January 19, 2005
-
Love Your Neighbor
Earlier this week Randy asked, "are you really comparing missing lunch with a friend to cheating on your spouse?" And the short answer to that question is "yes". Of course, I'm not big on short answers, so I want to take a closer look. My gut reaction is to say, I'm not EQUATING missing lunch to cheating on the spouse. I want to make up a hierarchy of relationships and say, this one is the most important and that one is less so. But there is a sense in which that need to rank is a slippery slope that leads to all kinds of ethical gerrymandering.
It's a truism that there is one bedrock ethical principle repeated across multiple religious and cultural standards, The Golden Rule. It's found in the Christian New Testament in Matthew 7:12 "Do to men what you wish men to do to you." According to the Biblical standard, the lowest rank anyone gets is "neighbor" and we are commanded to "Love your neighbor as yourself." By this standard there isn't a scale by which we can say this transgression is a small one it doesn't really count heavy against me but that one would be a big one, better avoid it.
And because many of us aren't Christian and don't subscribe to the Bible as an authority, I wanted to point out that the Golden Rule isn't merely a Christian thing but rather appears across cultures, religions, and times.
It's in Ancient Jewish scriptures, "Love the stranger as thyself." Leviticus 19:18,33,34. It's found in the writings of ancient Rome, "I am a man, nothing human is alien to me." (Terence, Heaut Tim) "What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his? (Juvenal 15. 140) "Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good." (Cicero, De Off I. vii)
It's found in the Ancient Chinese, Analects of Confucious, 13:9 "When people have multiplied, what next should be done for them? The Master said, 'Enrich them.' Jan Ch'iu said, When one has enriched them, what next should be done for them? The Master said, 'Instruct them.'
It's in the Babylonian Hymn to Samas, "Speak kindness ... show good will." And it's in the Old Norse, Havamal, "Man is man's delight."
It's worded in the negative in the Ancient Egyptian (from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics) "I have not caused hunger, I have not caused weeping." And in Hindu Laws of Manu it is "Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded."
No, I personally don't see disappointing a friend and disappointing a spouse as equal transgressions. But I have a sneaking suspicion that this isn't because I'm right to assign them different weights, I have the suspicion that it's my desire to look good in my own eyes that makes me want to say that if I fail to keep my word to someone, if I neglect a friend, or if I speak unkindly to my child who's on my last nerve because I've had a long day and he will NOT stop making that incessant noise ... um, where was I? Oh, yeah, I want to say that these failures don't count as much as if I murder someone. See I haven't ever murdered anyone so I can feel pretty good by this means of reckoning. Similarly I can avoid adultery, rape, theft, etc and think I'm in good shape because hey - I'm not doing any of the really BAD stuff.
But in the end, I don't really convince myself that ethics work this way. See I think that when Jesus said, "If you look on a woman with lust, you have already commited adultery, if you harbor hate, you have already commited murder." He was making the point that it's not in the big obvious sins that the battle is won or lost. It's in the things that we consider to be the little things.
And yeah, by that standard, how faithful am I in the little things? I have to answer - not very. I'm not a good Christian, or a good person if I want to get all picky about it. BUT - not only do I not want to get all picky about it, the good news is that I don't have to. The point is not whether I'm able to walk perfectly through every day, it's that I have a standard that I aspire to and I'm constantly making progress toward that goal. At my present rate, I expect that I WILL reach perfection, in March of the year 2356.
Comments (5)
You know what Terri? I do see them as the same thing...really...for if you should quote scriptural basis, all sins are the same...there's not greater or lesser sin, there is just sin. I've disappointed people, and I've BEEN disappointed...and disappointed both by a spouse and by a friend who I cared about and trusted and believed...and the hurt was very much the same hurt. Hurt and disappointment can be different, and one can be much less than the other, or they can both be very devastating...depending on the circumstances. The problem is...how do you know if by disappointing someone, you've not created a hurt that is equal to the hurt they'd feel over something more important. Just because it's not important to me or you, doesn't mean it's not vital to another person...or that it might not cause irrepararable hurts. That to me is why all sins are seen as equal...because you don't ever know the other person...or what you may have done that creates the hurt that is the final straw.
As always, I'm awed by your underlying research as well as your basic point, and I think moniet makes an important contribution. Not only is it dangerous to rank 'sin,' for fear of thereby excusing oneself from 'lesser' transgression -- it's equally important to realize that one's own ranking is only part of the equation, in a complex world of multivariate equations.
I have always claimed to live by the golden rule, but of course I've failed as abysmally as the next (wo)man in actually doing so. And part of the reason (although one definitely can't blame it entirely on this) is that quite possibly the 'other' doesn't want to have done unto him what I would do unto myself. What we'd want to have done unto ourselves is the only measure we can go by, really -- but on the other hand there's always the "walk a mile in the other's shoes" maxim to take into account.
I guess where I come down, in this mini-moment of thoughtfulness, is to agree that ranking our sinfulness is not a particularly useful endeavor, either for ourselves or for those against whom we may have sinned. Rather, we need to try to fit ourselves into the global equation in a constructive fashion. Sometimes that may mean appropriate indulgence of 'sin,' but sometimes it might mean refraining from even those least sinful of pleasures, in deference to others' wishes that differ from our own.
I'm a fellow traveler along this path.
To aspire to perfect, is to aspire to be a god, thus, unattainable if you are of the Christian faith because “their can be only ONE’ (Unless you get caught up in that holy trinity thing…). It is also considered blasphemy in many religious.
But if you are a Christian, your viewpoint is a moot point because, Christ died for the sins of ALL mankind. Thus, sin is no longer an issue, the gates of heaven are open to all men (yes, women too!)
You pen, in part, “…the point that it's not in the big obvious actions in which the battle is won or lost. It's in the things that we consider to be the little things.” It is through the simple that we understand the complex and via the darkness that we find the light. Enlightenment is attained only after a long journey…
Sail on… sail on!!!
"I wanted to point out that the Golden Rule isn't merely a Christian thing but rather appears across cultures, religions, and times"
well done
Comments are closed.