A variety of simple, trivial acts of kindness often have their moral value drastically overestimated. As a result of this faulty emphasis, it is easy for a superficially kind person to develop a reputation for being genuinely good even if he or she believes in morally horrific ideas, since all it takes to convince many people is subtly shifting the emphasis to petty but visible acts of kindness. The ease of this deception can obscure the fact that many particular acts of kindness are not objectively important. If the value of kindness is so distorted, what place within a sound ethical framework is there for it? Yes, some Biblical verses (such as 1 Corinthians 13:4 and Ephesians 4:32) classify kindness as morally good, but this does not mean that one has an obligation to be kind to everyone at all times.
Before I proceed, I want to clarify that I am very grateful for opportunities to display kindness towards people whom I respect or love in the sense of appreciating them as individuals, not merely in the impersonal sense God prescribes for each person to show towards all others (the Bible never commands one to have strong personal affection for every living human). However, kindness is not the objective of every interaction I have with another person. Is kindness good? As long as it does not interfere with justice, yes. Nevertheless, it is often not obligatory.
Does someone sin if they do not hold the door open for another person? Do they sin if they do not speak to strangers in a distinctly pleasant tone? What makes one random act of kindness obligatory as opposed to another? Since a person could always be more kind, such as by making an additional kind statement or performing an additional benevolent deed, practically any line drawn is purely arbitrary. It is futile to argue that someone should go beyond what is obligatory, since such an argument entails the idea that someone has an obligation to do that which they have no obligation to carry out.
Kindness is not itself the supreme goal of morality. Instead, it is largely supererogatory in many relationships--a marital relationship or friendship should be marked by mutual kindness to at least some degree, but this does not mean that one is obliged to perform particular acts of unecessary kindness for strangers. To reduce Christianity to a system featuring a God who saves us merely so we can be superficially kind to others is to trivialize genuine Christian morality and Yahweh's nature alike. Kindness is not at the core of Biblical moral obligations. Indeed, even the Christian conception of love can seem deeply unkind to some individuals under the right circumstances. Truth and justice, above all else, are the foundations of Christian morality.
Instead of always wondering about whatever course of action will display the most kindness, the first ethical question a Christian should ask himself or herself pertains to whether or not an action is just according to the Bible. Justice does not necessarily exclude kindness, but it can be hindered by a surplus of the latter. The core of morality is ultimately about treating God, other people, and even animals according to what they deserve, which is about not violating one's obligations towards them; anything else that is good can only be supererogatory. Treating someone in a way that does not violate any obligations towards them is a matter of justice, not one of kindness. Justice, therefore, should be the chief concern of moralists.
Oh ok Cooper so you're saying we should all just be unlikable jerks to everybody??? (haha jk)
ReplyDeleteHow would you respond if somebody would admit that things like being kind to everyone or other nonsinful things like masturbation for example aren't obligatory or are amoral activities, but that if they do nothing to benefit your relationship with God/others or don't glorify Him, we just shouldn't do those actions at all? Like even if they're not sinful, they allegedly don't "add" anything that strengthens your spiritual walk with God and therefore shouldn't be done. (If that makes sense)
I don't necessarily hold this view, I've just heard similar reasoning like this within certain Christian circles and was wondering what the rationalist biblical response is!
There are definitely people who seem to act like I support causal everyday cruelty, but that idea is just a straw man! Haha
DeleteI've never actually heard or seen anyone say that "We should only do things that bring us closer to God" unless they were in some way trying to discourage something like masturbation, video games, or something else they dislike. Besides, since things like sexuality and leisure are in no way separated from spirituality, the idea that only a very rigid set of activities can strengthen one's relationship with God or other people is completely false.
Nonsinful pleasures should be celebrated by Christians, even if not all Christians personally enjoy or participate in them. The entire point of Biblical ethics is simply to fulfill our moral obligations (to God, others, and ourselves), at which point we are free to live as we please, as long as we don't sin in the process--which is closely related to the fact that there is no divine will for everyone's individual lives beyond God's desire for us to fulfill our actual obligations. There's also the fact that embracing these truths is very liberating.
People can feel much more spiritually satisfied than they otherwise would because of the freedom that comes with not avoiding nonsinful things (unless someone has a personal reason for doing so). Because of this, people can feel closer to God when they don't gratuitously deprive themselves of innocent pleasures. Realizing that God is not opposed to pleasure itself is a very freeing thing!
Anyone who sincerely thinks that anything that doesn't inherently strengthen one's relationship with God should be avoided is mistaken. Ultimately, such a person is either trying to make it sound like something supererogatory is still somehow obligatory or trying to argue against nonsinful things themselves. It's asinine either way.
These are good points. Yeah, it does seem to mainly stem from a discomfort of pleasure and like you said trying to make supererogatory things obligatory. These ARE liberating truths, and it's sad a lot are hesitant to see it that way.
