Moral Theology — Topic 1. Introduction to Moral Theology.
But before giving a specifically Christian answer, it is necessary to understand why the question is asked at all and for what reasons it is being raised with increasing urgency today. Gospel moral norms, albeit with some variations, were generally accepted in those states, that adopted Christianity, as the state religion. At the same time, despite the commonality of sources, the doctrine of human moral faculties developed differently among Eastern and Western authors and gradually became increasingly divergent. One of the causes of the emerging disagreement was the doctrine of original sin as formulated by St. Augustine of Hippo. Tension over this issue first arose during discussions of the theological views of Pelagius, and later of St. John Cassian; however, the question of the moral nature of man came to be discussed with particular intensity by humanists. The reception of the ideas of Blessed Augustine, who spoke of the complete corruption of the human will and the impossibility for humans to perform good deeds, led to the appearance in the 12th century of a treatise “On the Contempt for the World, or on the Insignificance of the Human Condition,” authored by a man who later became Pope Innocent III. In turn, the response to such a doctrine of man was the work of one of the early Christian humanists, Giannozzo Manetti, “On the Dignity and Excellence of Man.” Today, humanists are often spoken of almost as a god-defying movement, whereas initially they said nothing fundamentally new to Christianity, reminding people that man is created in the image of God.
However, later in the struggle for human dignity, humanism rejected one of the fundamental tenets of Christian doctrine—the belief in the weakness of the human will, which, as a result of Adam’s fall, became prone to sin. Gradually, man came to be perceived as the bearer of the moral law within himself. This perception was not fundamentally new and was largely a reinterpretation of certain ancient traditions. It is no coincidence that N.A. Berdyaev wrote that the Renaissance was, first and foremost, an attempt to revive the ancient pagan attitude toward humanity, which, however, was no longer possible in its entirety, since the Christian ideas of sin and the necessity of redemption were quite deeply rooted in the European consciousness[1] . However, changes that were impossible in their entirety began to occur gradually, and they affected not only the countries of Western Europe but also the Russian Empire.
The entire idea of the development of atheistic humanism is the logic of liberating consciousness from Christian views of humanity while preserving many of the moral norms that are specifically Christian. Beginning with the philosophers of the Enlightenment, who openly spoke of their atheism, attempts emerged to build the moral life of society on natural principles. One of the key milestones on this path was L. Feuerbach’s work The Essence of Christianity, in which the author sought to prove that “nature exists independently of any philosophy whatsoever,” and that man is “a product of nature”[2] . The essence of these processes unfolding in the spiritual and moral spheres was very accurately articulated by the existentialist philosopher A. Camus, who wrote: “From the Marquis de Sade to the present day, progress has consisted in the expansion of the enclosed space where man reigns, without God, according to his own laws”[3] .
However, on its path to a kind of emancipation from religion, atheistic humanism encountered certain difficulties. They began in 1914 with the outbreak of World War I, at the beginning of the 20th century. It was not merely a century of new technologies; it was a century of new attitudes toward man and humanity. A few decades earlier, Richard Gatling (R. J. Gatling), the inventor of the machine gun, had expressed the hope that his machine “might eliminate the need for large armies, and consequently reduce the number of casualties and diseases significantly”[4] . Gatling’s statement is highly revealing, as it clearly reflects a humanistic belief in progress and in the moral strength of humanity; it is full of anthropological optimism, even though its subject matter is murder. However, this naive belief was undermined, if not entirely destroyed, precisely in the 20th century, which turned out to be a time of crisis for traditional values and a judgment upon them. Was this the judgment that F. Nietzsche was referring to when he wrote about the “death of God,” which occurred in the hearts of people?
In a certain sense, however, this judgment was not to be a judgment on the values themselves, but on the extent to which they had been internalized. Christian communities, which had existed for centuries, were called upon to reflect on the correspondence between the Gospel faith and life. However, instead of judging themselves for failing to bring to life either the Gospel ideal or the ideals of progress, people turned this judgment, first, into a judgment on the values of religious faith, because nations traditionally considered Christians were at war; and second, into a judgment on the values of modern philosophy, because people striving to build a rational society based on the ideas of progress, were at war. Two world wars and totalitarian states carrying out mass repression against both their own and conquered populations forced people to reflect on the extent to which previous moral norms had fulfilled their purpose.
The renowned philosopher Jean Baudrillard described the situation in which Western man finds himself as a state of “post-orgy.” In describing this condition, he states that “the game is over—everything is liberated”[5] . We find similar views among most contemporary philosophers and cultural historians. For example, characterizing the values of twentieth-century civilization, M. Foucault writes: “We live without specific landmarks or original coordinates, amid a myriad of lost events”[6] . There are no coordinates, for postmodern society is “irreversibly pluralistic”[7] ; in it, everyone can assert their own truth. Zygmunt Bauman speaks in a similar vein: “In a void devoid of the pull of authority, everything is permitted…”[8] . It may seem that the destruction of authority leads to the “sacred space” being left empty, but in reality, the situation is quite different: everyone becomes an authority unto themselves.
Given that morality does not exist outside a broader worldview context, a logical question arises: which specific authorities are we talking about? Analyzing the causes of what is happening, M. Welker writes that “the end of the 20th century is marked by the progressive disintegration… of Christian spirituality”[9] . In his view, the issue lies not so much in morality as in what he calls the “crisis of grand systems,” which consists in the fact that the two-thousand-year history of Christianity’s influence is drawing to a close, and, losing control over society, the churches perceive this very conclusion as a crisis. In turn, S.S. Khoruzhiy asserts that “as history has unfolded, the unarticulated, unread, and unreflected nature of Christian anthropology has increased. In the broader consciousness, dissatisfaction with Christianity’s attitude toward humanity has grown, and this has contributed significantly to the progressive processes of departure from the Church and the de-Christianisation of society”[10] . Indirect causes may even include geographical discoveries, which undermined the notion of the Christian world as the universe. People realised that there are many cultures in the world and that different answers to metaphysical questions are possible. According to J. Vattimo, “the Babylonian pluralism of late modern society has led to the very idea of a unified world order appearing simply unrealistic”[11] . Not a political world order—which, though unlikely, is still quite conceivable—but a metaphysical and moral order. According to some authors, the religion of the majority, while retaining its denominational framework, turns out to be, in substance, religious syncretism[12] . Unlike genuine religiosity, it does not contradict the needs of modern society, but is a non-binding and convenient form of mass religiosity. As J. Vattimo wrote, “in our everyday experience we find numerous indications that our world is precisely the world in which the ‘moral’ God has died and been buried”[13] . Religion as such is not denied; it is entirely possible, but only to the extent that it does not prevent society from developing as it wishes.
It is obvious that everything stated above stands in clear contradiction to the existence of state and international laws. It seems, what kind of disappearance of reference points can we speak of if the law exists? At the same time, a basic study of the history of certain norms shows that they are so fluid that it is quite difficult to perceive them as reference points. Such fluidity is linked to the so-called relativisation of moral consciousness, the perniciousness of which many authors write about today, calling it the main feature of the moral crisis. Thus, V.V. Mironov notes that “the destruction of ethical norms leads to the destruction of both society and culture”[14] . A more radical viewpoint is expressed by S.F. Anisimov, who believes that “morality … is an absolutely necessary condition for all human spirituality” and that “only the absence of an innate or cultivated moral sense … is the sole thing that makes a person inhuman or subhuman, a beast”[15] . To a believer, such statements may seem to “work in favor of religion,” though in reality this is far from the case. For example, the latter author—a classic of Soviet ethics—who, even while criticising relativism and defending morality, is absolutely unwilling to choose the Gospel as its foundation.
In discussions of the crisis, a traditional opposition arises between the West and the East: the West as that which is in crisis and the East as that which retains its connection to traditional values. However, a substantive discussion of specific crisis phenomena allows us to speak not so much of a crisis in Western culture as of the fact that the crisis manifests itself in different ways in Eastern and Western cultures. Thus, while within the framework of a conventional Western culture one can speak of a crisis in the understanding of human freedom (freedom of gender self-determination, freedom of sexual relations, freedom to die), within the framework of Eastern culture— —one speaks of a crisis of human dignity (domestic violence, abandoned children, the disabled, and the elderly).
