James 4:17 says that anyone who knows the good they ought to do and does not do it has sinned. Since what is morally required, if such a thing exists, is morally required (this is true by logical necessity because a thing can only be what it is), failing to fulfill a genuine obligation would have to be immoral. This does not and cannot mean that anything at all that is morally good, such as certain miscellaneous acts of kindness, is mandatory so that anyone who does not practice it has erred. There are many examples of the sharp distinction between what is obligatory and supererogatory (good but not obligatory) in Christian ethics, either in the direct wording of the Bible or by logical extension. In their irrationality, though, many modern Christians or pseudo-Christians I have interacted with actually dismiss what the Bible commands as irrelevant or optional and champion what is ultimately morally unnecessary as if it was actually the standard. This is part of what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for (Matthew 15:1-20).
As for examples of what is optional but still good, giving servants/employees more than one regular, full day free of labor each week (Exodus 20:8-11, 23:12, Deuteronomy 5:12-15, and so on) is permitted, since it is not condemned directly or by the logically necessary ramifications of what is prescribed/condemned. Still, only one day of rest is required per week for all people, which would mean that someone forcing or pressuring others to work every day is unjust. Going beyond this is morally good as long as there is not the aim of somehow exploiting workers in doing so--such as by only giving them additional free time with the goal of holding onto more profits by not diverting more money to compensating workers, to the point of keeping them in poverty--but the Bible is explicitly clear about how no person has a human right to more than a single day for every week without any sort of professional labor.
For another example, the Bible does prescribe that husbands and wives not sexually neglect each other. Exodus 21:10-11 addresses how a man who does this to his wife gives her the right to divorce him, and though this is the particular scenario mentioned in the text, Paul, like any rationalistic person would, recognized the logical equivalence of husbands and wives and the ramifications of Biblical tenets like those of Genesis 1:26-27, describing husbands and wives alike as having an obligation to not sexually deprive each other except by mutual consent and temporarily (unless they are both asexual or some other such thing). However, this does not necessitate that spouses have sex or engage in other sexual activities with any specific frequency such as every day or two. These passages only condemn sexual neglect. A married man or woman could fulfill this obligation without having sex each day, which would be supererogatory--good or permissible, but not required.
It would also go above and beyond Biblical obligations for a farmer to leave half of their field, as opposed to the edges, unharvested so that the poor, the foreigner, and the widow can eat from it (Leviticus 19:9-10, 23:22, Deuteronomy 24:19-22). There is nothing immoral about going further than the obligation mandates, for such expressions of generosity are simply an expanded version of the very same things that God demands, but it is nonetheless only the edges of a field that should, that must, be left for others. It is sin, in all cultures and in all eras of history (Deuteronomy 4:5-8, Malachi 3:6, Matthew 5:17-19, and so on), for those with agricultural land who live alongside the societally disadvantaged to not passively or actively share what grows at the edges of their field, at a minimum by not harvesting it for themselves. No one has done anything evil, in contrast, by not reserving half or all but the very center of their land's yield for the poor.
These are not the only examples within Biblical ethics of the exact line between what is obligatory and supererogatory. The book of James does not contradict any of this. If someone does not do what they should do (what they "ought to do"), which is the very way that the wording touches on the issue, they would by logical necessity be in moral error. It is just that they have no obligation to go beyond this: it is untrue that they should strive to surpass this because doing so is by nature unnecessary and because then there would be no line one is morally free to stop at. Anything that is good would be obligatory, which would lead to contradictory (and thus logically impossible) obligations since a person only has finite time and energy and could not do all good things at once, and certainly not without forfeiting their own ability to literally survive in the process, which would ironically stop them from doing good.
No comments:
Post a Comment