We have determined that science cannot provide us with a moral compass. Humankind is the source of morality. We are free to devise the moral code we live by; the best of these systems builds on cooperation, which is, at least to some degree, innate. Some form of the Golden Rule has been viewed as the best guide we have. However, we are free to disregard it, just as one can override the drive to procreate by a religious meme that requires celibacy under certain conditions. If such a meme is enthusiastically accepted or strictly enjoined, it can be successfully adopted by many, although nature will have her way among those who are conflicted or have less will power.
Who is to judge if one moral system is better than another? We are, and we must. I strongly believe that Leviticus 19:18, which commands that we love our neighbors as ourselves, is the best maxim possible. This commandment is our best guide since, as we shall see, it most readily leads to peace and happiness, not only for the individual, but for one's neighbors as well.
I am, of course, not alone in this assertion; there is a danger, however: the commandment can and often has become a cliché. (A great moral axiom becomes a cliché in the mouth of those who praise it with words while flouting it with deeds.) Written centuries ago, Leviticus 19:18 needs a new interpretation; it is the intent of this series to provide it.
1. A Brief History of Leviticus
Leviticus is the third book of the Old Testament and the third book of the Torah as well. It is concerned more with ritual and morality, rather than with belief; God's authority, however explicitly or implicitly, is present on every page. The book as a whole is not easily dated; the text apparently expanded over time. Some of the oldest sections are thought to have been written in the late seventh century, BCE; it did not reach it's final form until about 300 BCE. Chapter 17 through 27 are the so-called "Holiness Code," sections. God wants his people to be holy and outlines the ways in which this can be accomplished. Chapter 19 contains some wise advice, such as one should not steal or cheat. Chapter 20, which deals with punishment of sins, contains a slew of barbaric injunctions, e.g., homosexuals are to be put to death, he who curses his father is to be put to death, in cases of adultery, both the man and woman involved are to be put to death, a spiritual medium must also die, if a man marries a woman and her mother, all must be burnt to death, etc. These primitive punishments have been used as ammunition by atheists, claiming that the Old Testament is rife with barbarity and therefore should be repudiated in toto. This is an unfair criticism. The texts were written centuries before the scientific method was established; they are a reflection of their times. In addition, Christianity asserts that Christ established a New Covenant that obviated many of the laws and customs of the Old Testament. Rabbinical Judaism, which has a tradition of oral Torah as well as the written one, rejected these harsh laws as well. ("What is the Torah," is a question from the Talmud. The answer: "It is the interpretation of the Torah.") Each generation is enjoined to interpret according to the highest moral principles of the time. (The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who believed that the Constitution, our secular scripture, should be rigidly followed and not interpreted, would have made a lousy Talmudic rabbi.)
How is one to decide whether a given (im)moral stance is to be superseded? By Leviticus 19:18! Whether a view can be burnished and supported by the fire of "Love Thy Neighbor," or whether it goes up in smoke like a paper idol, is the best way we have to judge its validity. As an example, let us consider the injunction against homosexuality. Leviticus 18:19 is merely a tribal prejudice if one doesn't include all human beings as the object of one's love. Yes, love the sinner and hate the sin, but is homosexuality a sin? It is obvious that gay people are capable of love as much as heterosexuals. They are, therefore, morally equivalent; if one doesn't extend Lev. 18:19 to those who are different from us (however "us" is defined) but are as good as us, one is worshiping an idol. No one is justified in judging a group the members of which are equally capable of love. A rabbi once told me that eighty-five percent of his congregation supports gay marriage. Why? Because we are enjoined, he told me, to love one's neighbor as oneself. Lev. 18:19 thus becomes the criterion by which we judge any moral position, whether that particular view has the support of tradition or not.
2. Lev. 18:19 as a Commandment
In a modern translation, the text of Lev. 19:18 is as follows: "You shall neither take revenge nor bear a grudge against members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
It's important to note that commentary needed to improve even this sublime command. Originally, "your neighbor" meant "your fellow Jew." The oral Torah, the Talmud, has long since extended this to mean everyone, including the hapless stranger.
I must make clear my position at this point. I find no evidence for a God that exists beyond human consciousness. For me, God refers to transcendence within. The way I see it, the use of the term is not obligatory; sometimes it's best to remain silent. Supplying a voice to the voiceless is nothing more than ventriloquism. Having written that, I respect those who literally believe that the commandment is of divine origin--What is most important, however, for the secular and the religious alike, is whether one's actions are in accord with the commandment or not.
I also do not believe that Lev. 18:19 works very well as a commandment. An absent father--and God is certainly silent--who swoops down and tells humans to be good and then disappears, isn't a very good parent. A human parent who duns Lev. 19:18 into the heads of his children without setting an example of living in accord with it, might as well tell them to be selfish as he is, because that in most cases will be the inevitable result. As Aristotle has written in his Nicomachean Ethics, if you want to do good, follow the example of one who is both wise and loving. Otherwise, Lev. 19:18 is reduced to a harmful cliché--which, alas! often is the case.
Lev. 19:18 as a commandment can sometimes be quite harmful, It can lead to self-righteousness when one is convinced that one obeys the injunction and that others do not. "Those people disregard the commandment; we obey it. We are therefore good and they are therefore evil." This view has significantly contributed to and is very much still contributing to many of the problems of society. (I will deal with this in my next essay.) The commandment can be just as harmful by inducing guilt in people who feel inferior or who are pathologically self-critical. "I am unable to do what I should; I am therefore no good." I will give an example of this self-destructive tendency with the analysis of a (once?) prominent poet who suffered from this problem which significantly contributed to his death at an early age.
