1) What are the differences between divine command and natural law theories? How do these two theories offer different interpretations of the Abraham story?
Which of these two interpretations seems most plausible to you?
2) Which case in Boss's list seems most justified as a case of civil disobedience?
3) What additional questions, issues do we need to discuss?
[In-class presentation, discussion of the role of interpretation in attempting to take a Scripture as "authoritative" - including the role of differing faith communities
e.g., Jewish tradition, "Israel" - "he who wrestles with God" - as a tradition encouraging questioning, "wrestling" --> natural law tradition
vs. (some) Christian traditions (Constantine/Augustine) which emphasize obedience as the highest virture --> divine command theory
Discussion of conception of human nature -
+ / rational/altruistic --> capable of self-rule || "countercultural" community of Early Christians (rejecting traditional hierarchies, replacing them with radical equality between rich/poor, male/female, free/slave, friend/enemy) --> disobedience / self-rule as primary virtue
--> democratic community (Locke, Jefferson, King)
- /desire-driven/self-centered --> requires rule by others || "cultural" hierarchies --> obedience as primary virtue
--> authoritarian regimes
Def. of religion: an institutionalized system of beliefs and values shared by a group and grounded in faith and the worship of a supreme transcendent Being(s) During worship, people praise that which has the highest worth or value.
Caveat: this does not apply to several forms of Buddhism, as Boss notes
--> Problem: if morality is dependent on "religion" - which religion?
--> a first take: perhaps all/most religions share common elements?
no - Huston Smith, Vivekananda
Optional reading: "Religious Pluralism"
Writing: 149, #' 1, 4
Divine Command Theory
Do the gods love holiness because it is holy, or is it holy because the gods love it? (Socrates, Euthyphro)
Divine command: Something is holy or moral because God loves it. (149)
Difficulties with the theory:
anyone can claim "God told me to do it" - thus, the theory
...leaves us without any criteriafor judging whether the actions of Abraham, or of Yigal Amir [Yitzhak Rabin's assassin] were morally justified or an expression of God's will. Of course, this by itself does not disprove the divine command theory; a believer in the theory can reply that no proof is needed - that it's a matter of personal faith, not reason. For us to respond in turn that, without proof, the theory is false would be to fall prey to the fallacy of ignorance. (152)
Writing: 153, # 1
Natural Law Theory
leads to alternative understanding of the story of Abraham: God was not expecting blind obedience (Divine Command) -
but rather testing Abraham's ability to discern and obey God's moral law (against killing), over against the divine command to break it. (154)
Includes a strong emphasis on becoming human - where human includes rationality (see. 156)
The notion of a natural law which transcends both specific cultural and specific religious views, and is accessible by all rational beingsis the source ofa) much of moral reform in the West (abolition, suffrage, civil rights, etc.), and b) the assumption (United Nations Nüremberg trials, American post-holocaust military policy, Martin Luther King's Letter) that human beings can "see" beyond the behavioral codes of their particular culture and society - indeed, they are thereby morally obliged and responsible for disobeying unjust laws (i.e., laws that fail to square with natural law).
Writing: 158, #'s 1, 2, 3
Religion, Natural Law Theory, and Civil Disobedience
Boss offers four criteria by which a civil (human) law may be unjust:
a) it is degrading to humans
b) it is discriminatory
c) it is enacted by an authority that is not truly representative
d) it is unjustly applied
(cf. King's Letter)
How should we disobey an unjust law?
a) use only moral and nonviolent means
b) make an effort to change through legal means
c) be open and public
d) be willing to accept the consequences of our actions
(Thoreau - but also Gandhi, King)
Writing: 163f.
1. List some examples of unjust laws - and why they are unjust.
2. Can you identify an example from Boss's list of justified civil disobedience?
3. Questions re. King's Letter - including:
How would a cultural relativist respond to the civil disobedience of people such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Socrates, Susan B. Anthony, and Gandhi? (165)
4. Is Thoreau correct - we are morally required to take direct action against an unjust law?
Assignment, Thursday, Feb. 19, 1998
Attend: Dr. Ojikanga's Convocation lecture on Wednesday, Feb. 18, 1998 - 11:00 a.m. - Clara Thompson Hall: take careful notes - to be handed in for credit on Thursday, Feb. 19, 1998.
Review: web document on the prophetic and apocalyptic traditions of Judaism and Christianity,
Read: 165-184
Write: 169, #'s 3, 4
173, #'s 1, 2, 4, 5
177, # 1
182, #'s 1, 2, 4
Modified 5: As a class, you have identified the following
issues for exploration:
Pick one of these issues - looking first of all for an issue that is in part regarded as a religious issue.
Can debate over this issue be carried on without religious teaching and beliefs?
If not, what happens when a religious principle seems to conflict with a moral principle?
Or is such a conflict even possible?
[Comments: contrary to the Lynn White thesis - the environmental
crisis does not reflect Judeo-Christian beliefs about the
environment: rather, especially the prophetic tradition
emphasizes the goodness of creation and the restoration of a cosmic
harmony ("the lion shall lay down with the lamb...")
as an element of the Presence ["kingdom"] of God. The
point is that environmental issues very much involve religious
conceptions.]