Encourse Wiki

Moral Theology — Topic 3. Basic Categories of Moral Consciousness.

Properties3
tagstopic
courseMoral Theology
unitTopic 3. Basic Categories of Moral Consciousness.

55 min read

Moral Theology — Topic 3. Basic Categories of Moral Consciousness.

As already mentioned in the chapter on the dogmatic foundations of Moral Theology, the Holy Fathers borrowed from ancient philosophy the idea of the tripartite division of the soul, or the three powers it possesses. An example of this is the concept of Blessed Jerome of Stridon, who, it seems, repeats the traditional tripartite structure but adds a fourth element to it, one that Plato omits. Commenting on the image of the four-faced beast from the first chapter of the Book of Ezekiel, he says that the human face is the image of the rational part of the soul, the lion’s face—the irascible, and the ox’s face—the appetitive. He writes separately about the fourth image: “And the fourth is taken to be that which is above these three and outside of them, which the Greeks call conscience… thanks to it we are aware of our errors; [it] does not mix with the three, but corrects the errors of the three…”[1]. The fact of such an addition to the traditional and already familiar scheme is very noteworthy, if only because it follows that without mentioning conscience as one of the “ruling powers of the soul”[2], Christian anthropology turns out to be incomplete.

The History of the Phenomenon and the Formation of the Concept of Conscience __

Conscience, as a phenomenon of moral life, must be distinguished from what is called a moral category. While the former is present in human life as the highest level of moral consciousness, regardless of the degree of conceptualization, the latter emerges gradually in history, is expressed in specific terms, and is interpreted differently within various philosophical and religious traditions. This means that a historical-philological view of conscience will differ from a theological one, though it will not contradict it either. However, before turning to the biblical view, which is key for us, it is worth briefly examining the conceptions of conscience held by the civilizations that coexisted with the people of Israel.

First and foremost, we should turn to the Akkadians and Babylonians, Semitic peoples who were linguistically close to the Jews. Given that, from their perspective, a person had value only insofar as they served the gods by offering sacrifices to them, they did not pay particular attention to a person’s inner world or its moral dimension. They identified the heart (libbu) as one of the most important organs of spiritual life; however, it is quite difficult to associate this with conscience, since the very concept of moral life was primarily external, oriented toward society and one’s position within it. Concerns about compliance with or violation of laws certainly appear in Mesopotamian literature, but they “do not give rise to the concept of sin or conscience”[3], but rather reflect the individual’s concern about how he will be judged by the people among whom he lives and the gods whom he worships. However, over time, the idea of purity of heart and, perhaps, moral judgment originating in the heart begins to appear in the texts.

Following the Mesopotamian civilization, to which the Jews were ethnically close, we should turn to Egypt, where they were held captive for a long time, a fact that could not have gone unnoticed. In Egyptian religion, there was a concept of Maat as the fundamental principle of the universe’s order. The laws of Maat formed the basis of the state’s laws, according to which people were expected to live. Furthermore, unlike the Babylonians, the Egyptians had a fairly detailed anthropology and identified the heart “ib” as the source of moral life. Researchers believe that the use of the word “heart” in a sense close to the concept of “conscience”[4] can be traced back as early as the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. For example, an ancient Egyptian might have said: “A person’s heart is their own god, and my heart is satisfied with my deeds”[5].

Finally, it is equally important to turn to ancient civilization, which, even if it did not directly influence Old Testament theology, did influence theological language.

