In Country of My Skull, Antjie Krog, writing about the South African Truth Commission, documents the horrors that were perpetrated by the apartheid regime before democratic elections in 1994. One interesting aspect of the book was Krog’s distinction between two opposing types of morality in society: universal morality vs. morality based on honour. Universal morality is based on individual responsibility, discussion, consultation, and human rights. However, morality based on honour has its foundation in the veneration of a specific leader or ideology. Those subscribing to a morality of honour will be more likely to do horrendous things to other people in order to protect their leader, ideology or culture. They are also less likely to stand up to their leader or comrade when she/he does something wrong. Krog argues that apartheid was sustained by a morality of honour. On page 262:
The ethos of honour is opposed to a morality which affirms the equality in dignity of all people and consequently the equality of their rights and duties. . . Honour became Verwoerd’s driving force. To protect the honour of the Afrikaner, anything was permissible – even the most dishonourable policy.
In other words, to protect the honour of the Afrikaner, the apartheid regime resorted to stripping people of their rights and dignity. One only has to think about Nazi Germany’s veneration of Hitler, or the South African government’s reluctance to criticise Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe, to realise how dangerous an honour based moral code can be.
But what about conservative Christianity? Which moral code does it advocate? This is something that I’ve recently thought about, and I’ve only begun to clarify my own thoughts. So please let me know if my thinking is in error.
I would argue that all indications seem to point to a morality based on honour. After all, the divine theory of morality states that all moral law comes from God, so whatever he commands must be right. But what if God told you do something you felt was wrong? Think of the story of Abraham sacrificing his son according to God’s command. Abraham was fully prepared to sacrifice Isaac, not because he felt it was right, but because he didn’t want to disobey God. Is this not an indication of a morality based on honour: the belief that it is more important to obey than to do what is right? I wonder how Abraham would have reacted if his moral code was based on human dignity and individual responsibility. Maybe he would have told God to get lost.
One also only has to think about God’s horrendous actions in the Old Testament (which I’ve mentioned here), and how modern day apologists bend over backwards to defend him. Lee Strobel, for example, devotes an entire chapter in The Case for Faith defending God’s atrocities against innocent children. Is this also not an indication of a morality based on honour: instead of standing up against God for doing something wrong, his followers go all out to defend him?
Just some food for thought . . .
8 comments:
It's so interesting that you work from the assumption that a morality based on honour is wrong and that universal morality (based on individual responsibility, discussion, consultation, and human rights) is right. Of course, the examples you use make the one look bad and the other look good (and I assume Krog also used them in this binary way). In 'Rights and the Politics of Recognition in Africa', Harri Englund describes a similar distinction between a system of rights based on either dignity (every individual is equal) or honour(some are more equal than others). He argues that in the west we tend to favour one and in Africa the other, and that we try to force western dignity-values on an African honour-values system. He argues that we cannot speak of one being wrong and the other being right, as each has its own rights and wrongs, pros and cons, and each are rooted in their own historical and cultural heritage (for example, one more in individualism and one more in community and hierarchy).
You've highlighted the dangers of honour morality ... Perhaps some of the dangers of 'universal morality' can be seen in the systemic and institional violence that is subtely at work in every part of western society and to which every one of us contributes every day.
I realise that you're wanting to point here to the dangers of blind obedience, but perhaps the reality of the universal-honour morality dynamic is somewhat more complex, and this would at the very least problematise some of the conclusions you draw regarding God and some of his followers.
Cori said: Perhaps some of the dangers of 'universal morality' can be seen in the systemic and institional violence that is subtely at work in every part of western society and to which every one of us contributes every day.
I'd be interested if you could expand on that. What do you mean?
I think 'honor morality' is more in keeping with Islam than Christianity. Just ask Salman Rushdie, Pope Benedict, or the folks at Jyllands-Posten. There are lots of others you could ask if their heads were still attached.
***
The following remarks take into account the older post you referred to.
God is not our role model. Where did you get this idea?
Jesus is our role model. When did Jesus kill anyone? When did Jesus advocate violence of any kind?
Did you see the following verse while 'searching' the scriptures?
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited. Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. Romans 12:14-21
This is how Christians are supposed to live. This is the command to which we must give blind obedience. Do you know of even one verse in the New Testament that contradicts this?
The actions of God are another matter entirely and I may take that up later, including Abraham and the Acts incident, if none of the other Christians chime in first.
Nudging the conversation...
Is it immoral for you to destroy something of mine without my permission? Yes. Is it immoral for me to destroy it? No. Is there a double-standard here? No.
laughing boy - does it depend on what that thing is you have destroyed? Even if you own it?