In other words, when speaking of a moral crisis, what is most often meant is that within the traditional Christian cultures of the East and West, the 20th century saw a rethinking of certain fundamental moral categories (the sanctity of life, marriage, etc.) that have biblical origins. At the same time, there are many people for whom these same phenomena are part of cultural development, just as much as the abolition of slavery or the achievement of gender equality. By labeling the same phenomena as either a crisis or progress, proponents of different viewpoints forget that “no ethical system actually functioning in any society can be considered entirely self- evident”[16] . The question of the right to moral truth is particularly acute today, not least because society’s own conceptions of truth are not merely changing, but changing at an extraordinary pace. For example, according to J.-C. Bolon, in the realm of public perceptions of modesty, “more changes have occurred in the past twenty years than in the twenty preceding centuries”[17] .
Christians, as people of faith, exist within a specific religious framework. Within this context, they apply traditional norms and evaluations to various phenomena. And yet every believer should remember that the truth of religion—and thus of the morality based upon it—cannot be proven; it reveals itself, arising from the experience of faith and life.
[1] Berdyaev, N.A. Vol. 2. Paris, 1985, pp. 266–267
[2] Engels, F. Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy / F. Engels // Marx, K. and Engels, F. Collected Works in 50 vols., Vol. 21, Moscow: State Publishing House of Political Literature. – 1961. – p. 281.
[3] Camus, A. The Rebel. – Moscow: 1990. p. 197.
[4] John Ellis. The Social History of the Machine Gun, JHU Press, 1986. p. 27.
[5] Baudrillard, J. The Transparency of Evil. – Moscow: Dobrosvet, 2000. – p. 7.
[6] Foucault, M. Nietzsche: Genealogy and History // Philosophy of the Postmodern Era: Collection of Translations and Reviews. – Minsk, 1996. – p. 90.
[7] Welsch, W. “Postmodernism”: Genealogy and Meaning of a Controversial Concept // Put. – 1992. – No. 1. – p. 124.
[8] Bauman, Z. Life in Fragments: Essays on Postmodern Morality. – London: Blackwell, 1995. – p. 32.
[9] Velker, M. Christianity and Pluralism. Moscow: Respublika, 2001. p. 13.
[10] Khoruzhiy S.S. “The Orthodox Doctrine of Man.” Klin, 2004 – p. 155.
[11] Vattimo, G. After Christianity / Gianni Vattimo; [trans. from Italian by Dm. V. Novikov]. – Moscow: Tri Kvadrata, 2007. – p. 21
[12] Krylezhev, A. “Non-Religious Christianity” in a “Mature World”? // The Power of the Church. – Moscow: 2003. – p. 15.
[13] After Christianity / Gianni Vattimo; [trans. from Italian: Dm. V. Novikov]. – Moscow: Tri Kvadrata, 2007. – p. 22
[14] Mironov V.V. Science, Engineering, and Technology: The Technoethical Aspect // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 7, Philosophy. – 2004. – No. 3. – p. 6.
[15] Anisimov S.F. On the Primacy of Morality in the Structure of the Human Personality // Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 7, Philosophy. – 2001. – No. 1. – Pp. 28, 33.
[16] Spemann, R. Basic Concepts of Morality. – Moscow, 1993. – p. 7.
[17] Bolon, J.-C. On Female Modesty: Women Concealed, Revealed, and Recognized / Jean-Claude Bolon; trans. from French by O. Smolitskaya and E. Smirnova. – Moscow: Text, 2014. – p. 9.
- The Concept of Morality
- Does a moral crisis exist?
- Moral Theology as a Science
- Moral Theology and Philosophical Ethics.
- The Moral Nature of Human Activity
As a discipline, moral theology is, to a greater or lesser extent, connected to all other theological fields; they complement one another but do not replace one another. Naturally, the same can be said to an even greater extent about the relationship between secular and religious sciences, a distinction often driven by differences in the objects or subjects of study. At the same time, this cannot be said of moral theology, for which there exists an alternative in the public consciousness in the form of philosophical or secular ethics.
Currently, virtually no secular discussion of ethics can proceed without mentioning so-called “universal human values”—universal moral categories and concepts that have existed throughout history and across all cultures. These typically include the human striving for good, the rejection of evil and cruelty, and a focus on justice and reciprocity in relationships, which is expressed in the Golden Rule of ethics. In secular scholarship, one can encounter both positive and negative attitudes toward such assertions. On the one hand, this thesis is indeed beyond doubt, as anthropologists find evidence of care for one’s neighbor even in Neanderthal communities. One need not be an expert in ethics to know that a certain ethical minimum has existed in all cultures and throughout history. On the other hand, it is equally obvious that these “universal” values are typically extended by people to those they consider “their own” and not to “strangers.”
Contemporary authors with atheistic leanings often write that religion attempts to monopolize universal values that are independent of it. Yet they say nothing about the religious origins of most of these values, nor about the fact that “universal values” are often understood to mean the values of European civilization. As early as 1920, Prince N.S. Trubetskoy wrote in his work «Europe and Humanity» that, when assessing so-called European cosmopolitanism, “one must always remember that the terms ‘humanity,’ ‘universal civilization,’ and others are extremely imprecise expressions,” because “behind them lie very specific ethnographic concepts”[1] . Simply put, Europeans call their own values universal values.
Ethics and Religion
Undoubtedly, the question of the existence of universal norms of behavior that are sufficient for organizing social life and to which everyone is ready to adhere is of the utmost importance. It is no coincidence that hundreds of papers were submitted to the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences for a competition on the topic “Is morality independent of religion possible?”[2] . However, in reality, this question is too ambiguous and requires clarification.
First, does the presence of moral capacities in a person depend on religion?
If universal norms of behavior exist within a wide variety of cultures and religious traditions, and are also preserved in secular society, one can assume that they are formed at some deeper level and do not depend on religious views. This is precisely the argument put forward by proponents of the neurobiological theory of the origin of morality when they assert that the basic mechanisms regulating human behavior are biochemical in nature and are, to one degree or another, already observed in animals. However, the universality of behavioral norms, first of all, can be grounded in the universality of the natural moral law, which is given by God, and the biochemical basis of our behavior in no way contradicts this. Even if moral faculties do not depend on specific religious forms, it is impossible to claim that all of them arose by chance rather than being created by God and governed by a rational soul. Second, the commonality of norms can be justified biblically, since all people are descended from Noah, who received the commandments from God.
Second, have there been cultures in history where concepts of good and evil developed independently of religious concepts?
Although some authors answer this question in the affirmative, there is no convincing evidence for this. In reality, it is practically impossible to speak of non-religious ethics in antiquity, since societies devoid of any transcendent concepts simply did not exist. As early as the Upper Paleolithic, judging by excavations of Neanderthal sites, care for the sick coexisted with a developed funeral cult, the presence of which testifies to a belief in the transcendent. Some secular authors believe that there are even references to non-religious ethics in the Holy Scriptures. As an example, the words of the prophet Jeremiah are cited: “…They have lied to the Lord and said, ‘He does not exist’” (Jer. 5:12) and those of King David: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 13:1). However, a basic understanding of the context of the aforementioned phrases is sufficient to realize that this does not refer to atheistic communities. Disbelief in God the Creator, in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did not mean disbelief in general, but rather the rejection of the very God with whom a covenant had been made. When discussing “ancient atheists” who “were moral but not religious,” Confucians are sometimes mentioned. However, in reality, Confucius’s religious-ethical system included the veneration of Heaven and sacrifices to It, and he himself said: “Without knowing the will of Heaven, you will not become a noble man”[3] . Examples could be multiplied, but since the existence of “pure atheism,” which has not been influenced in any way by one religious worldview or another, is historically implausible, ethics as a moral worldview that would in no way depend on religion has not existed and cannot exist.
Third, does the morality of a particular person or society depend on faith, and can an atheist act morally?
Before answering this question, it is necessary to recall that moral behavior is defined as behavior based on a free choice between good and evil. Basic experience of interacting and coexisting with non-believers suggests that they are capable of acting morally without being directly guided by religious imperatives, although it is impossible to rule out the indirect influence of religion on their behavior. Furthermore, it is not uncommon among believers to encounter a prejudiced attitude toward atheists’ capacity for morality. They dismiss it as impossible from the outset, citing the well-known expression, “If there is no God, then everything is permitted”[4] . In reality, however, there is no significant or statistically meaningful correlation between belief or unbelief and the willingness to commit a crime. Moreover, atheists who criticize religious morality point to statistics showing that in the 1990s, the post-Soviet space saw an increase not only in the number of believers but also in the number of criminals. Of course, faith can take many forms, and the people included in these percentages do not necessarily overlap, but experience shows that the existence of God does not always deter believers. This once led S. Žižek to assert: “If God exists, then everything is permitted”[5] . This is often understood to imply the possibility for a believer to repent and start life with a clean slate, which, as critics of religion believe, gives rise in some believers to a sense that constant effort in moral life is not required.
