the ethics of jesus: God demands mercy, not sacrifice

[sophiaserpentia]

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary."
-- attributed to Rabbi Hillel

I've argued before that Jesus and Paul were representative of a movement within Judaism to reframe the idea of "Law" away from reliance on literalistic reading of scripture and closer to what Isaiah said would be "the Law written on our hearts." I offered more evidence of that here.

Now i want to frame this thought in terms of deontological vs. utilitarian ethics which i brought up the other day. In that post i argued that the deontological approach to ethics is more prone to moral absolutism, and i hinted that it is also more prone to be used in support of an oppressive or exploitative status quo. (The latter is a point i intend to develop in considerable detail at some point...)

The parable of the good samaritan is a good starting point. Read it again, right now.

The extended passage, which i linked above, begins with an affirmation of the two greatest commandments which i mentioned in yesterday's post, and which are a reflection of Hillel's principle above.

But then the inquirer asks Jesus, "But who is my neighbor?" Meaning, how do i know to whom i should extend my compassion? Jesus answers this with the familiar parable. A (Judean) man is beaten by robbers and left for dead by the roadside. The first person who finds him is a priest, who instead of stopping to help, walks widely around him. The next person who finds him is a Levite who does the same thing. The person who finds him after that is a Samaritan, who renders him considerable aid at his own expense.

The full meaning of this doesn't come clear unless we understand the animosity that existed at the time between Judeans and Samaritans. Jesus is saying that a hated foreigner who stops to help is more of a neighbor than one's own leaders, if those leaders interpret the religious code literally in a way that causes them to act discompassionately. The priest and the Levite did not render aid because they interpreted the Law to mean that doing so would have made them ritually unclean.

Is it fair to say that Jesus' interpretation of the Law is utilitarian? That's a bit of a simplification, but i'm going to argue that yes, it is.

On the face of it, we might be inclined to think that Jesus' ethics are deontological, because he does believe that the Law comes from God and therefore has no room for negotiation. BUT, he does not seem to think that the term "the Law" refers to a written document, or a laundry-list of do's and don't's.

Instead he has in mind a spiritual kind of Law, one that guides us to do the right thing every time. As he demonstrated in the Parable of the Good Samaritan and in numerous other parables and episodes (like the Episode of the Accused Adulteress), the written Law does not do that. The written Law allows for hypocrisy, and it is towards hypocrites to whom he deals the most scorn: those who use the Law, who use ritual and showy piety, to put on the appearance of being righteous when, in fact, they are supporters of a corrupt, exploitative, oppressive status quo.

Jesus' goal is for people to be perfect "like the Heavenly Father," which strongly suggests a continuing process of self-improvement and self-examination. His underlying goal seems to be maximizing the love and compassion in the world -- which sounds remarkably utilitarian.

Yet, he does not actually discard the written Law, he merely applies it judiciously.