Jesus As A Moral Philosopher

[General Mung Beans]

This is not asking whether Jesus Christ actually performed the miracles described in the Gospels (either the canonical or the apocryphal ones) but what you think of Jesus' moral teachings.

[Thanas]

A rather simplistic version for the uneducated masses, far behind the moral and legal arguments of the contemporary philosophers or lawyers.

That said, viewed out of context they are a pretty good guideline for most purposes.

[Superman]

They're okay, I guess. He didn't teach anything that hadn't been preached by others before.

[General Zod]

I guess you could call his teachings "morality for dummies".

[Manthor]

There are no complex underpinnings to his doctrines but they make perfect sense. "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" and "Do unto others as others have done unto you" are two maxims that summarise the Golden Rule/Ethic of Reciprocity and are appropriately simple enough for the masses. In its purest form if encouraged as such it promotes compassion and mutual respect.

However Yeshua bin Yosef unfortunately and unwiselly decided to be a social activist in such a manner that he upset the local religious authorities. And we all know how religious priesthoods react when their power is threatened. Jesus provided an alternative and relatively liberal ideology that threatened their power and they had to take action. Hence the crucifixion.

[Channel72]

One of the most unique aspects of Jesus' ethics was his emphasis on unconditional forgiveness. This ethic stems from his theology; Jesus taught that since God has forgiven all of humanity, it is each person's obligation to unconditionally forgive others for their wrong-doing. (Matthew 6:14-15, 18:21-22, Luke 17:3-4). Although, he's not entirely consistent (see Matthew 18:15-17).

Another somewhat unique aspect of Jesus' teaching is the idea that thinking sinful thoughts, or harboring anger or resentment, is basically equal to acting on those feelings. (Matthew 5:21-22, 5:27-28, etc) Many people point out that Jesus is basically advocating "thought-crime" here. While this is true, the point is probably that human nature is so hopelessly sinful, that humans can't possibly hope to amount to anything before God, which ties into the teaching about forgiveness: humans desperately require God's forgiveness.

My own opinion is that it's difficult to separate Jesus' ethics from his theology (or his eschatology). While some of his sayings have clear value apart from his theology, (such as the Parable of the Good Samaritan or the Golden Rule), the majority of his teachings are inextricably linked to his theology. Most of his parables are not meant to demonstrate a moral lesson, but rather to reveal some aspect about God's judgment. (See for example, the parable of the sower, the sheep and the goats, the ten virgins, the mustard seed, etc.) This is why many of his parables begin with "The Kingdom of God/Heaven is like..."

So, despite a few gems, most of Jesus' teachings are useless to me, since I don't believe in any of the associated theology or eschatology. In my opinion, there are better moral philosophers from antiquity; Musonius Rufus comes to mind.

[Formless]

My own opinion is that it's difficult to separate Jesus' ethics from his theology (or his eschatology).

I second this. Most of his arguments go little deeper than appealing to divine authority or common sense, and he leaves too much up for interpretation resulting in most Christians following whatever the hell idiotic morality they want (see: Paul). Mike has an essay on his creationism vs science website that goes into more detail, but basically the question comes down to "if Jesus was such a great teacher of morals, how come history is so full of Christians commiting atrocities in his name?"

In my opinion, there are better moral philosophers from antiquity; Musonius Rufus comes to mind.

Or Master Mozi from China, who had simultaniously one of the world's first utilitarian philosophies AND a social contract philosophy AND an argument against moral relatavism based on the State of Nature all rolled into one. Its not perfect exactly (there are some religious concepts invoked here and there), but its a damn sight better than most of the stuff Jesus came up with.

[Darth Hoth]

This is not asking whether Jesus Christ actually performed the miracles described in the Gospels (either the canonical or the apocryphal ones) but what you think of Jesus' moral teachings.

By setting an impossibly high moral standard (see Matthew 5) that disallows self-defence and basically advocates total surrender to whatever evil attacks you, his contribution would arguably be a net negative if taken by itself. As modified by the rest of the New Testament, I consider it rather nice, if unoriginal, in the issues it does address, although I personally am inclined to be less passive and more activist in combating injustices (especially, obviously, when perpetrated against myself). Paul gets a lot of flak, but when one comes down to it, at least some of his teachings are nicer than those of Jesus (assuming that the NT presents a fair view of either, which historians have disputed). But then he was influenced by the Stoics as well as Jesus and Judaism.

In that way I can kind of understand Christians like C.S. Lewis when they are horrified by people who say that Jesus was a great moral teacher. Take away God and the sacrifice, repentance, and whatever, and he really is not that great. Not quite bad, but not awesome, either. Certainly not the one you would pick to follow, if you went through the history of ideas without preconceptions.

[General Mung Beans]

In my opinion, there are better moral philosophers from antiquity; Musonius Rufus comes to mind.