The path that ancient ethics took from Homer to Socrates is often described as “from valor to virtue.” This implies that for Homer’s heroes, the more important question is: Do you possess glory? rather than: Do you possess a pure heart? And although the gods are already portrayed as sources of morality in Hesiod’s texts, it is difficult to speak of the existence of a developed moral consciousness. According to G. Chadwick, “moral consciousness first finds verbal expression in the works of fifth-century B.C.E. authors”[6]. One of the first to begin writing about the feeling of inner turmoil following sin was Aeschylus. To depict an “unclear conscience,” Aeschylus already actively employs the image of the Erinyes—they can be perceived as instruments of vengeance or just punishment. In the works of Aristophanes and Euripides, a specific expression for conveying a sense of conscience appears for the first time—εαυτω τι συνειδεναι, meaning “to know in one’s own heart.” Furthermore, in the tragedy «Orestes», the protagonist, responding to Menelaus’s question: “What ailment is working to destroy you?”—Orestes replies: “It is conscience (συνείδησις), for I am aware that I have committed a terrible deed”[7]. Among the philosophers, Democritus was the first to speak of conscience. At the same time, as far as can be judged, Socrates did not attach particular significance to the popular concept of “συνείδoς.” He often emphasized that in his moral life he was guided by his “daimon” (δαίμονας), which warned him against wrongdoing or compelled him to atone for his transgressions before a deity[8]. Plato, too, when speaking of conscientiousness or even modesty, used the word αἰδώς, which more often denoted shame. In his view, moral capacity is part of rational capacity. He believed that “the whole of virtue consists in harmonizing emotions with reason…”[9].

One of the founders of Stoicism, Chrysippus, and other Stoics after him, argued that the law governing human consciousness is identical to Zeus. For example, in his treatise «On Duties», Cicero writes that a judge calls upon a deity as a witness, that is, “his own reason, more divine than which the deity himself has granted nothing to man”[10]. In connection with such statements by the Stoics, the expression of the aforementioned playwright Menander is also cited: “For all of us, conscience (συνείδησις) is a god (θεός)”[11].

In other words, in both the popular and philosophical consciousness of antiquity, the gods addressed humans through their conscience, which largely corresponds to Egyptian conceptions.

As for the Old Slavic language, the word “conscience” appeared in it with the translation of New Testament texts, as a calque of the Greek term συνείδησις. At the same time, unlike the Greek term, the Slavic word was polysemous[12],[13], since it could be used to translate terms such as διάνοια, ειδησεως, γνώμη, and others[14]. Up until the 17th century, the word “conscience” was used to mean 1) understanding; 2) knowledge, approval; 3) instruction, will; 4) way of thinking; and 5) moral consciousness proper[15]. As early as the beginning of the second half of the 19th century, V.I. Dal listed only one meaning in his dictionary—the moral one. He defined conscience as “moral consciousness, moral intuition, or a moral sense in a person”[16].

Conscience in Scripture __

Turning to the Holy Scriptures, it can be argued that within the Old Testament, no developed concept of conscience existed. Strictly speaking, there was not even a word to denote this concept. Among the reasons for the absence of a separate concept are cited the ancient mind’s greater orientation toward feelings rather than consciousness, insufficient focus on internal self-evaluative judgments, in contrast to external judgments, which were described through the concept of shame, and, finally, in the fact that all of a person’s moral consciousness was concentrated on the law, in which God’s will was expressed to humanity, before whose presence humanity stood constantly. In turn, the absence of the concept did not mean, of course, that the ancient Israelites were unfamiliar with conscience as a phenomenon. The specificity of biblical anthropology also lay in the fact that the very conception of man and his inner world was entirely different.

First and foremost, it should be noted that many of the Holy Fathers asserted that conscience clearly played a role in the lives of many Old Testament figures, even though it might not have been explicitly named as such. For example, St. John Chrysostom says that Cain went out into the field to kill Abel precisely under the influence of conscience, which, even before the existence of the law, testified to the sinfulness of his intention. A similar example is considered to be the experience of Abimelech, who felt guilty after touching Abraham’s wife (Gen. 20:2–12).