Recognizing that modern secular societies clearly demonstrate their citizens’ ability to live moral lives without relying on religious norms, some contemporary authors note that the problem is not so much that the absence of absolute criteria immediately renders a person immoral, but rather that relative criteria make ethics itself relative and fluid. In other words, while the question “Is morality independent of religion possible?” can be answered in the affirmative, the question “Is stable morality independent of religion possible?” cannot be answered in the affirmative.
The History of the Relationship Between Ethics and Christian Moral Teaching.
At the time of its formation, Christian moral teaching encountered a multitude of ancient ethical traditions. Contemporary secular authors often point to ancient philosophers as the first representatives of precisely this kind of philosophical, non-religious ethics. At the same time, the ancient Christians themselves did not view it that way at all. For example, St. Justin Martyr wrote: “We have been taught that Christ is the firstborn of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word, in whom the whole human race has a share. Those who lived in accordance with the Word are Christians, even if they were considered godless: such among the Greeks are Socrates and Heraclitus and those like them”[6] . In connection with this, icons of Solon, Thales, Hippocrates, Thucydides, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, and others were painted in the narthexes of Byzantine churches. This was because the ethical views of the philosophers were loftier and purer than those of the pagans, which allowed philosophy to be called a guide to Christ. It was here, within the framework of various philosophical schools, that the concepts of mind, soul, conscience, virtue, and ethics itself were formulated.
Stoic ethics were particularly close to Christian ethics in many respects. It is no coincidence that F. Engels, citing B. Bauer, referred to the Stoic Seneca as the “uncle of Christianity”[7] , emphasizing the extent of the philosopher’s influence on Christian ethics. Following the classical tradition, Soviet ideologues accused ancient Christian authors of attributing their own moral views to Seneca, while in fact they themselves were influenced by him. However, Christian scholars have also occasionally written about a certain dependence of earlier Christian authors in terms of terminology and content. Thus, according to Prof. A.A. Bronzov, the ancients “did not always remain within proper boundaries and, as a result, were at times susceptible to the influence of pagan moral philosophy, which was undesirable from a Christian perspective”[8] .
Undoubtedly, it is worth acknowledging that a number of Christian authors were close to Stoic morality in some of their judgments. For example, it is known that the Stoic Epictetus’s Enchiridion was, with some modifications, accepted by the church community as a work by St. Nilus of Ancyra[9] . However, the reason for this is not that the authors, who were heirs to the Old Testament, lacked norms for organizing moral life. It is well known that the detailed “Old” law was even abridged for Christians from among the pagans. Several reasons for such a convergence can be cited.
First, some Christian authors embraced the faith as adults and philosophically educated individuals. They were able to bring their knowledge, including that of Stoic philosophy, into Christianity.
Second, Stoic philosophy was often used for missionary purposes to show educated pagans that Christianity, in certain elements, was close to the worldview of a respected philosophical school.
Third, unlike traditional paganism, Stoicism affirmed the existence of one God and, in its ethics, called for bearing suffering with fortitude and practicing moderation.
In other words, Christian ethics developed not only as a continuation of Old Testament ethics but also as a response to pagan and philosophical ethics. A careful look at this response suggests that the theological foundations of Christian ethics are fundamentally different in nature. For example, repentance—a key concept of Christian moral life—was perceived by the Stoics as a sign of weakness.
Throughout the Middle Ages, there was practically no non-confessional philosophical ethics to speak of. Despite the diversity of ethical concepts, the overwhelming majority of authors who wrote on morality were monks and clergy. However, during the Renaissance, authors emerged who expressed humanist ideas closely aligned with various schools of ancient philosophy. At the same time, some of them believed that by exalting humanity, they were in fact returning to authentic Christianity (Coliuccio Salutati), while others, on the contrary, criticized many aspects of Christian morality, though they did not formally break with Christianity (Lorenzo Valla, Niccolò Machiavelli).
Gradually, these trends led to the emergence of schools of thought that, despite their differing positions, were united in their recognition of the existence of a Supreme Being, alongside confessional ethics. At the same time, authors might belong to one denomination or another (R. Descartes) or, belong to none at all (B. Spinoza); in any case, they did not address issues of religious morality, speaking instead of problems of a more general nature. A continuation of this tradition in Europe can be seen in a wide variety of schools of thought, ranging from the deism of Voltaire and Rousseau, the German idealism of I. Kant and G.W.F. Hegel, to the phenomenology of E. Husserl, the fundamental ontology of M. Heidegger, the ethics of E. Levinas, and others. within the framework of the Russian philosophical tradition, we are referring both to the tradition of so-called philosophical ethics (V. S. Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev, S. L. Frank, and others) and to Russian literature, which is distinguished by its particular attention to moral issues (F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy, and others).
At the same time, these same trends of the Renaissance led to the emergence of an ethics often referred to as humanistic. It is important to understand, however, that we are speaking specifically of atheistic humanism, whose ethics are militantly secular and anthropocentric. Initially, such ethical views were characteristic of individual philosophers. For example, not all Enlightenment thinkers and utilitarians were atheists, such as D. Diderot and C. A. Helvétius. However, over time, concepts emerged based on an atheistic and materialistic worldview, including L. Feuerbach’s philosophical materialism, K. Marx and F. Engels’ dialectical materialism, atheistic evolutionism, Freudianism, existentialism, postmodernism, and others. Despite the differences among all these concepts, the materialist premises underlying them allow us to speak of common features in their moral worldview.
__
Moral Theology and Humanistic Ethics.
Although humanistic ethics and moral theology are united by their focus on ethical issues and the state and functions of moral consciousness, the Christian perspective has a number of significant differences. All of these are, to a greater or lesser extent, connected with differing attitudes toward the idea of God’s existence. If, for religious ethics, God exists and it is He who creates humanity, then the specific nature of human existence, the rules of life, and its purpose are determined by His will and given to people through what is called Revelation. For humanistic ethics, God does not exist, or His possible existence plays no significant role. It follows that humans create their own nature, what is right and wrong for themselves, and their own goals and meanings.
With a certain degree of convention, we can identify four problems that humanistic ethics and moral theology resolve differently:
- Moral consciousness: a result of evolution or a gift from God
Although there is no unambiguous answer to this question in humanistic ethics, two main approaches can be identified: the socio-historical and the evolutionary. Proponents of the former argue that morality is socially conditioned and constitutes what radically distinguishes humans from animals. Representatives of the first group, such as A. I. Titarenko or Yu. M. Boroday, argue that morality is socially conditioned and serves as the factor that radically distinguishes humans from animals. The second group includes scholars who believe that morality is evolutionarily determined and that its rudiments are already present in the animal world. Contemporary anthropologists, including Frans de Waal[10] , Robert Sapolsky[11] , and others[12] , write about this. By studying pygmy chimpanzees and other primates, they argue that all living beings, depending on their level of development, exhibit certain signs of what is commonly called morality, even if they do so unconsciously.
In turn, from the perspective of moral theology, by creating humanity, God made moral feelings and moral consciousness part of human nature. However, this does not mean that secular approaches are entirely unacceptable.
Thus, there is no doubt that moral sentiments, like moral consciousness in its content, depend to a significant extent on socio-historical conditions, the first of which can be recognized as the Fall. Moreover, the construction of the Tower of Babel can be cited as an example of the so-called “social contract,” and the emergence of new languages can be seen as the emergence of new, fundamentally different views of the world, of good and evil.
Similarly, despite all apparent contradiction from a religious point of view, the ability of animals to exhibit the beginnings of moral activity does not contradict the spiritual uniqueness of man. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the good God, Who created all living beings, endowed them with an instinctive desire to care for one another, which today seems to us to be the beginnings of morality. While acknowledging that humans are genetically similar to the rest of the animal world and that most of their psychological reactions have a biochemical basis, Moral Theology asserts that in their moral consciousness and behavior, humans are elevated above the animal world because they are rational and free bearers of the image of God. Although the reactions of his body, as in any living organism, are determined by biochemical processes, from a theological perspective, man is not reduced to these processes and is not entirely defined by them. As a God-like being in his moral self-determination, man is capable of exercising what theology calls self-rule (αυτεξούσια); he is capable of transcending instincts and social conditions and turning to conscience, which, as a power of the soul, is rooted in his nature from the very beginning, from creation. This feature of Moral Theology is also called moral realism (in contrast to ethical relativism), since its ethical assertions are rooted in Dogmatics, as Christian ontology.