Or Master Mozi from China, who had simultaniously one of the world's first utilitarian philosophies AND a social contract philosophy AND an argument against moral relatavism based on the State of Nature all rolled into one. Its not perfect exactly (there are some religious concepts invoked here and there), but its a damn sight better than most of the stuff Jesus came up with.[/quote]

Moism is quite modern-I wonder what would have happened if China had adopted that philosophy instead of Confucianism?

[Freefall]

Well, like most have said, his moral teachings seem pretty basic. Be nice to people. Don't kill anyone. Don't fuck around with your brother's wife. Etc etc. Certainly not bad advice, but also not too remarkable.

I think the problem is the theology that goes with it almost seems to make Christian morality irrelevant. I believe Jesus explicitly states that deeds alone will not actually get anyone into heaven, just love of god and asking forgiveness. On top of that, I feel like the morality espoused is kind of an external morality to begin with. You're not taught to be good for the sake of being good, or for the sake of being a better person, or holding yourself to any kind of standard. It's all measured against God. It's him your trying to impress, and his standards you're trying to live up to.

Problem is, they're too damn high. The Bible basically flat out tells you that it's impossible for a human being to actually measure up to God's standards, so what's the point? No matter how good you are, it will never be good enough. Conversely, no matter how vile you are, you can still be forgiven. Seems pretty blatantly unfair, really. Why work hard to impress God when you know it's impossible to succeed?

On top of all that, his teachings are basically useless if you don't actually believe in God to begin with, since God is supposed to be where all morality comes from in Christian thinking. You can even see that ideology today, where Christians and creationists will bring up the question of what the point of being good is if God doesn't exist. To me this has always felt like an illustration of the flimsiness of their own moral system.

To be honest, there doesn't even seem to be much to the "philosophy" aspect at all (which is typical of the Bible). There is no real exploration or explanation of the "why" or "how" of it; everything begins and ends with God. God tells you to do something, you do it. That's it. There is virtually no attempt to go any deeper than that, hardly even an attempt to justify it at all.

It's been a while since I read the NT, so maybe I'm misrepresenting certain points, but that's basically how I remember it coming across to me.

[montypython]

In my opinion, there are better moral philosophers from antiquity; Musonius Rufus comes to mind.

Or Master Mozi from China, who had simultaniously one of the world's first utilitarian philosophies AND a social contract philosophy AND an argument against moral relatavism based on the State of Nature all rolled into one. Its not perfect exactly (there are some religious concepts invoked here and there), but its a damn sight better than most of the stuff Jesus came up with.

Moism is quite modern-I wonder what would have happened if China had adopted that philosophy instead of Confucianism?

Mohism was closer to Western scientific thought than Confucianism and less hierarchical, so something more along the lines of Platonic thought and Roman pragmatism may have become the major philosophical underpinnings of Chinese philosophy instead.

[Surlethe]

Jesus was not operating to fill a moral or philosophical void; he (or the teachings that are now attributed to him) existed in the context of the Judaism he practiced. This is why his teachings rely so heavily on his eschatological assumptions: he is not creating ex nihilo a moral philosophy, but creating new interpretations of existing Jewish law and moral practice. (This is also why much of the theology in Paul's letters deals with the place of Jewish law and tradition in the budding Christian sects. As the religion grew, diversified, and spread, internecine conflict developed between more cosmopolitan and inclusive sects and more conservative Jewish sects; we see hints of these disputes in the letters.) So I third the sentiment that the teachings in the gospels (again, it would be presumptuous to assume they are due to Jesus himself) are inextricably linked to a particular set of theological and eschatological assumptions.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

There are no complex underpinnings to his doctrines but they make perfect sense. "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" and "Do unto others as others have done unto you" are two maxims that summarise the Golden Rule/Ethic of Reciprocity and are appropriately simple enough for the masses. In its purest form if encouraged as such it promotes compassion and mutual respect.

"Do unto others as others have done unto you," is not the Golden Rule, and while it may be reciprocity of a sort, it's not the kind espoused in the Ethic of Reciprocity. You probably meant, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which is rather different.

[Channel72]

"Do unto others as others have done unto you," is not the Golden Rule, and while it may be reciprocity of a sort, it's not the kind espoused in the Ethic of Reciprocity. You probably meant, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which is rather different.

I don't think the "Golden Rule" is an explicitly defined term. There are many versions of the "Golden Rule" from antiquity; the New Testament version phrases it positively as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", whereas the Rabbincal version phrases it negatively as "do not do anything to others that you wouldn't want them to do to you." (Shabbat 31). There are many variations from Greek, Egyptian, and Babylonian sources as well. Arguably, the general idea behind the Golden Rule goes all the way back to Hammurabi, with "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

[Terralthra]

I'm not sure I'd agree that the lex talionis is really the same philosophy as the Golden Rule. One is prescriptive, the other retributive.

[Liberty]

You do realize he said that lusting after a woman was the same as committing adultery, right? And that hating someone was the same as killing them? Should we prosecute people for having lewd thoughts? There is something seriously flawed with holding his morality.