THE INADEQUACY OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS


April 15th 1999


The next issue, Number 35, will appear on May15th 1999.





It is of course notorious that Christians, in common with various other religionists, are generally no better behaved than the rest of us and that moreover they, and not a few secularists too, show a deplorable tendency to ill-treat one another evidently on some sort of perverse doctrinal/ideological basis. But Christian behaviour is not the main point here at issue; the point at issue is the sheer inadequacy of the central ethical precepts of Christianity. This inadequacy is enshrined in the Decalogue and in the listed Seven Deadly Sins.



Ethically speaking, the Ten and the Seven do not add up to seventeen basic ethical precepts because the first four Commandments are of no direct relevance to the way people ought to treat one another; they are purely doctrinal matters relevant only to theistic belief as such. The 'behavioural commandments' - numbers 5-10 inclusive - are notable for some absurdity, some good sense, and some truly appalling omissions.

Absurdity? The Fifth Commandment implies that parenthood, per se, is a state worthy of honour. Nonsense! How can a child, conceived by a sadistic rapist in a drunken whore, be required to honour its parents? Such a requirement would be absurd; to "bear false witness" to the extent of concealing from the child the true facts as to its origin would, of course, be contrary to the least contentious of the Commandments - the ninth.

To oppose killing is reasonable enough even if difficult to interpret, let alone live by, in practice ..... but the omission of any reference to torture - an offence, to right thinking people, often far far worse than outright killing - is an omission simply unacceptable in any ethical code.

Likewise, adultery is very often deeply hurtful even if, in some cases, it is little more than a technical offence. But the omission of the altogether horrible offence of rape is simply unacceptable in any ethical code. (But then what is the wifely obedience phrase in the tradutuinal marriage vow other than a licence to marital rape?)

Injunctions against theft and "false witness" are, of course common to decent people of all faiths and of none - indeed, aversion to stealing and lying is part of the very notion of 'decent people'.

The Seven Deadly Sins are reasonably so described but, again, the omissions are truly appalling. Alphabetically, the seven are: avarice, envy, gluttony, lust, pride, sloth and wrath - and they are all objectionable to decent people generally. It is three omissions - of things that must be equally odious to decent people - that make the Seven such an inadequate package.

Those three are, in my opinion, sins against the vulnerable; the sins of violence, exploitation and unjust discrimination (against sorts of people who have no choice about what they are - disabled, female, black, foreign etc etc - quite irrespective of the merits of the individuals in question).

But, as against the terrible gaps in the Decalogue, and in the list of Deadly Sins, it has to be said that the words attributed to Jesus ... "love thy neighbour as thyself" .... have great merit. Unfortunately, from the point of view of Christian apologists, this precept is not original to Christianity; it is none other than a version of the Golden Rule enunciated centuries earlier by various teachers in more than one well documented culture.

All told, we have to suggest that the proclaimed package of basic Christian ethics is simply not good enough. We will have to do better than that if we are ever to make a better world.





HOME PAGE