- Moral Norms: Social Contract or Covenant with God
Autonomy or theonomy?
Undoubtedly, unwritten moral norms already existed among the illiterate peoples of antiquity. At the same time, the first recorded norms of behavior are found in ancient Mesopotamian texts. Traditionally, the history of moral norms begins with the so-called Talion (Latin tālĭo, from talis — “the same”), the principle according to which punishment must be symmetrical to the offense, and its severity must fully correspond to the harm caused. The most well-known formulation of this principle is the biblical expression: “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” At the same time, it is evident that the principle of symmetrical retribution itself cannot be primary, since it is aimed not at intensifying the response but at limiting it, because in prehistoric societies, customs were far more brutal. The notion that prehistoric people were moral, while modern people have become depraved, does not correspond to either biblical evidence or modern data, which indicate that Paleolithic people spent quite a long time learning to coexist in the same territory and not kill one another[13] . From Talion arises the principle known as the golden rule of ethics: “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” This principle is often called universal and forms the basis of virtually any ethical system. However, at the core of any such system lies human desire, conditioned by variable criteria. Appealing to religious texts, secular authors speak of them as generally accepted examples of human experience, but do not recognize any absolute authority in them.
Today, the most widespread position on the origin of moral norms is eudemonism, which proclaims as its goal the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, the very concept of happiness obviously varies from culture to culture, and the quantitative argument in ethics can never be decisive.
In contrast to humanistic ethics, moral theology affirms the existence of absolute norms, the source of which is God Himself. He communicates them to people through revelation, which is codified in the books of the Old and New Testaments. These texts are considered divinely inspired, that is, infallible in matters of faith and morality. However, as already mentioned, Old Testament norms are viewed through the lens of the New Testament (Mark 2:27). In addition to the commandments given directly in the revelation of Holy Scripture, there are norms formulated by people, some as binding norms (Acts 15:20) and some as recommendations, the observance of which depends on circumstances (1 Cor 7:25–26). Finally, church canons are part of the Church Tradition that is directly related to moral norms. Unlike the commandments, the canons were adopted at ecumenical and local councils or were written by individual holy fathers. However, the form of their approval did not differ from the approval of doctrinal truths, since the canons were based on the truth of revelation concerning God and man.
It is sometimes said that in the Sermon on the Mount, the Savior expressed what is traditionally called the golden rule of morality. However, upon comparison, it turns out that they differ not only in form but also in content. In its traditional formulation, the golden rule of morality proceeds from the idea that a person refrains from doing to another what he does not wish for himself. It is based on one’s own negative feelings and seeks to minimize them, not only in oneself but also in others. Not wishing pain—he does not inflict it on others; not wishing humiliation—he does not humiliate. In fact, this is about avoiding problems, not about creating something new. In turn, Jesus Christ says in the Sermon on the Mount: “In everything, as you wish that people would do to you, so do you also to them…” (Matt. 7:12). Although these formulations appear similar on the surface, the positive formulation given in the Gospel implies that a Christian does not simply avoid the problem but is capable, by acting morally, of provoking moral behavior in others.
Thus, moral theology does not deny the importance of social morality, which arises from social experience, natural law, and the witness of conscience, but notes its imperfection, caused by the influence on human behavior and values of what is called original sin.
- Imperfection: Sin or Natural State
For both humanistic ethics and moral theology, the current state of humanity is not ideal; humanity is called to constant improvement. However, the assessment of this state and the means of moral change in ethics and theology are fundamentally different.
From the perspective of humanistic ethics, the human being, with his complex inner world, is viewed as a given. He may feel within himself a desire for inner growth and development, and may reflect on vice, but his very imperfection is natural, and the “absolute” point of reference by which he orients himself is relative. Dissatisfaction with one’s own condition and even the acknowledgment of shortcomings have no objective basis, because there are no criteria other than those established by society itself. In this regard, vice is viewed as a moral failing not because it contradicts human nature itself, but because it contradicts social norms, while the sense of imperfection turns out to be subjective. Much of what is considered a vice within Christian culture today was and is perceived as the norm in non- Christian and secular cultures. A review of courses on ethics reveals that neither the genesis of vice— , its causes, and modes of development—nor methods of combating vices, both external and internal, are practically studied. To be fair, it is worth noting that the phenomenon of vice is sometimes the subject of research, but even here it is viewed primarily as a fact of cultural and ethical history[14] . Humanistic ethics focuses on the consequences: has anyone suffered, is there obvious harm?
From a theological perspective, man was created free and inclined toward the good. However, since the Fall of our first parents, the moral life of their descendants, in all its fullness and complexity, bears the mark of their sinful choice. The original hierarchy of the soul’s powers was disrupted, and the mind found itself subject to that which it was previously called to govern. This sinful bondage or passion is perfectly described by the Apostle Paul when he says: “For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing” (Romans 7:19). Although the extent of this bondage has been interpreted in various ways throughout the history of theology, it has always been evident to Christians that the current state of humanity, first, differs from what God originally intended, and second, exerts a significant influence on the moral life of both individuals and society as a whole.
Unlike moral theology, humanistic ethics not only lacks the concept of sin but, as an atheistic system, denies any absolute foundations of morality. We may be speaking of a violation of social laws or traditions, which is commonly called a crime. Naturally, ethics, like theology, can view crime not only in legal terms but also in organic terms, as a self-destructive activity. However, unlike theology, ethics lacks the framework and the doctrine of human nature necessary to justify why some actions are destructive while others are not.
Finally, moral theology, unlike humanistic ethics, is capable of doing more than simply labeling a certain act as a sin or vice and assessing its social consequences. It addresses its internal structure, speaking of its spiritual causes and effects. To an even greater extent, moral theology focuses on the positive aspect of the moral life, which depends not only on a person’s inner efforts or the influence of society upon them, but on the action of God’s grace.
- The Meaning of Life: The Creator’s Plan or a Personal Decision.
In contrast to humanistic ethics, moral theology affirms the existence of a universal, common human purpose for life, ordained by God before the creation of the world. In the secular model, man is the result of the random evolution of species; he, like everything else, comes into being by the “will” of chance, not created by the will of God. This means that no pre-existing purpose of life, grounded on absolute foundations, exists by definition, because those very foundations do not exist. All atheistic philosophical concepts of the meaning of life are based on the premise that a person chooses a purpose independently. At the same time, in practical terms, the independent search for this purpose often leads a person to everyday answers of varying degrees of complexity. Judging by public opinion polls, most Russians see the meaning of life in family, children, professionalism, etc.[15] .
Unlike philosophical or everyday concepts, Christianity asserts that the purpose of life is metaphysical in nature and does not contradict the specific everyday goals that a person may strive for. However, one’s entire life and all personal goals must be aligned with this higher purpose. Furthermore, it is of fundamental importance to moral theology that the capacity to achieve this higher purpose is inherent in human beings, and that the very striving toward it is free and constitutes an expression of the so-called natural will. In other words, Moral Theology asserts that the commandments given by God to man are natural to him; their free and conscious observance is possible and constitutes an important condition on the path to the goal. At the same time, while acknowledging the necessity of moral actions, Christianity does not assert their sufficiency and emphasizes that the goal is always the result of the cooperation between God and man.
[1] Trubetskoy N.S. Europe and Humanity / N.S. Trubetskoy // History. Culture. Language. — Moscow: Progress, Univers, — 1995, — p. 59.
[2] “Is Morality Possible” Independent of Religion? / Ed. by A.A. Huseynov. — Moscow: “Kanon+” ROOI “Rehabilitation,” 2012 — 408 pp.
[3] Perelomov, L.S. Confucius: “The Analects.” Study, trans. from Chinese, with commentary. Facsimile text of “The Analects” with commentary by Zhu Xi. — Moscow: Research Firm “Eastern Literature” of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1998. — p. 450 (Lun Yu, XX.3)
[4] It is commonly believed that this quote belongs to one of the characters in F.M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov,” although the exact phrase does not appear verbatim in the novel. One of the first Christian authors to apply this principle was the early Christian apologist Lactantius, who wrote: “If God is free from cares and indifferent to all things, then why should we not sin, since we are permitted to transgress our conscience and circumvent civil laws?” See Lactantius, “On the Wrath of God,” 8.4.
