Biblical Ethics
Mar 8, 2019 22:34:12 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Mar 8, 2019 22:34:12 GMT -6
The Silver Rule, “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you,” is a negative generalization of Lex Talionis (“an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”). That is, it restates the notion negatively and generalizes to a higher level of abstraction. The Golden Rule is a positive restatement of this generalization. Whereas the Silver Rule speaks of what to avoid, The Golden Rule, typically of the ethics of Jesus, offers positive admonition.
So The Golden Rule is a purely prescriptive ethical imperative, whereas Lex Talionis is more nearly normative and descriptive, though it may originally have been viewed as a prescriptive statement keeping vengeance to a level of parity. The Golden Rule has its starting point within individual men in their desire for what they consider to be fair treatment. This is a subjective beginning at best, and may greatly vary psychologically from person to person. Lex Talionis, on the other hand, is based on the objective evidence of what has actually occurred, and on this basis prescribes retribution both in kind and in degree.
Lex Talionis prescribes punishment, retribution, or the “just deserts” for an action, whereas the Golden Rule prescribes the basic mindset for the ethical avoidance of the need for retribution. Lex Talionis is “concrete,” dealing with specific behavior patterns which are deemed socially unacceptable, while the Golden Rule deals in the abstract with all inter-personal behavior on the basis of individual desires.
For the sake of analysis, let us arrange these ethical admonitions in tabular form, and separate their clauses as follows.
Lex Talionis: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
As you do unto others they will do unto you. (paraphrase)
Golden Rule: (You) do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The Love Command: (You) love your neighbor as (you love) yourself.
Whereas the Golden Rule has its well known stated form, Lex Talionis can be paraphrased in a form similar to that of the Golden Rule. “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you or more precisely, “as you do unto others, so shall they do unto you.” Notice that the main features are first, the degree of abstraction given in the restatement of the Lex Talionis, which puts it on an equal footing with the abstraction of the Golden Rule, and second, the placement of the prescriptive consequent. In the Lex Talionis, the behavior of the third person was prescribed and limited on the basis of the prior actions of the second person, “if you take an eye, he will take an eye. In the Golden Rule the logical next step is to work backward in the Lex Talionis statement, and make the legal reactions of the third person prescriptive of the behavior of the second person, i.e., “if you don’t want this to be done to you, don’t you do it to him.”
Thus, the Lex Talionis has been raised to a higher level of abstraction, and its ethical equation has been used by working backward, to prescribe not a penalty for evil, but avoidance by just behavior. But the Golden Rule, while ethically “golden” perhaps, is not yet abstract enough to govern the whole gamut of man’s ethical need. It still deals primarily with overt actions, deeds, or behavior, leaving such things as attitudes and dispositions, and ethical initiative entirely out of the equation.
But at this point, it is easy to see that the Love Command (“love your neighbor as yourself”) is precisely the abstract restatement required. It is synonymous in content with the Golden Rule but abstract enough to get beyond mere actions and results to challenge the essence of man’s very nature in all its aspects.
Analysis of The Love Command in this light is quite instructive. The “Neighbor” of The Love Command is defined in reference to the Golden Rule as “Others,” the third person in the ethical equation, thus divesting it of any nationalistic, or other arbitrarily imposed limitation. Had the Lawyer realized this, he might not have asked Jesus “who is my neighbor.”
This is a good point to remember what Jesus had to say about loving those who love you: do not even thieves do the same? what more do you do than the Gentiles? Additionally, this comparison also defines the nebulous term “love” as inclusive of attitude and disposition and not merely as actions and deeds. Thus, “do unto others” and “love your neighbor” are mutually definitive, both in regard to disposition and to identifying the third person in the equation.
One other item must be examined, and that is the notion of “just deserts” so clearly present in Lex Talionis, and which seems to disappear in The Love Command. First let it be seen that the seeming disappearance of the punitive aspect of Lex Talionis is a purely mechanical function implicit in the process of working backward in order to prescribe ethical behavior, rather than to regulate recompense. The idea, or the possibility of punishment, or “just deserts,” never exactly disappeared, but was simply de-emphasized in order for the admonition to become prescriptive for the second person rather than descriptive of the behavior of the third person. The message is on the order of “don’t’ worry about equal retribution, live in such a way as to make it unneeded.”
The Love Command’s strength, as well as its weakness, lies in the fact that it is not a statement of reciprocity, but a statement prescriptive of one person's behavior based upon his own needs. In a sense, the Golden Rule shares the same basic weakness, but to a lesser degree. This is evident when it is asked how one might expect a homosexual, or sadist to model his behavior upon such admonitions.
On the other hand, The Love Command dictates loving attitudes and behavior without conscious thought of reward or return (reciprocity), thus making it safe from vengeful attitudes which may take root in an appeal to the Lex Talionis, or to a lesser degree in the Golden Rule.
The Lex Talionis provides very well defined, specific, concrete, particulars in the area of behavior by which to better understand the abstract term such as “love” in The Love Command, and the less abstract “do unto” of the Golden Rule. It also explicitly states the principle of reciprocity or just deserts which is only implied in the more abstract formulation of the Golden Rule. But let it not be forgotten that these formulations themselves could come about only as a result of starting with the principle of reciprocity, and working backward from the third person to the second. Thus, “Love your neighbor as yourself” does not deny that there are, or ought to be, penalties for improper behavior toward one’s neighbor, but rather emphasizes the fact that in order to avoid such penalties, one has but to show others the same love he expects to be shown, indeed the same love he has for his own person.
Taken together, Lex Talionis provides a well defined, measured, realistic justice, particularly for deliberate transgressions against one’s fellow man, while the Golden Rule provides a prescriptive admonition which, if followed, makes it unnecessary to invoke Lex Talionis. And The Love Commend divests good behavior of the improper motivation of self-interest and fear.
