How similar are the ethics of Jesus Christ, Karl Popper, and John Rawls? Why? How?
My answer: Extremely similar because Christ, Popper, and Rawls all favored a system that focused on helping the most vulnerable. Jesus by helping the most vulnerable. Popper through reducing suffering as much as possible(negative utilitarianism), Rawls on the Theory of Justice( people having as much as much empathy for each other as possible(everyone empathizing with the most suffering) thus resulting in a society in which people try to bring justice). All three of them would agree that humans do not deserve dramatically worse lives for reasons they cannot control.
Work Cited
Pelikan, Jaroslav Jan and Sanders, E.P.. "Jesus". Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 Nov. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus. Accessed 30 November 2023.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Karl Popper". Encyclopedia Britannica, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Popper. Accessed 30 November 2023.
Duignan, Brian. "John Rawls". Encyclopedia Britannica, 20 Nov. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Rawls. Accessed 30 November 2023.
I don't know about those other two guys, but not everyone agrees about the high moral standing of Jesus. See for example:
- https://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/the-immorality-of-christ/
- https://thesuperstitiousnakedape.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/jesus-immoral-teachings/
- https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/478lrr/how_do_you_account_for_jesus_countless_atrocities/
- https://advocatusatheist.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/the-imperfect-and-immoral-teachings-of-jesus-christ/
And I myself also don’t think much of his sending 2,000 pigs plunging into the sea where they choke to death (Mark 5:13), which is both animal cruelty and infringement of someone’s property rights and livelihood.
Karl Pfeifer I consider the Bible to be a source of metaphors, survival heuristics, and a possibility of partially being epistemologically literally true.
Alexander Ohnemus Despite all those things you mention regarding the biblical sources, Jesus's high moral standing is not a given. We have to make inferences from the source and what the source says is hard to reconcile with a high moral standing.
Karl Pfeifer The bible also stresses that human interests are above animal ones. Plus tradition, risk analysis and skin in the game justified Jesus drowning the pigs. Exorcism of a demon from a human justifies Jesus drowning the pigs.
Alexander Ohnemus Jesus didn't own the pigs. He deprived their owner of his property and the livelihood derived therefrom. Anyway, Jesus could've and should've eliminated the demons directly.
Karl Pfeifer Maybe Jesus wanted to emphasize that human interests are more important than animal ones. Maybe the owner of the pigs was about to die anyway. Jesus probably reimbursed the owner of the pigs.
Alexander Ohnemus Maybe this, maybe that. Maybe Jesus miraculously euthanized the pigs the instant they hit the water and maybe Jesus miraculously converted a widow's mite into sufficient cash to reimburse the owner, who was also miraculously prevented from dying through Jesus's intervention.
Paul Kuei-chi Tseng RE: «Jesus is truth, way, and life, according to the Scripture.»
This may interest you:
https://www.nairaland.com/256653/many-lies-told-jesus
What is interesting is that some apologists attribute Jesus's alleged untruths to the authors of the Scripture.
Thinking here about Karl Pfeifer's response:
"Jesus didn't own the pigs. He deprived their owner of his property and the livelihood derived therefrom. Anyway, Jesus could've and should've eliminated the demons directly."
This sound remarkably like the "If I was God, I'd do things differently" line of argument that seems to be in such vogue across the interweb. A few thoughts about the narrative (I am assuming the one that Mark reports in his account (Mark 5)), to which the following comments have some relevance:
(1) If Jesus is accurate in his own analysis of his identity, then, actually, he does 'own' the pigs, as much as he 'owns' everything else on the planet. The line of argument advanced by Mr Pfeifer is only valid if Jesus is not who he thinks he is. (Which, clearly, is one option - but the whole point of the narrative is that Jesus is acting in a manner that is consistent with his own sense of self-identity).
(2) If Jesus is 'God incarnate', acting as God would do in God's world, then who are we to say what he could and should be doing? Isn't it God's prerogative to act in any way that he sees fit in a given situation?
(3) For two thousand years, Christian commentators and theologians have understood the significance of (a) the pigs, and (b) them stampeding into the deep. This whole incident is rooted intimately in what we learn consistently from the Old Testament, and is therefore rich in a significance that all the Jewish witnesses would have understood at that time.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes