Fordthought
  • Blog
  • Word of the Week
  • Dig Deeper

Word of the Week: w/c 17/11/14: Decalogue

16/11/2014

 



aka: The Ten Commandments

From the Greek:  deka = ten, logos = word/sayings

Picture
Are the Ten Commandments the most important set of rules in History? There are of course other serious contenders; the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the five pillars of Islam, the Noble Eight Fold Path of Buddhism or Jesus’ Golden Rule to name but a few. But given the historical and cultural importance of the 10 Commandments it is hard to see a true rival.

So why are they so special? They represent a summary of the Law of God, traditionally believed to have been given to Moses directly on Mt. Sinai. The Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible) of course contains a huge number of Mizvot (laws) for people to obey; 603 commandments. But the Ten are special: They concern matters that are fundamental to theological certainty and an ordered society. They are not a detailed as other rules in the Torah as they do not specify the punishment to given for breaking them and seem to be intended as universally applicable, regardless of time, place or situation; in this way they are absolutist (http://awgford.weebly.com/blog/category/absolutism). Their centrality is affirmed by that fact that in Exodus 31:18 they are said to have been “written with the finger of God” onto stone tablets that Moses then took to the Jewish people.

Picture
PictureSodom and Gomorrah: Evidence of God's Hypocrisy?
There are a number of things we could discuss about the 10 C’s: Their (re)interpretation by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, if they apply to all people or just the Jews who received them first or their historical role in forming the laws that most developed nations follow today. But I just want to say a few words about their absolutist nature and especially of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. I often find that students, especially lower down at school will quote the Ten Commandments at you as an argument against any form of killing, they will also say that God must be a hypocrite for killing all those people in the Flood or in Sodom and Gomorrah and that he is breaking his own commandments.  I would argue this is to misinterpret the imperative of this law.

The commandment is instead an imperative against unlawful killing that would result in bloodguilt – the killing of the innocent and defenceless. In reality there are many cases of justified killing sanctioned in the Torah. 



In the very next chapter of Exodus, straight after the Ten Commandments are given, it states  “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death” (Ex. 21: 12). It is therefore very clear that the commandment cannot be seen as an absolute. There are numerous other justified killing scenarios set out including killing in warfare, in response to crime and when an intruder enters your home. If it is so obvious that the commandment “Thou Shalt not Kill” is not an absolute why do so many people believe that it is?

Perhaps it is easier to explain it in these terms to our children when they are growing up? Perhaps people want the answers to be simple and straight forward and this is why absolutism appeals?


w/c 25.8.14 - Absolutism

25/8/2014

 
Picture


The Ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.


Picture
Absolutists are those people who think that moral laws apply equally to all people at all times, and in all places. The goodness or rightness of an action is not dependent upon the outcome or what was intended to happen; only the act itself.


So an Absolutist would say that stealing is always immoral, regardless or whether you are trying to feed your starving family, killing can never be justified and adultery is always forbidden. Even if goodness does come about from your action it is still not justified.


Picture
This view is accompanied by a belief that there is an absolute standard by which all ethical actions can be judged; these range from God as lawgiver (Natural Law, Divine Command Theory), logical duty (Kant’s Categorical Imperative) or the Form of an ethical principle such as Justice, Truth or Good (Plato).

At first glance this seems pretty straightforward and a great way to do Ethics - we all know where we stand on an issue, we would know how others were going to act and judgements on morality would be totally clear cut. This allows us to write documents such as the declaration on human rights and to judge evil dictators who cause atrocities to their peoples. Simple...


Picture
But of course things are never that easy! All absolutist theories are variously criticised because of where they believe their moral absolutes come from - the existence of God cannot be proved beyond doubt; Kant’s logic is flawed; the Forms are illogical. A more general criticism is that absolutism does not respect diversity of cultures and different traditions. Why is my world-view more likely to be correct that another?

For me the most pertinent problem with Absolutism is that life is not that simple. Kant drew attention to this such problem himself in Critique of pure reason; what if a crazed axe-murderer came to your front door and asked you where your father is? You could lie – many would say you should lie – but imagine if everyone in the entire world lied all the time. If everyone lied, there would be no “telling the truth” and, thus, no real lying. As the law is logically contradictory, you have a perfect duty not to lie. You have to tell the axe-murderer the truth, so he can go and kill your father. How can this be right? It’s in situations like this that strict ethical systems with specific decision procedures tend to fall apart. Morality is simply too complex and too full of exceptions for these theories to ever fully work.


    Archives

    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014

    Categories

    All
    Abortion
    Absolutism
    Agnostic
    Analogy
    Animal
    Apophatic
    A Priori
    Aquinas
    Article
    Assisted Dying
    Banking
    Bertrand Russell
    Book Review
    Buddhism
    Christianity
    Cosmological
    Covenant
    Dawkins
    Debate
    Design
    Diaspora
    Dig Deeper
    Dukkha
    Epiphany
    Equality
    Euthanasia
    Existentialism
    Fallacies
    False Dichotomy
    Family
    Fertility
    Genesis
    Hajj
    Higher Education
    Hindu
    Hinduism
    Holocaust
    Hospice
    Human Rights
    Human-rights
    Hume
    Islam
    ISRSA
    Judaism
    Justice
    JWT
    Lent
    Life After Death
    Love
    Martyr
    Messiah
    MOOC
    Narnia
    NDE
    News
    Nirvana
    Ontological
    Plato
    PPE
    Pro Choice
    Pro-Choice
    Pro Life
    Pro-Life
    Prophet
    Reformation
    Relativism
    Religion
    Rights
    Sabbath
    Science Vs Religion
    Secularisation
    Soul
    Sport
    Stewardship
    Surrogacy
    Teleological
    Temple
    Ten Commandments
    Theology
    Viability
    Via Negativa
    Vision
    Warfare
    Wittgenstein
    Word
    Word Of The Week
    Word-of-the-week

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photos from sneakerdog, Steve Slater (Wildlife Encounters), Art4TheGlryOfGod, johndillon77, dustinj, Charlie Davidson, ineffable_pulchritude, LisaW123, jamee.khairul, Abode of Chaos, Dunleavy Family