Ethics of Passion

by Alan Boswell

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. – I Corinthians 13

Kant

To be kind where one can is duty, and there are, moreover, many persons so sympathetically constituted that without any motive of vanity or selfishness they find an inner satisfaction in spreading joy, and rejoice in the contentment of others which they have made possible. But I say that, however dutiful and amiable it may be, that kind of action has no true moral worth. It is on a level with [actions arising from] other inclinations, such as the inclination to honor, which, if fortunately directed to what in fact accords with duty and is generally useful and thus honorable, deserve praise and encouragement but no esteem.

It is in this way, undoubtedly, that we should understand those passages of Scripture which command us to love our neighbor and even our enemy, for love as an inclination cannot be commanded. But beneficence from duty, also when no inclination impels it and even when it is opposed by a natural and unconquerable aversion, is practical love, not pathological love; it resides in the will and not in the propensities of feeling, in principles of action and not in tender sympathy; and it alone can be commanded.

Morality  Dutiful action  The less “inner satisfaction,” the better

Kierkegaard

When one has once fully entered the realm of love, the world — no matter how imperfect — becomes rich and beautiful, it consists solely of opportunities for love.

Let others complain that the times are wicked. I complain that they are paltry; for they are without passion. The thoughts of men are thin and frail like lace, and they themselves are feeble like girl lace-makers. The thoughts of their hearts are too puny to be sinful. For a worm it might conceivably be regarded a sin to harbor thoughts such as theirs, not for a man who is formed in the image of God.

It is subjectivity that Christianity is concerned with, and it is only in subjectivity that its truth exists, if it exists at all; objectively, Christianity has no existence.

Truth is subjectivity  Parable of the pagan  Passionate pagan before idol is closer to the truth than the dispassionate church worshiper.

Morality  Character  Inwardnesss  Subjectivity

Discussion Questions

Does Christ / New Testament preach Kantian ethics, Kierkegaardian ethics, or somewhere in between?

What are the underlying philosophic foundation of an ethics of reason? ethics of passion?

Are an ethics of passion and an ethics of reason mutually exclusive?

Which side of this debate is currently the dominant one in our society today? in the American church today?

What are the implications of this debate upon our current system of government and legal system?

If one assumes that “God is dead,” what happens to each one of these spheres of ethics? Does this matter to the debate?

Postmodernism

A guy was tried as an accessory to murder because he watched as his best friend murdered a girl and he did nothing to stop it. When he was asked why he didn’t do anything, he said it was because he knew his friend and he didn’t know the girl.

A large evangelical church declared that they were going to pray for the salvation Jewish people during a time of Jewish holy days. The media and Jewish leaders said that this was intolerant and encouraged hate crimes against Jews.

There was girl at a university who was taking a test that asked the meaning of the word juxtapose. She didn’t know the answer, so she wrote “‘Juxtapose’ means ‘cat.’ Since Heidegger said that reality is as we perceive it, this is what ‘juxtapose’ means to me.” since she had no other ideas. She received a perfect score and the professor praised her for her “insightful” answer.

These instances among others are what Millard J. Erickson describes in his book, The Postmodern World, as moments where the postmodernist culture strongly influences what happened.

In the first scene, postmodern ethics are illustrated. To the guy on trial, it was more important that his friend was doing something he wanted to do than it was that he was killing someone. In the second, a postmodern view raises issues about religion. In the third example, the postmodern view that truth is completely dependent on the individual’s opinion.

Postmodernism relates to the idea that there is no absolute truth, meaning that truth is determined by the individual or the group.

Questions that postmodernism raise:

1. How does postmodernism affect ethics?

2. If truth is relative to the individual, what is the point of someone studying to become an expert in their field? If the opinion of someone who has studied is equal to someone who has not studied, why study?

3. What is the point of paying tuition to learn that you create your own truth?

4. What is useful about postmodernism?