Can you destroy *anything* you own without it being immoral? Does the mere fact of ownership give the the moral right to destroy a thing?
I originally wrote "something I made" instead of "something I own." Then, of course, something I made could be owned by somebody else at the time. Rather than try to make it airtight I thought I'd leave the opening and see if anybody walked through it.
Welcome.
For example if I owned a great work of art by Rembrandt it could be regarded as immoral to destroy it, because I did not create it. Rembrandt himself would be under no such obligation if the work was not sold or gifted.
Say I own an apartment building and I destroy it without notice (which is not really possible, but for argument's sake), putting people out on the street. Tearing down the building would not be immoral, displacing people who were trusting me for shelter (they have leases, right?) would be the immoral part.
The analogy is not perfect. Give me an example of a thing I might own that would be immoral for me to destroy? Would that example still be valid if I created the thing as well.
Even if you find a fault in my analogy—which is not unthinkable, I'm not that smart—it wouldn't affect the implied point: God created all things, including life itself, and He has not relinquished His claim to any of them. I look forward to hearing what you have to say, I'm sure it will be interesting.
---
I'll be going away for a few days so I'll throw another log on the fire.
The question is not why God killed Uzziah, or Ananias and Sapphira, etc. The question is why doesn't He kill us all?
Give me an example of a thing I might own that would be immoral for me to destroy?
A healthy pet, perhaps? And no, it's not really possible for you to have created that, but if by some bizarre scientific advance it were, would that make it okay? I think not.
What about a baby? Human beings are not generally thought of as things to be owned (thank goodness), but babies belong to the people responsible for them, thereby implying ownership in all but name. If it was your biological baby, you created it. Would that make destroying it okay, regardless of who the 'creator' was? I don't think you'll find a sane person who would advocate such a thing acceptable.
So should we consider it acceptable for God to strike down and destroy a healthy baby just because he can? Just because it's his baby (assuming you believe him creator of the universe etc.)? I would personally have no time whatsoever for a god that could do such a thing. If he could, that would also strongly indicate that my moral code is very different from his, demonstrating that my personal morals clearly have no direct relationship with the existence of such a god. And if there were groups of people who followed the moral code of this god, and who therefore justified the killing of babies through it, where would their personal morals lie? Not on human dignity, that's for certain. In nothing more than the moral honour of following a supreme being who perhaps has no great morals of his own after all.
There are examples throughout history of why it is not more important to obey than to do what is right. I see no reason whatsoever why any god should be exempt from this. And if the Christian God is truly a vessel for nothing but good, than how can any atrocities carried out in his name ever be justified?
laughing boy said: For example if I owned a great work of art by Rembrandt it could be regarded as immoral to destroy it, because I did not create it.
I think that the immorality of its destruction would be because of its status as a work of art rather than the fact that you didn't create it. Arguably great art is the 'property' of all humanity so its destruction could be argued to be immoral because it deprives us *all* of its presence.
laughing boy said: Rembrandt himself would be under no such obligation if the work was not sold or gifted.
Again it *could* be argued that once the artwork had been produced it is the property of humanity rather than of any individual - including the person who created it. Of course in the real world artists destroy their own work on a regular basis.
laughing boy said: Tearing down the building would not be immoral, displacing people who were trusting me for shelter (they have leases, right?) would be the immoral part.
That would depend on the building. If it were a national landmark or of important historical or cultural significance it (again) could be considered immoral to destroy it just because you owned it. You might be morally bound to give it away to a charity or to the State rather than simply demolish it.
laughing boy said: The question is not why God killed Uzziah, or Ananias and Sapphira, etc. The question is why doesn't He kill us all?
Well... my first answer is the obvious one - He doesn't kill us all because He doesn't exist.
A more cynical response would be that He doesn't need to. We appear to be perfectly adequate to do the job ourselves without any divine intervention.
From an ethical standpoint (as skywolf pointed out) it would probably strike most people as immoral that a person could kill his pets because he no longer wanted them. Although that person has not created these animals he might very well have nurtured them from birth and, in effect, own them. Likewise we are fully responsible for our children (until they reach their majority) and in a very real sense 'created' them. It would be highly immoral - to say nothing of illegal - to kill them because they no longer pleased their parents.
Of course the question remains: Can God commit an immoral act? Is everything God does moral because He is God or does God act in a moral fashion because he recognises what is Good and acts accordingly? If everything God does is good (because He is God)then He could easily destroy mankind without any tinge of immorality. If however God acts in a moral fashion because he sees that as independently good then He would refrain from destroying mankind because it is wrong to do so.
Post a Comment