Any discussion of ethical issues such as abortion or the death penalty must begin from such basic ethical tenets as these.
- Todd
So The Golden Rule is a purely prescriptive ethical imperative, whereas Lex Talionis is more nearly normative and descriptive, though it may originally have been viewed as a prescriptive statement keeping vengeance to a level of parity. The Golden Rule has its starting point within individual men in their desire for what they consider to be fair treatment. This is a subjective beginning at best, and may greatly vary psychologically from person to person. Lex Talionis, on the other hand, is based on the objective evidence of what has actually occurred, and on this basis prescribes retribution both in kind and in degree.
Lex Talionis prescribes punishment, retribution, or the “just deserts” for an action, whereas the Golden Rule prescribes the basic mindset for the ethical avoidance of the need for retribution. Lex Talionis is “concrete,” dealing with specific behavior patterns which are deemed socially unacceptable, while the Golden Rule deals in the abstract with all inter-personal behavior on the basis of individual desires.
For the sake of analysis, let us arrange these ethical admonitions in tabular form, and separate their clauses as follows.
Lex Talionis: An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
As you do unto others they will do unto you. (paraphrase)
Golden Rule: (You) do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The Love Command: (You) love your neighbor as (you love) yourself.
Whereas the Golden Rule has its well known stated form, Lex Talionis can be paraphrased in a form similar to that of the Golden Rule. “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you or more precisely, “as you do unto others, so shall they do unto you.” Notice that the main features are first, the degree of abstraction given in the restatement of the Lex Talionis, which puts it on an equal footing with the abstraction of the Golden Rule, and second, the placement of the prescriptive consequent. In the Lex Talionis, the behavior of the third person was prescribed and limited on the basis of the prior actions of the second person, “if you take an eye, he will take an eye. In the Golden Rule the logical next step is to work backward in the Lex Talionis statement, and make the legal reactions of the third person prescriptive of the behavior of the second person, i.e., “if you don’t want this to be done to you, don’t you do it to him.”
Thus, the Lex Talionis has been raised to a higher level of abstraction, and its ethical equation has been used by working backward, to prescribe not a penalty for evil, but avoidance by just behavior. But the Golden Rule, while ethically “golden” perhaps, is not yet abstract enough to govern the whole gamut of man’s ethical need. It still deals primarily with overt actions, deeds, or behavior, leaving such things as attitudes and dispositions, and ethical initiative entirely out of the equation.
But at this point, it is easy to see that the Love Command (“love your neighbor as yourself”) is precisely the abstract restatement required. It is synonymous in content with the Golden Rule but abstract enough to get beyond mere actions and results to challenge the essence of man’s very nature in all its aspects.
Analysis of The Love Command in this light is quite instructive. The “Neighbor” of The Love Command is defined in reference to the Golden Rule as “Others,” the third person in the ethical equation, thus divesting it of any nationalistic, or other arbitrarily imposed limitation. Had the Lawyer realized this, he might not have asked Jesus “who is my neighbor.”
This is a good point to remember what Jesus had to say about loving those who love you: do not even thieves do the same? what more do you do than the Gentiles? Additionally, this comparison also defines the nebulous term “love” as inclusive of attitude and disposition and not merely as actions and deeds. Thus, “do unto others” and “love your neighbor” are mutually definitive, both in regard to disposition and to identifying the third person in the equation.
One other item must be examined, and that is the notion of “just deserts” so clearly present in Lex Talionis, and which seems to disappear in The Love Command. First let it be seen that the seeming disappearance of the punitive aspect of Lex Talionis is a purely mechanical function implicit in the process of working backward in order to prescribe ethical behavior, rather than to regulate recompense. The idea, or the possibility of punishment, or “just deserts,” never exactly disappeared, but was simply de-emphasized in order for the admonition to become prescriptive for the second person rather than descriptive of the behavior of the third person. The message is on the order of “don’t’ worry about equal retribution, live in such a way as to make it unneeded.”
The Love Command’s strength, as well as its weakness, lies in the fact that it is not a statement of reciprocity, but a statement prescriptive of one person's behavior based upon his own needs. In a sense, the Golden Rule shares the same basic weakness, but to a lesser degree. This is evident when it is asked how one might expect a homosexual, or sadist to model his behavior upon such admonitions.
On the other hand, The Love Command dictates loving attitudes and behavior without conscious thought of reward or return (reciprocity), thus making it safe from vengeful attitudes which may take root in an appeal to the Lex Talionis, or to a lesser degree in the Golden Rule.
The Lex Talionis provides very well defined, specific, concrete, particulars in the area of behavior by which to better understand the abstract term such as “love” in The Love Command, and the less abstract “do unto” of the Golden Rule. It also explicitly states the principle of reciprocity or just deserts which is only implied in the more abstract formulation of the Golden Rule. But let it not be forgotten that these formulations themselves could come about only as a result of starting with the principle of reciprocity, and working backward from the third person to the second. Thus, “Love your neighbor as yourself” does not deny that there are, or ought to be, penalties for improper behavior toward one’s neighbor, but rather emphasizes the fact that in order to avoid such penalties, one has but to show others the same love he expects to be shown, indeed the same love he has for his own person.
Taken together, Lex Talionis provides a well defined, measured, realistic justice, particularly for deliberate transgressions against one’s fellow man, while the Golden Rule provides a prescriptive admonition which, if followed, makes it unnecessary to invoke Lex Talionis. And The Love Commend divests good behavior of the improper motivation of self-interest and fear.
Any discussion of ethical issues such as abortion or the death penalty must begin from such basic ethical tenets as these.
- Todd