[5] Cited in Kibalnik, S.A., 2019. “If God Exists, Then Everything Is Permitted” (The Central Metatheme of Dostoevsky’s Work in Contemporary European Psychoanalytic Philosophy). Questions of Philosophy, No. 9, pp. 87–97.
[6] Justin Martyr. Works. Moscow: Palomnik, Blagovest, 1995, p. 77. (I.46.)
[7] Marx, K.; Engels, F. Collected Works in 50 Volumes. Vol. 19, Moscow, 1961, p. 310
[8] Bronzov, A.A. The Christianized “Enchiridion” of the Stoic Epictetus. // Christian Reading. 1904. No. 7. p. 61.
[9] Hesychasm. An Annotated Bibliography / Edited by S. S. Khoruzhy. — Moscow: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2004. p. 209.
[10] Frans de Waal , The Origins of Morality: In Search of the Human in Primates. Moscow: Alpina Non-Fiction, 2014. 384 pp.
[11] Sapolsky, R.M. The Biology of Good and Evil. — Moscow: Alpina Non- Fiction LLC, 2019.
[12] In Soviet scholarship, see Boroday ,Yu. M. From Fantasy to Reality (The Origin of Morality). Moscow: IFRAN, 1995. — 297 pp.
[13] Nazaretian, A.P. Notes on Human History, on the “Nightingales of the Paleolithic,” and on the “Conscience of Pithecanthropus” // Historical Psychology and Sociology of History, 2010, No. 1, p. 123
[14] See Nazarov V.N. Ethical, Philosophical, and Cultural Foundations of the Phenomenon of Vices / Scientific Bulletin of Belgorod State University. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Law. 2016, No. 24, pp. 11–16, et al.
[15] https://tass.ru/obschestvo/1756569
Moral Theology as a Science __
Moral theology is a theological discipline within which Christian conceptions of right and wrong, moral consciousness, the moral state, and human moral behavior are studied and systematically expounded. As a science, it is called upon to guide people in matters of good and evil, to help them make moral choices, and to make sense of their existence. In this context, it proves to be deeper than mere pastoral guidance or pedagogy, as it addresses the person themselves, posing existential questions about the meaning of life, the existence of evil and suffering, and their freedom and responsibility for everything that happens in the world. Emphasizing the importance of moral quests, G.P. Fedotov wrote that “for most people, a moral feat is the only path to the Kingdom of God… Everyone can, by repeating it and revealing their own metaphysical depth within it, attain what is worthy of being called ethical genius”[1] .
Traditionally, moral instruction has held great significance in the life and preaching of the Church. Sending His disciples out to preach, the Savior charged them to “teach all nations… to observe all” (Matt. 28:19–20) that He had commanded. Given the prominence accorded to questions of proper conduct and observance of the commandments in New Testament and patristic literature, it can be said that faith and moral conduct are the most important and inseparable components of the Christian path[2] . For example, the decisions of the Apostolic Council—the first council in the history of the Church—were specifically of a moral nature. At the same time, unlike doctrinal issues, moral issues rarely became causes of schisms and divisions, except for the defection of certain rigorist groups (Judeo-Christians, Novatians, Donatists, etc.).
The subject matter of Moral Theology is twofold. First, the truth about man—his original, fallen, and glorified state, and his proper and improper conduct—from the perspective of his image of God and his membership in the Body of Christ, Moral Theology, like all theological disciplines, draws from Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. Second, the subject of study is the human person himself, his spiritual powers, abilities, and feelings, viewed from a moral perspective. At the same time, given that Christian ethics is not self-evident, the believer must lead a life of intense moral commitment. Realizing that formal answers are often fruitless, everyone must seek moral truth by cultivating and forming their inner self.
Any discipline that is called theological has as its subject the truth about God given in revelation. It may seem that Moral Theology is a discipline whose subject is human behavior. However, the word “theology” is not present in its name by chance, since the subject of study is God’s plan for humanity and human behavior—all that which is ontologically necessary to enable a person to achieve the purpose for which they were created by God. Of course, the theological perspective is complemented by an examination of specific elements of human life, but even these are studied not in and of themselves, but precisely in light of humanity’s likeness to God and its calling to deification.
Moral theology in the context of other theological disciplines.
As a theological discipline and a subject taught in schools, Moral Theology is grounded in faith in the truth of Biblical revelation and trust in the subsequent tradition of the Church’s life, as expressed in its Traditions. At the same time, in their research, authors who address moral issues frequently draw upon data from other disciplines. Thus, for example, while relying on Holy Scripture as its primary source, moral theology does not engage in direct historical-critical or philological study of the text, but makes use of data from biblical sciences, thanks to which it becomes possible to place moral values and norms within their historical and cultural context. While the texts of the Old and New Testaments are studied in their entirety and perceived as a single Holy Scripture, the norms of the Old Testament are viewed through the lens of the New Testament, to which preference is given in the event of contradictions.
The second source of Moral Theology is Sacred Tradition, the most important part of which is the patristic heritage. In this regard, as a discipline, it is clearly connected to patristics and, more broadly, philology, since the application of philological methods of textual analysis helps to adequately understand its content and assess the place of a particular patristic opinion within the context of the Church’s entire doctrine.
The connection between moral theology and dogmatic theology deserves a separate mention. Traditionally, ever since the days of Scholasticism, scholars of moral theology have maintained that all revelation is divided into two parts: revelation concerning what is, and revelation concerning what ought to be. The former encompasses everything addressed by dogmatic theology, while the latter pertains to moral theology. However, in the 20th century, a number of authors (in particular, M.M. Tareev) opposed this division, emphasizing that all divinely revealed truth can and must be considered both objectively—that is, dogmatically—and subjectively—that is, morally. The dogmas concerning the Trinity, Christ, and the Church, like all others, are directly related to the human person, to his actions, and, ultimately, to his vocation. Such an approach does not imply a reunification of moral theology with dogmatic theology, but rather removes moral theology from the realm of mere didactics. The very idea of a moral interpretation of dogma is, of course, not new. In Russian theology, Metropolitan Makarii (Bulgakov) devoted significant attention to the moral interpretation of dogmas.
The very word “education” implies that the person receiving it attains a certain ideal. In a secular sense, education implies the attainment of a standard body of knowledge, a certain image of a qualified specialist formed by the scientific community. In contrast to the secular, in spiritual education—which, in a broad sense, is not limited to seminary studies and is accessible to every faithful Christian—the volume of knowledge is of secondary importance. The main goal of such spiritual education is to reveal within oneself the image that God has placed in man. This image was marred by the Fall and restored by the God-man Jesus Christ. This is precisely why, as the most important source of theological and anthropological truths, moral theology is closely linked to dogmatic theology, which is the quintessence of the doctrinal part of Scripture and Tradition.
Although nineteenth-century criticism claimed that Christ’s sermons were largely moral in content, a careful reading of the Gospel reveals the doctrinal foundation of New Testament morality. The obvious fact is that Christianity turns out to be not so much a ritual or moral system as a doctrinal principle based on faith in the Triune God, in Jesus Christ and His divine-human nature, death, and resurrection. And if the triadological dogma[3] can be presented as a model of the moral structure of society, the foundation of which must be love[4] , then the aforementioned doctrine of man is grounded primarily in Christological, pneumatological[5] , ecclesiological[6] , and eschatological dogmas.
Morality calls a person to what is right, but what is right is determined not only by the commandments, but first and foremost by dogmatics, which is oriented not toward the given, but toward Revelation. Reflecting on this, S.N. Trubetskoy writes: “Act in such a way that God, in whom you believe, appears in your action as more real than the world and your own soul”[7] . The point is that the ultimate foundation for decision-making was God and His will, and not merely the surrounding reality and one’s own desires. In other words, the objective doctrinal tenets of dogmatics become, in Moral Theology, subjective norms and foundations of personal Christian life.
At the same time, it is important to note that the degree of unambiguity and unconditionality of ethical norms and dogmas varies. Although initially the word δόγμα did not refer solely to the metaphysical realm and meant “opinion, conviction, decree” ([8] ), and later, in the language of the New Testament, it took on the meaning of “decree” or “command” (Luke 2:1), ultimately, in the language of Christian tradition, it came to denote an immutable truth of faith. These truths pertain to God and the divine-human nature of Christ and are entirely independent of any conditions. In turn, despite the importance of moral norms, their implementation depends on specific circumstances and may, to varying degrees, approach the ideal.
