive betrayal; though it would certainly be good for the offended party to pursue the preservation of the relationship, there is nothing mandatory about doing so, just as there is no sin in ending the relationship. Identifying the difference between the two categories is vital for a thorough understanding of ethics, and this is not as difficult as some might expect.
[1]. There are philosophical imbeciles who think this is how salvation is parceled out by God. This method does not apply in the case of Christian salvation because of several reasons, the two most significant ones being that the Bible makes it clear that God wants all people to be saved, not just some, and that this would render humans incapable of being treated justly by God, which results in a contradiction--they would only remain in sin because God intentionally keeps them in that state, meaning God is himself sinful because he is responsible for human sin.
One ethics related thing I unfortunately don't hear a lot about as much in the Christian bubble is doing good things to be seen. Jesus harshly criticizes this in Matthew 6. He uses examples of good things like giving to the needy, praying and fasting but condemning making a show to the public of your piety. Basically virtue-signalling.
ReplyDeleteAmusingly, it almost sounds like Jesus is mocking this, saying don't announce what you're doing with trumpets or standing in the streets so people can hear you praying. When I pray even if I'm around people I don't always or even need to cup my hands, hum a mantra, use big impressive words or close my eyes (although sometimes closing my eyes does help me focus). I just do my thing and try not to draw attention to myself. I don't even need to talk out loud, I can just say stuff inwardly.
The bible seems to agree that it's pretty arrogant to do a good thing but spinning it to make it about you.
It's easy to find people who say they care about living rightly, or at least want to, but finding someone who is sincere about it can be quite difficult! Prayer is a great example of this because some traditions involving prayer, like praying aloud for every single meal, are totally gratuitous and emphasize looking righteous over developing inward character. I suspect that many people wouldn't make as much of big deal about such prayers in group settings if it wasn't for the sake of mere appearances. Prayer is about deepening or enjoying one's relationship with God, not showcasing a hollow facade.
DeleteI was talking to someone recently who said that she dresses "modestly" (as if there is such a thing) to communicate that she is not promiscuous to people who don't know her. There is no connection between a person's clothing and sexual purity or between clothing and sexual morality, but even if it WAS morally good to dress in a certain way, the entire point of that motive is to try to try to get recognition from other people instead of doing something because it is good. I was planning on writing about how virtue signaling applies to that particular issue soon.