PD spoke about indifference being neutral. Do you agree with that statement?
Is indifference morally wrong?
Take for instance these examples, degree by degree:
1. Should a person be punished for not assisting a person broken down on the side of the road?
2. Should a person be punished for not reporting a robbery of a store they just walked by?
3. Should a person be punished for not preventing a man from beating another man, while passing them on the street?
4. Should a person be punished for not preventing a man from beating a child, while passing them on the street?
5. Should a person be punished for not feeding their hungry child?
What moral law requires you to care? What moral law requires for you to not just care, but also act?
ReplyDeleteNone.
Morality and Ethics guide your actions, not your thoughts, emotions, compassions, feelings, desires, or even slight inklings.
Now, a RELIGIOUS dogma may require you to care and ACT. But... did you really have to care? What if you did it, and did it only cause you had to? Not because you cared about them, but you were worried about your own ass becoming fire-roasted? Isn't action without the moral guidance wrong? So, acting without the comapssion is just as bad as not acting. Which is to say, outside a RELIGIOUS setting, is not a bad thing at all.
True, this is about "Exploring Christianity", but are you exploring motivations or actions? The Roman Catholic Church tells us of the "Anonamous Christian", one who does good works, without the faith. Such as an Atheist feeding the poor or a Protestant clothing the naked.
So, no. No moral law requires going beyond yourself to the point of any kindof sacrifice. A religious law may, but that is not a moral one, as you have asked.
(Yes, I define Christian as Catholic. Disagree, or "Protest"-ant, the Church, you disagree with The Church. Disagree with The Church, you disagree with the Pope. Disagree with him, you disagree with Peter, you know, "The rock upon which MY CHURCH will be built". Do not disagree with the rock, the one God placed and constructed. Protestant's are considered "The Lost Angsty Teenagers" of Catholicism. Catholics everywhere look foreward to your embrace of the one true Church of the one true God.)
I'd like to personally invite everyone not to engage in the bitter and futile argument that brews here over denominational distinctions. I'd hate to see this blog's comments suddenly become a mass of name-calling and flag-waving. This is about more important stuff than schools of thought; this is about practical spirituality. So, preemptively, I implore that the topic of Christian denominations be dropped where it lies with Paul M.'s last paragraph. You're welcome, Jake, and everyone else.
ReplyDeleteNow, I think that #4 and #5 are a clear-cut "yes", while #3 is iffy. #1 and #2 are "no". This is my personal bias, mind you. I don't assert that everyone ought to share this bias, but it's the one to which I'm partial.
My reason for #4 and #5 is this: the involvement of a child constitutes a special case. Children are in a unique position in society, in that they are still in the natural process of slowly coming into their own as adults who can care for and defend themselves. Through no fault or negligence of their own, they are highly vulnerable economically, physically and in many other ways. The condition of childhood is temporary, applies to all people at some time, and is completely unavoidable and mandatory. Therefore it deserves the obligatory protection of society.
#3 is iffy because a lot of it is situational. If the man is beating up the guy who just murdered his family, that's altogether different from him beating up a guy who looked at him funny.
As I've said, indifference, charity and ill-will are all comparative and cannot have rigid rules as such.
What do you mean by punished? Punished by law? Punished by God? Punished by guilt?
ReplyDeleteLet's try the first two.
ReplyDelete1. Should a person be punished for not assisting a person broken down on the side of the road?
ReplyDeleteNo, but I think that God would bless them for helping.
2. Should a person be punished for not reporting a robbery of a store they just walked by?
No, but if they were called to give testimony I think they could be punished by law by refusing to admit what they saw.
3. Should a person be punished for not preventing a man from beating another man, while passing them on the street?
No, but again, I think God would bless them if they did intervene, although in this scenario there are a number of reasons why a man would be beating up another man in public and not all of them are bad...?
4. Should a person be punished for not preventing a man from beating a child, while passing them on the street?
I really don't think they should be punished for not stepping in because I can see how someone wouldn't want to get involved in something like that--they could even make it worse.
5. Should a person be punished for not feeding their hungry child?
Yes. I second P.D.'s reasons for protecting children and I believe that parents have a God-given responsibility to care for the children He's given them.
I liked this post, it really made me think. I could be easily swayed on any of these questions because I'm still not sure about them.
I agree with Emily, this is one of those questions I can't be too sure about.
ReplyDeleteBut I will say that I believe indifference, though unadmirable, is probably not morally wrong.
However, when you are supposed to fulfill a responsibility and do not, that is morally wrong. I would include feeding your child as your responsibility.
But I'm sure that Singer would claim we have the responsibility to save all lives. I would debate that we don't.
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
ReplyDelete- James 4:17 ESV
Clearly indifference offends God.