In addition to the disciplines already mentioned, Moral Theology is most closely related to Asceticism and Canon Law, since all these sciences study the sphere of what is proper and improper for a person from the perspective of his likeness to God and his belonging to the Body of Christ.
For a long time, asceticism was part of Moral Theology and only emerged as a separate subject in the second half of the 19th century. At the same time, asceticism as a science must be distinguished from the asceticism inherent in human existence from the very beginning. As a science, asceticism is devoted to the theory and practice of personal Christian devotion, as well as to methods of combating passions and acquiring virtues. In everyday speech, the words “asceticism” and asceticism in the sense of spiritual practice are used as synonyms. Explaining the fundamental difference between ethics as a moral life and asceticism as a form of spiritual exercise, G.P. Fedotov wrote that the latter implies “seclusion in one’s spiritual workshop,” thanks to which it “knows no acts”[9] , whereas morality implies precisely active participation in the life of the world and the formation of the skill of making moral choices. Ascetic feats are extremely important; however, by themselves they do not yet direct a person toward the good and can be practiced on the basis of any doctrinal system. A person who, through ascetic effort and attention to inner processes, becomes master of the soul’s powers must possess the skill to apply these powers properly. A failure to understand that the value of asceticism lies in correct goal-setting—which is external to it and cannot be reduced to it—may lead a person to fail to see the difference between the ascetic efforts of a Christian ascetic and those of a pagan yogi.
In contrast to asceticism, which is directed toward the inner world of the person, canon law is directed toward actions, whether moral or immoral. The evaluation of a Christian’s actions is based on their theological interpretation; however, in Canon Law, moral norms are formalized legally and incorporated into the legal system, taking the form of laws that entail sanctions for their violation. However, the matter, of course, is not merely one of form. Canonical collections are virtually devoid of positive content, because they do not speak of how one ought to act in various situations, but rather of how one must not act in them. In a certain sense, the canons resemble the decrees of councils, as they primarily marked the boundary beyond which membership in the Church is impossible.
From century to century, authors of textbooks on Moral Theology have noted with regret that this discipline is perceived as a somewhat systematized and structured description of the rules of Christian life—that is, as didactics or even moralizing. At the same time, the study of Christian morality is the study of life itself in all its diversity. Some contemporary authors note that within the Church itself, doctrinal and ascetic themes take center stage, and moral theology needs some defense. One of them, Fr. Stanley Harakas, emphasizes that “keeping the commandments” is recognized by Christ as the path to salvation (Matt. 19:16–22) and that the Last Judgment itself will base its decisions on love for one’s neighbor, which is manifested in concrete moral actions (Matt. 25: 31–46)[10] .
In the 21st century, moral theology has received a new impetus for development thanks to medical advances in the fields of embryology, neurobiology, palliative care, and others. Given that the natural sciences do not view facts through the prism of the categories of good and evil, the role of moral theology is to clarify the conditions for the possible application of various modern technologies from the perspective of Church teaching.
[1] Fedotov, G.P. In Defense of Ethics / G.P. Fedotov // Put. — 1939. — p. 10
[2] See St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Exposition of Ephesians, 1:114.
[3] See Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. The Moral Idea of the Dogma of the Holy Trinity
[4] Metropolitan Callistus (Wear). The Holy Trinity—A Paradigm of the Human Person // International Conference “The Holy Trinity,” Moscow: Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, — 2001, — p.
[5] See Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. The Moral Content of the Dogma of the Holy Spirit (against L. Tolstoy). // “Faith and Reason.” A theological and philosophical journal. 1896. No. 8. April. Book Two. — Kharkiv: Provincial Government Printing House, 1896. — pp. 425–434.
[6] See Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky). The Moral Idea of the Church’s Dogma.
[7] Trubetskoy, S. N. Ethics and Dogmatics / S. N. Trubetskoy // Questions of Philosophy and Psychology. — Moscow, 1895. — Vol. VI, No. 4 (29). — P. 493.
[8] Liddell H., Glare P., Thompson A., Scott R. Greek-English Lexicon: Revised Supplement. No. 2. Clarendon Press, 1996. P. 441.
[9] Fedotov G.P. In Defense of Ethics / G.P. Fedotov // Put. — 1939. — P. 15
[10] Harakas, S.S. Toward Transfigured Life. Minneapolis. — 1983. — p. 3
The Concept of Morality.
Since time immemorial, we have been trying to find the answer to the question: “How should one live rightly?” For some, it was a purely practical matter related to survival, while for others it was a gateway to deeper questions: about human nature, the meaning of life, and death.
From an etymological perspective, we have the word “ethics” derived from the Greek __ἦθος (“tradition, custom”) and it is related to the term denoting a habitual place of residence ([1] ). Similarly, the word “morality”(from the Latin moralis — “moral”) which is derived from the root mos, moris—again “tradition, custom”[2]. In the broadest sense, we can say that from the perspective of language history, “moral” refers to an action or phenomenon associated with customs and social norms, which becomes approved and, over time, normative, due to its generally accepted nature. In turn, the abstract concept of “morality,” which emerged later, describes the realm of what is proper and improper, right and wrong—everything perceived through the prism of good and evil.
Morality in Scripture.
In Scripture, there are two types of customs: natural ones, which arose in pagan societies, and those sanctioned by God and existing in the form of Torah laws or mitzvah commandments. The Hebrew term חֹק khoke, which meant a prescription, statute, or custom whose source could be God (Lev 10:13), people (Exod 5:14), or a person in relation to themselves (Judg 5:15), can be considered the closest in meaning to the Greek term __ἦθος. Moreover, like the Greek concept, this term can describe something natural (Prov 8:29, Job 28:26).
The language of the New Testament also contains concepts used to describe behavior that is approved or condemned. Personal moral conduct could be described by the term έθος, which most often means habit, custom, or tradition (Heb 10:25), and συνήθεια, which also means custom and habit (1 Cor 8:7, 1 Cor 11:16). In addition, there is a broader concept of ἀναστροφή, denoting a way of life or behavior (James 3:13, 1 Peter 1:15, 2:12). However, the word ἦθος—denoting character, custom, or disposition—is used only once, when the Apostle Paul, quoting Menander, urges the Corinthians not to be deceived, because “bad company corrupts good character” (1 Cor. 15:33). For him, the human capacity to have certain norms is natural in itself, but they can be different—bad and good, right and wrong.
However, it is not the division itself that is important—a division that has existed since ancient times and could be interpreted in various ways. The Apostle has his own specific view of moral phenomena and evaluates them in his own way, from the standpoint of the Christian faith. In the language of Scripture, very specific terms are frequently encountered that describe what is good and virtuous (ἀγαθός, καλός), as well as what is evil and wicked (κακός, πονηρός). This means that we could also have asked the Apostle Paul the question posed in the preface: who decided which moral standards are good and which are bad?
[1] Beekes, R. Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Leiden; Boston, 2010. Vol. 1. p. 511.
[2] Vaan, M. de. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden; Boston, 2008. p. 390
What is moral activity?
Human existence implies constant activity. We work, rest, socialize, and engage in creative pursuits. In doing so, guided by generally accepted norms, we often do not reflect on how our actions relate to good and evil, or how moral or immoral they are. Of course, a person may be spiritually inattentive and fail to see the moral content in actions that clearly fall into that category. At the same time, even after some reflection, a modern person will quite consciously describe much of what they do as indifferent—that is, neither evil nor good.
In ethics, the problem of indifferent actions is linked to the concept of adiaphora (α + διαφερω – I distinguish; ἀδιάφορος – indifferent). Adiaphora was first conceptualized as a philosophical and ethical category in antiquity, and the Stoics discussed it in particular detail. They already clarified that what is indifferent in itself can be so to varying degrees. There is that which corresponds to nature and is called preferable (προηγμένον), and there is that which contradicts nature, proving to be its opposite. It turns out that the indifference lies in the realm between that which is clearly not called a sin and, at the same time, is not regarded as a virtue.
Furthermore, it is necessary to define what constitutes an action, because otherwise it would be impossible to perform even the simplest actions without interpreting them as right or wrong. In contemporary ethics, following Aristotle, an action is defined as “a voluntary act resulting from an independent decision and pursuing a distinct goal”[1] . Thus, elementary actions and movements, such as walking, looking, or body movements, are often understood as part of a complex of actions that possesses the characteristics of an act. Unlike elementary actions and movements, an act—as a conscious and free action—always has moral significance and can be evaluated in terms of good and evil. From this, we can draw the reverse conclusion: to the extent that if an activity is unconscious and unfree, it cannot be called moral or immoral.