DeleteChristians seem to think that pleasure or wanting to experience pleasure is some sort of earthly thing that is a gateway to sinful hedonism. The verses I've usually seen pulled up in support of this are basically any quotes from that have to with the flesh, like in Galatians 5. Of course, anyone can say whatever thing they subjectively find uncomfortable and say that it's following the desires of the flesh and use it to defend a type of asceticism. Even if it's not condemned by God! I could say eating food is "gratifying to the flesh"!
When you put it that way, you would probably have to be foolish to try and challenge that without looking bad! I do wish there was less ascetic ideas in the church especially regarding nonsinful pleasure. A lot of Christians get very tense and antsy when it comes to these subjects. Which is why I really respect Christians like you calling incorrect and damaging ideas out, as we rightly should! I myself am trying to speak up more about this stuff.
Ascetics love to quote vague, random New Testament verses about "the flesh." As you said, they read whatever arbitrary thing they dislike into the condemnations. "Sexual immorality," for example, is understood to be whatever they are uncomfortable with, as opposed to the specific sexual behaviors prohibited in Mosaic Law.
DeleteThe ironic thing is that you don't even need to correct an ascetic's understanding of Christian moral epistemology to refute the idea that God is against bodily pleasures. Genesis 1 makes it explicitly clear that God created the human body, including its capacity for various pleasures, as something good. Enjoying pleasure is far from hedonism!
In fact, Christians should be the first to affirm the potential pleasure of everything from intellectual growth to prayer to something like masturbation. It usually is physical pleasures that many Christians are more overtly opposed to, but which physical pleasures are objected to is usually very selective. You mentioned food, which is a great example of something that is usually not condemned, whereas individual sexual behaviors and nonsinful drug use are often relentlessly attacked by conservative Christians.
Though there are several nonsinful things I don't do (like drink alcohol or view Biblically permissible erotic videos) that involve physical pleasure in some way, I don't abstain because of moral reasons. I only don't engage in those activities because I have no desire to. Shedding legalistic ideas in general, regarding physical or mental pleasures, was one of the most fulfilling things I ever did as a Christian once I became a rationalist!
I wouldn't be surprised if many Christians are simply afraid of confronting the fact that the church is wrong about pleasure, as it is about most issues. Sometimes even fallacies and lies might be perceived by some people as comforting simply because of their familiarity. Even when many Christians condemn asceticism, it's usually only in the context of very shallow or inconsistent theology.
However, those who do embrace the goodness of the human body will often find a great sense of fulfillment at accepting the physicality God intentionally gave them. It is far easier to experience the pleasure of a relationship with God when one accepts that God is not against pleasure itself. My relationship with God certainly deepened when I did so! It always pleases me to see other people like you resisting asceticism too!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of this. However, I want to separate myself from other people of the world as a Christian and be the best influence or "salt" of the earth I can. Do you not believe kindness is one of the strongest ways to do that?
ReplyDeleteKindness certainly can set someone apart from other people. However, there is no obligation to distinguish yourself from other people in ways that are not morally required by God. In some situations, kindness might even be one of the best ways to be a positive influence in someone else's life, but it is not a guaranteed indicator of sound philosophy/theology or moral excellence. Many people are quick to claim that someone who displays kindness is a good person without actually investigating their motives or worldview.
DeleteI agree with that!
DeleteEveryone is free to show kindness to others, but people need to stop treating kindness as if everyone owes it to everyone else. That's the issue. There's nothing bad about simply having a kind disposition towards people in general! People who gravitate towards kindness do need to ensure that they don't allow their natural tendency to impede justice or keep them from standing up to others when it is necessary, though.
DeleteVery true! However, I don't believe in making people feel bad or treating them like they're inferior or worthless, especially as a Christian. Unless they are terribly terribly evil and show no concern for God's laws or treating others well.
DeletePeople who are your moral inferiors can't deserve to be treated as equals, though, because they are genuinely lesser persons. There is a difference between treating someone in a malicious or degrading way, which the Bible prohibits, and treating them harshly. Morally inferior people deserve to be treated as the inferiors they are.
DeleteJust because all people have value by virtue of bearing God's image does not mean that they all have equal value. A person without concern for reason and morality has aligned himself or herself with irrationality and evil, and cannot possess a value equal to that of someone who has aligned himself or herself with the inverse. You may not subjectively like treating certain people like inferiors, but they deserve nothing else.
As long as you don't treat such a person unjustly (slanderously, maliciously, or too harshly), you are free to be as harsh as you wish. Mercy is by nature never obligatory. I am willing to show mercy to friends and allies whom I have personal affection for, but I refuse to show it to anyone else unless I am arbitrarily inclined to do so.