In the previous two posts we looked at some problems with any ethics based on a naturalistic worldview and the advantages and disadvantages of an ethics based on a theistic worldview, particularly what might be called the Judeo-Christian view.
But what specifically does the Judeo-Christian tradition have to say about ethics? How does someone who adheres to this tradition decide what is right and what is wrong? The very basic primer that follows represents my own opinion on this matter, and though I might be incorrect in this or that detail I think the general picture is accurate enough.
Simply put Jews and Christians both believe that there are two overriding commandments given us by God. The first bears upon our relationship to God and the second bears upon our relationship to others. The two are in some ways interdependent, but for simplicity's sake we'll focus on the commandment that bears upon our relationship to others since that puts us in the realm of ethics.
That command is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. Love, of course, expresses itself in a number of different ways, two of which are that we act justly toward others and that we demonstrate compassion to them. This, I would argue, sums up the entire ethical teaching of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Indeed, Jesus himself states that the whole of the Hebrew scriptures' ethical teaching is summed up in the command to love one another (Matt. 22:36-40)
Everything else that is ethically proscribed, at least in the Christian scriptures, is forbidden because it is either unjust or uncompassionate. That is to say, people are harmed by it.
In fact, the word sin can be defined as that which harms, would harm or could harm oneself or another. It is a sin, for example, to irresponsibly place another person's life in jeopardy even if no harm actually comes to that person. A man who drives while intoxicated is irresponsibly placing others at risk and is therefore guilty of a sin. He's acting both unjustly and uncompassionately.
Something that would always be unjust or uncompassionate in any realistic circumstances is absolutely wrong, that is it's wrong always. For instance, it's always wrong to beat an infant with one's fists. Such an atrocity is, in any realistic circumstance, never just nor compassionate.
On the other hand, although lying is almost always unjust, the F.B.I. agent who must lie to infiltrate a terrorist cell to prevent a mass murder is acting both justly and compassionately. His deception is not wrong.
It is love - justice and compassion - which is the absolute imperative which governs our behavior in Judeo-Christian ethics, and all other moral rules, such as the last six of the Ten Commandments, are lampposts which illumine how a just and compassionate people live.
As a general rule we can tell whether we're acting in love by applying the Golden Rule to our action. If we would be willing to have it done to us, whatever it is, then it's probably just or compassionate, or both. The Golden Rule is not an absolute, but it is a handy litmus test of whether our behavior is loving.
Generally speaking, it's wrong to do anything to anyone else that we wouldn't want done to us. It's wrong to use another person as a means to our pleasure or our social advancement, or put another way, it's wrong to take advantage of others. We wouldn't want to be taken advantage of and doing so to others is neither just nor compassionate.
Moreover, our motives for our actions play a major role in determining the moral quality of the act. Two people may both perform some act of kindness, but the one who does the act in hopes that he'll derive some material benefit from it cannot claim to be doing a morally good act. It's not a wrong act, certainly; we can be glad he did it, but there's no moral goodness or credit in it.
Contrarily, the man who does the act simply out of a desire to help another person even if he gets no more benefit from it than the warm feeling of having done the right thing has done a morally good act.
The above is just a very brief overview of Judeo-Christian ethics, or at least my reading of it. There's much more that could be said, but two more points may suffice.
First, of all the ethical systems and views that philosophers have concocted over the last two thousand or so years, this is the only one that's directly based on actually loving other people.
Second, all the values that we cherish in the modern world - gender and racial equality, individual freedom, human rights, compassion for the poor and many others are all derived from the tradition we've just outlined.
Naturalism offers no basis for any of them. Rather than reexamine and question her naturalism, though, the naturalist simply poaches the values she likes from the Judeo-Christian tradition while simultaneously rejecting the legitimacy of that tradition. It's peculiar behavior, to say the least.