Turning to Sacred Scripture, we see that it contains many situations that imply that a person acts on their own, since no detailed instructions are given to them. Even the first commandments given to man in paradise receive no explanation; there is no description of what the sacrifice offered by Cain and Abel should be like, etc. Whatever situation we consider, it may involve the fulfillment of God’s will, but a significant portion of the actions undertaken by man is in no way regulated. Moreover, in Scripture itself we encounter various courses of action that are contradictory in substance but not in morality. For example, a husband and wife determine the rhythm of their marital relations and abstinence (1 Cor 7:5), just as marriage itself is equally permissible, on par with living a celibate life (1 Cor 7:17).
Such freedom in choosing one’s path can be interpreted in different ways. As is well known, some of the apostle’s disciples were very scrupulous (Rom 14:2), while others asserted that those who are free in Christ are permitted to do anything (1 Cor 10:23). In explaining the meaning of Christian freedom in choosing one course of action or another, the apostle introduces a unique criterion, saying: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). In other words, most of our actions cannot be evaluated without knowing the circumstances, reasons, and goals. At the same time, so that we do not conclude that all means are acceptable for the sake of a noble goal, he formulates the same idea, but in a negative sense: “Whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). This implies that, upon becoming a believer, a person acquires a certain unique perspective on the world, which should guide them in their actions.
However, this does not mean, of course, that faith includes a detailed list of virtues and vices. As many Slavophiles noted as early as the 19th century, it is impossible to create a list of rules that would account for all possible variations of right and wrong actions. This is precisely why the apostle advises us to “act according to the conviction of one’s own mind” (Rom 14:5), that is, not to seek formal justifications for every action, but to proceed from a broader theological context in order to “make the best of the situation” (1 Cor 7:21).
Finally, a person who truly strives for a righteous life but at the same time perceives the commandments from a legalistic and pharisaical perspective is capable of reaching a state in which his will is so united with the Divine that everything he does or perceives, he does only in a righteous and proper manner. Speaking of this, the apostle writes: “To the pure, all things are pure” (Titus 1:15). This may seem bold, but St. John Chrysostom comments on these words of the apostle with no less boldness, saying that “the nature of purity is not abstinence from everything, but the bold acceptance of everything”[2] . Note that we are not speaking of sinful acceptance, but of the fact that it is not the world created by God that defiles a person, but the sinful choice that comes from an impure heart (Matt. 15:11).
__
The Source of Moral Action
Regardless of whether a person performs moral acts out of a sense of duty or strives toward a specific goal, when making a decision, they may rely on various grounds and receive sanction or permission from different sources. Traditionally, it is said that moral consciousness, based on these sources, can be divided into autonomous, heteronomous, and theonomous.
When speaking of moral autonomy (Ancient Greek: αὐτονομία, from αὐτος—self, and νόμος—law), it is usually understood that a person is the source of their own moral judgments and actions, that is, they independently formulate the laws by which they live. The concept of moral autonomy was introduced into philosophical discourse by Kant, who rejected a natural foundation for morality and asserted that the source of the moral law is reason. From his perspective, the idea of autonomy is intended to free the will from the influence of sensual inclinations and subject it to a priori law that is accessible only to reason. In Kant’s texts, there is absolutely no question of the possibility of constructing morality oneself, since the moral law is accessible to reason but not subject to it. However, the lofty idea of the author of the categorical imperative did not always retain its purity when it became the foundation of real human activity. The fruits of autonomy can vary, ranging from elevating a person in the awareness of their responsibility to, conversely, plunging them into the abyss of subjectivity and arbitrariness. Undoubtedly, of all the types of moral consciousness, it is autonomy that presupposes a person’s full responsibility for their own thoughts and actions. While responsible behavior is usually perceived as positive, in the context of moral autonomy, one must not forget that, first and foremost, we are talking about a person’s responsibility to themselves. This means that the ideal of the categorical imperative can transform into a criminal morality in the mind of someone who is ready to act on it and impose it on others. The most striking example of this kind of autonomy is the theory of Rodion Raskolnikov from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel «Crime and Punishment». Its essence boils down to the idea that there are special people in the world who are “entitled” to live by their own laws and to be guided solely by their own notions of what is expedient. Kant’s ideas are undoubtedly rooted in Christian motifs of human freedom and the divine image, but when speaking of the moral law revealed to reason, one must not forget the words of the apostle, who wrote: “For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin” (Romans 7:22–23).
The next type of moral consciousness is heteronomy (from the Ancient Greek ἕτερος—other and νόμος—law), traditionally understood as the willingness of a person or society to submit to values and norms external to them. The source of these norms may be an individual, a social group, or a state system. An important feature of heteronomy is the unification of people by shared values, their willingness to live by rules recognized by all. At the same time, collective responsibility takes the place of personal responsibility in heteronomous consciousness; this collective responsibility cannot be attributed to an individual, since he acts “like everyone else,” in accordance with the general rules. Thus, what at first might have seemed a positive trait enabling the existence of social institutions, both local and global, has, from a historical perspective, repeatedly become the foundation of totalitarianism, whether secular or religious. A person living in such communities is willing to relinquish the ability to reason or morally evaluate certain phenomena, leaving this entirely to the ruling party or a spiritual leader.
Finally, the third type of moral consciousness can be called theonomy (θεός “God” and νόμος—“law”), understood as the willingness of a person or society to recognize God as the supreme moral authority, to whose law they consciously and freely submit. Describing the main features of theonomy, Prot. V.V. Zenkovsky wrote that its foundation can be seen in “constant attunement to God’s will, in seeking the Kingdom of God first and foremost.” At the same time, the main content of inner moral activity consists, in his view, in “the purification of the heart and the mystical bearing of the cross,” while the result is “love rising to the level of self-sacrifice, in following this law of love often against one’s natural inclinations”[3] . However, the situation may be entirely different when it comes to a false religious experience, from within which a false moral law is formulated. The problem lies in the fact that the higher the level of moral sanction turns out to be, the less responsibility remains with the person himself. Given that God possesses the highest authority, all responsibility for a person’s moral actions that conform to His commandments is transferred by the person to Him as the lawgiver. By invoking “God’s will,” a person can not only love sacrificially but also engage in terrorist activities, believing that they are serving higher purposes. A way out of this situation may lie in combining all the positive features of the concepts listed: the desire to bear moral responsibility for one’s actions, while heeding the experience of social life and taking God’s commandments as the primary guide in one’s moral life.
This proposed combination may seem difficult to achieve, especially when it comes to personal autonomy and God’s commandments; however, in reality, lacking objective criteria to prove the truth of any given religion, people often approach it using a moral yardstick. When preaching to pagans, the saints often pointed to the moral excellence of Christianity as the very basis for its acceptance. At the same time, they had no objective proof that sin is worse than virtue and relied in this regard on the moral sense they expected to find in their interlocutors.
The idea of such a combination of moral autonomy with the acceptance of God’s will is also found in Holy Scripture. The law given to the Jews on Mount Sinai was not meant to remain merely an external norm for them, but was to become the law of their hearts, as Scripture repeatedly states: “Keep my commandments and live; guard my teaching as the apple of your eye. Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:2–3). Reflecting on this in the 20th century, G.P. Fedotov termed this phenomenon “the individualization of value”[4]. In his work “In Defense of Ethics,” he asserted that “A moral act consists not at all in the application of the law.” In his view, the formal and practically mechanical application of the law to a specific situation is a sign of a primitive moral consciousness. At the same time, a person whose moral consciousness is developed, acts in moral life like a skilled artist or composer, not formally but creatively, selecting the optimal or best solution based on and taking into account all conditions. They do not need to constantly recall specific laws, since these become the laws of their heart. By performing daily feats and developing the skill of moral life, a person can “uncover the metaphysical depth within themselves, achieve what is worth calling ethical genius”[5] .
Criteria of Moral Activity
All actions, as free and conscious acts, have moral significance. But what should determine them? What grounds or goals? Although this question may seem speculative, it is of great practical importance, even though it was raised most sharply in philosophical ethics rather than moral theology.