Lev. 19:18, therefore, doesn't work as a commandment for two reasons: 1. Many educated people today, (I am one of them,) are quite convinced that morality can not be derived from science or from commandments from a God beyond consciousness, since there is absolutely no proof that the latter exists. 2: It can sometimes make things worse.
Lev. 19:18 needs a revision that neither depends on God or on science. We will provide a new interpretation in Part lV, the last section of this four-part essay. (The other three, including this one, are already posted.) The final part will consist of two sections, in continuation of the sections of part lll: 3. Lev. 19:18 as a declarative sentence, and 4. Lev. 19:18, The Ultimate Win-Win Equation.
Comments welcome!
Leviticus is the third book of the Old Testament and the third book of the Torah as well. It is concerned more with ritual and morality, rather than with belief; God's authority, however explicitly or implicitly, is present on every page. The book as a whole is not easily dated; the text apparently expanded over time. Some of the oldest sections are thought to have been written in the late seventh century, BCE; it did not reach it's final form until about 300 BCE. Chapter 17 through 27 are the so-called "Holiness Code," sections. God wants his people to be holy and outlines the ways in which this can be accomplished. Chapter 19 contains some wise advice, such as one should not steal or cheat. Chapter 20, which deals with punishment of sins, contains a slew of barbaric injunctions, e.g., homosexuals are to be put to death, he who curses his father is to be put to death, in cases of adultery, both the man and woman involved are to be put to death, a spiritual medium must also die, if a man marries a woman and her mother, all must be burnt to death, etc. These primitive punishments have been used as ammunition by atheists, claiming that the Old Testament is rife with barbarity and therefore should be repudiated in toto. This is an unfair criticism. The texts were written centuries before the scientific method was established; they are a reflection of their times. In addition, Christianity asserts that Christ established a New Covenant that obviated many of the laws and customs of the Old Testament. Rabbinical Judaism, which has a tradition of oral Torah as well as the written one, rejected these harsh laws as well. ("What is the Torah," is a question from the Talmud. The answer: "It is the interpretation of the Torah.") Each generation is enjoined to interpret according to the highest moral principles of the time. (The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who believed that the Constitution, our secular scripture, should be rigidly followed and not interpreted, would have made a lousy Talmudic rabbi.)
How is one to decide whether a given (im)moral stance is to be superseded? By Leviticus 19:18! Whether a view can be burnished and supported by the fire of "Love Thy Neighbor," or whether it goes up in smoke like a paper idol, is the best way we have to judge its validity. As an example, let us consider the injunction against homosexuality. Leviticus 18:19 is merely a tribal prejudice if one doesn't include all human beings as the object of one's love. Yes, love the sinner and hate the sin, but is homosexuality a sin? It is obvious that gay people are capable of love as much as heterosexuals. They are, therefore, morally equivalent; if one doesn't extend Lev. 18:19 to those who are different from us (however "us" is defined) but are as good as us, one is worshiping an idol. No one is justified in judging a group the members of which are equally capable of love. A rabbi once told me that eighty-five percent of his congregation supports gay marriage. Why? Because we are enjoined, he told me, to love one's neighbor as oneself. Lev. 18:19 thus becomes the criterion by which we judge any moral position, whether that particular view has the support of tradition or not.
2. Lev. 18:19 as a Commandment
In a modern translation, the text of Lev. 19:18 is as follows: "You shall neither take revenge nor bear a grudge against members of your people; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord."
It's important to note that commentary needed to improve even this sublime command. Originally, "your neighbor" meant "your fellow Jew." The oral Torah, the Talmud, has long since extended this to mean everyone, including the hapless stranger.
I must make clear my position at this point. I find no evidence for a God that exists beyond human consciousness. For me, God refers to transcendence within. The way I see it, the use of the term is not obligatory; sometimes it's best to remain silent. Supplying a voice to the voiceless is nothing more than ventriloquism. Having written that, I respect those who literally believe that the commandment is of divine origin--What is most important, however, for the secular and the religious alike, is whether one's actions are in accord with the commandment or not.
I also do not believe that Lev. 18:19 works very well as a commandment. An absent father--and God is certainly silent--who swoops down and tells humans to be good and then disappears, isn't a very good parent. A human parent who duns Lev. 19:18 into the heads of his children without setting an example of living in accord with it, might as well tell them to be selfish as he is, because that in most cases will be the inevitable result. As Aristotle has written in his Nicomachean Ethics, if you want to do good, follow the example of one who is both wise and loving. Otherwise, Lev. 19:18 is reduced to a harmful cliché--which, alas! often is the case.
Lev. 19:18 as a commandment can sometimes be quite harmful, It can lead to self-righteousness when one is convinced that one obeys the injunction and that others do not. "Those people disregard the commandment; we obey it. We are therefore good and they are therefore evil." This view has significantly contributed to and is very much still contributing to many of the problems of society. (I will deal with this in my next essay.) The commandment can be just as harmful by inducing guilt in people who feel inferior or who are pathologically self-critical. "I am unable to do what I should; I am therefore no good." I will give an example of this self-destructive tendency with the analysis of a (once?) prominent poet who suffered from this problem which significantly contributed to his death at an early age.
Lev. 19:18, therefore, doesn't work as a commandment for two reasons: 1. Many educated people today, (I am one of them,) are quite convinced that morality can not be derived from science or from commandments from a God beyond consciousness, since there is absolutely no proof that the latter exists. 2: It can sometimes make things worse.
Lev. 19:18 needs a revision that neither depends on God or on science. We will provide a new interpretation in Part lV, the last section of this four-part essay. (The other three, including this one, are already posted.) The final part will consist of two sections, in continuation of the sections of part lll: 3. Lev. 19:18 as a declarative sentence, and 4. Lev. 19:18, The Ultimate Win-Win Equation.
Comments welcome!
No comments:
Post a Comment