In his debate with the French materialists, who derived morality from nature, Kant argued that human moral activity should not be determined by any natural necessity. In his work «Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals», he discusses two principles that can serve as the foundation for all moral activity. The first, which he calls the hypothetical, “presents the practical necessity of the action,” that is, makes it desirable. The second, on the contrary, presents the action as “objectively necessary in itself, independent of any other end.” For Kant, it was evident that only an action performed out of a sense of duty can be truly moral, whereas an action performed for the sake of an outcome—even if that outcome is noble and good—is rather a kind of technical or pragmatic activity and cannot pertain to the realm of morality. Actions based on pragmatism can be compared to a special kind of “trade”—with the world, in the case of atheists, and with God, if the person acting, is a believer.
If we follow Kant, all philosophical ethical concepts can be divided into deontological (Ancient Greek δέον — what ought to be), that is, those that consider duty to be the condition of a moral act, and utilitarian (Latin utilis — useful), which hold that moral activity can be performed for the sake of benefit. Among the former in the history of philosophy, one could include: the monistic deontology of Immanuel Kant himself, who believed that the moral law is the same for everyone and appears before the human mind as a universally binding duty, as well as the naturalism of P.A. Kropotkin and the pluralistic deontology of W. Ross. The second group includes eudemonism, represented by a wide variety of philosophical schools, ranging from antiquity to the 20th century. Philosophers of this school believed that the primary goal of ethical action should be happiness, for the sake of which moral acts are performed. Along with eudemonism, utilitarian concepts include utilitarianism itself, which also existed as early as antiquity and was formulated in detail in the 19th century by the British philosophers J. Bentham and J. Mill. Utilitarians believed that the moral value of actions depends on their usefulness. Charles Peirce’s pragmatism can be considered a variant of utilitarianism; he argued that in their moral actions, people should be guided by the benefit to society. Since they themselves are part of that society, they will also look out for their own interests.
In the 20th century, the question of the conditions of moral activity was also posed to Christian morality. Moreover, some seek to contrast “pure, pragmatic- free Kantian morality” with Christian morality, which “has a pragmatic character and is based on the idea of the salvation of the soul,” for the sake of which moral actions must be performed.
When turning to the texts of Holy Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments, one may indeed get the impression that Christian morality is deeply utilitarian in nature. A striking example is the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land the Lord your God is giving you” (Ex. 20:12). Christ, both in the Sermon on the Mount and in other texts, calls us to be moral, promising those who obey Him a reward in the Kingdom of Heaven. For example, He says: “Love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High” (Luke 6:35). From a deontological perspective, expressions that warn of punishment and are thus intended to prevent sin show that a sinful life leads to failure, while a life lived according to the commandments ends in reward—and would simply be beneficial to the believer. In this case, Christianity turns out to be a form of eudemonism in moral terms.
In fact, the question of whether it is permissible to expect benefit in one’s relationship with God was raised long ago. The devil poses it to God when he is tempted by Job’s virtue. “Does Job fear God for nothing?” (Job 1:9), he says. Yet even in the question itself, we hear a clear reproach, which is that if Job does not fear God for nothing, his piety is worthless; he is such for the sake of gain. God does not agree with the devil and allows Job to suffer, as a result of which the tempter is put to shame, because Job lives morally not for a reward. He truly is “blameless, upright, God-fearing, and shuns evil” (Job 1:8), which cannot be said of his friends, who are ready to view their relationship with God solely in pragmatic terms.
The Bible presents itself to us as a book in which we encounter various people, and all of them, individually or collectively, are trying to build a relationship with God. At the same time, if we look not only at their attempts but also at what God calls them to, we see that the highest form of morality to which He calls them is holiness. He says, “Be holy, for I am holy” (Lev. 11:44). He speaks of no conditions and makes no promises; this call is based on the fact that people, created in His image and likeness, are meant to be like Him.
How, then, can we explain the appearance of clearly utilitarian and eudaimonic commandments in this context?
To begin with, two points must be considered. First, from a biblical perspective, man is a fallen and imperfect being; and second, Holy Scripture is addressed to everyone. In addressing people through His Word, God desires to “save everyone,” not merely to select “knights of the spirit” who can measure up to Him. Given that He addresses fallen humanity, for whom it is very difficult to commit to any kind of moral life, God, as a teacher and loving Father, employs various means to save as many as possible. Acting in the same Spirit, the Apostle Paul writes that he adapted to the condition of each person and, ultimately, “became all things to all people, so that by all possible means I might save some” (1 Cor 9:22). The Apostle Jude also points to this variety of approaches in Christian pedagogy, saying: “Be merciful to some, showing discernment; others save by snatching them from the fire; rebuke others with fear, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh” (Jude 1:22–23). And although it is quite evident that the moral level of those with whom He spoke was far from always pleasing to Christ (Matt. 17:17), it is said of Him that He: “will not break a bruised reed, nor quench a smoldering wick…” (Matt. 12:20), that is, He is ready to accept even the smallest efforts of people.
The fact that people can be at different levels of moral development has been known to Christians since ancient times. St. Abba Dorotheus speaks beautifully on this, referring to St. Basil the Great, and writes about three states of man: the slave who lives morally because he fears punishment; the servant who deserves a reward; and the son who “loves the good for the sake of the good itself”[6] . St. John Chrysostom reflects similarly, asking: “How then are we to become imitators of Christ?” and answering: “By doing everything for the common good and not for our own”[7] .
[1] Skvortsov, A.A. Ethics: A Textbook for Undergraduates / A.A. Skvortsov; ed. by A.A. Guseinov. — Moscow: Yurait Publishing House, 2012. — p. 153.
[2] St. John Chrysostom. Exposition on the Epistle to Titus. Discourse III // Works in 12 vols. Vol. 11. Book 2. St. Petersburg, 1905. p. 858.
[3] Protopresbyter V.V. Zenkovsky, “Autonomy and Theonomy.” Put’. 1926. No. 3 (March–April). Pp. 46–64.
[4] Fedotov, G.P. In Defense of Ethics / G.P. Fedotov // Put. — 1939. — p. 10.
[5] Fedotov, G.P. In Defense of Ethics / G.P. Fedotov // Put. — 1939. — p. 10
[6] Dorotheus of Gaza, Abba, Venerable. Edifying Teachings, Epistles. Moscow: Blagovest, — 2010. — p. 82.
[7] St. John Chrysostom. Homily on the Gospel of St. John the Theologian XV / St. John Chrysostom // Works: in 12 vols. Vol. 8. Book 1. – St. Petersburg, 1902. – p. 101.
Related Concepts
- abba-dorotheus
- adams-disobedience
- adiaphora
- anthropocentrism
- asceticism
- atheistic-humanism
- autexousion
- authority
- autonomy
- bentham
- bondage
- calvinism
- canonical-unity
- choice
- christian-anthropology
- christification
- christs-obedience
- church-canons
- circumstances
- collective-responsibility
- concupiscence
- conquest
- conscience
- covenant
- covenant-of-peace
- crisis-of-authority
- divine-human-cooperation
- divine-inspiration
- divine-will
- dogmatics
- dyothelitism
- ecumenical-councils
- ethical-genius
- european-civilization
- everlasting-covenant
- experience
- ezekiel-1820
- fall
- fear
- freedom
- good-and-evil
- good-works
- grace
- heart
- heteronomy
- human-nature
- human-responsibility
- human-will
- infant-baptism
- intention
- justice
- kant
- law
- law-and-prophets
- law-written-on-the-heart
- logos-of-nature
- love-for-enemies
- love-for-neighbor
- love-of-god
- love-of-neighbor
- macarius
- matthew-712
- maximus-the-confessor
- mill
- moral-criteria
- moral-development
- moral-discernment
- moral-effort
- moral-interpretation-of-dogma
- moral-law
- moral-norms
- moral-pedagogy
- moral-perfection
- natural-goodness
- noah
- noahic-commandments
- obedience
- obedience-of-faith
- old-covenant
- old-testament-law
- orthodox-dogmatics
- passion
- pastoral-care
- patristics
- people-of-god
- perseverance
- pluralism
- postmodernism
- priesthood-covenant
- relativism
- retribution
- revenge
- rom-21415
- romans-512
- romans-7
- sacred-scripture
- salvation
- satan
- scripture
- secular-ethics
- secularism
- secularization
- self-examination
- self-government
- self-rule
- sin
- sinlessness-of-christ
- sonship
- spiritual-practice
- st-augustine
- st-gregory-palamas
- st-john-cassian
- st-theophan-the-recluse
- supernatural-birth
- supernatural-knowledge
- synergy
- talion
- theology
- theonomy
- totalitarianism
- truth
- two-natures
- universal-values
- uoc
- virtue
- virtues
- weak-brother