However, according to most modern scholars, the Old Testament contained a concept—the heart (Hebrew: לֵבָב / lēḇāḇ or לֵב / lēḇ)—which, although broader in scope, encompassed rational, sensory, volitional, and moral aspects. As an example, we can cite passages from Scripture in which the heart clearly functions as a moral conscience. The first example is Solomon’s prayer, in which he asks for a “discerning heart” so that he may “distinguish between good and evil” (1 Kings 3:9). St. John Chrysostom, commenting on the psalmist’s expression “Be angry, yet do not sin; do not let your hearts be troubled; do not be angry” (Ps. 4:5), says: “When you go to sleep… begin the judgment of your conscience, demand an account from it, and whatever wicked thoughts you had during the day—whether plotting deceit, or devising schemes against your neighbor, or indulging in lustful desires—bring all this to light during such a time of calm, and set your conscience as the judge of these wicked thoughts…”[17]. It appears that Solomon is speaking precisely of the sense of conscience when he addresses Shemaiah: “You know, and your heart knows, all the evil you have done to my father David” (1 Kings 2:44)

However, unlike the Egyptians and the Stoics, the Old Testament authors did not view the heart as an infallible source of moral judgment. Thus, Isaiah testifies about a pagan who worships an idol: “A deceived heart has led him astray, and he cannot deliver his soul or say: ‘Is there not deceit in my right hand?’” (Isa. 44:20) Jeremiah offers a similar testimony regarding the evil promptings of the heart: “They did not listen or incline their ear, but walked in the counsel and stubbornness of their evil hearts…” (Jer. 7:24).

However, the heart can do more than merely reproach or testify to its own imperfection—on the contrary, it can be “pure.” We can speak of the established phrase “purity of heart” (3 Kings 9:4, 2 Chronicles 19:9, Ps. 72:1, Ps. 77:72). To the rhetorical question, “Who can say, ‘I have made my heart pure; I am clean from my sin’?” (Prov. 20:9), the answer was, “Create in me a pure heart, O God…” (Ps. 50:12).

Within the context of the Old Testament linguistic tradition, Jesus Christ and the apostles in the Gospels do not use the word “conscience” ([18]). However, in patristic exegesis, one can find a number of interpretations in which certain Gospel images are interpreted in the context of discussions about conscience. As an example, one may recall the moral activity of the heart, which is traditional in Scripture (1 John 3:19–21, 2 Cor 9:7). Likewise, the “adversary” with whom Christ calls us to be reconciled before the judgment (Matt. 5:25) and the eye that must be pure (Matt. 6:22–23) are traditionally understood as figurative references to conscience.

The very concept of conscience, “συνείδησις,” in the New Testament is primarily developed by the Apostle Paul. Reflecting on the ability of Gentiles to act righteously, the apostle says that “the work of the law is written on their hearts,” as “their conscience bears witness, and their thoughts, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending one another” (Rom 2:15). In this case, conscience acts as an inner witness, operating according to the law that is written on the heart. In a similar vein, he writes about conscience in the first chapter of 1 Timothy. One of the central themes in the Apostle Paul’s “theology of conscience” is his detailed discussion of the relationship between conscience and the correct interpretation of the commandments. Chapters 8 and 10 of 1 Corinthians are devoted to this. Apparently, for the apostle, a person’s conscience before baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit is unstable and can follow the example of both the righteous and sinners. At the same time, the apostle quite often speaks of his personal experience of conscientious struggles and his striving for purity and inner peace (2 Cor 1:12). In this context, one of the most important ideas related to conscience that we find in the pages of the New Testament is the healing of the conscience through the sacrament of baptism (1 Pet 3:21, Heb 10:22).

The Nature of Conscience __

A comparison of pagan and biblical conceptions of conscience fully confirms the view of N.N. Glubokovsky, who wrote that “on all fundamental grounds, Stoic morality, while outwardly similar, is contrary to biblical-Christian principles”[19]. Without realizing it, both secular and religious authors of our time speak of conscience under the influence of the Christian tradition. Conscience appears in their works as a sublime capacity for moral activity that unerringly points out a person’s shortcomings. At the same time, changes taking place in the moral sphere mean that this view requires clarification. First and foremost, the issue is that the Christian doctrine of conscience, in the form to which we are accustomed, cannot be mechanically applied to all people in general. From a theological point of view, there is no doubt that, as a phenomenon of moral life, conscience is a “?” in all people, but it exists in different ways and its existence depends largely on the nature of religious life.

The classical definition of conscience in patristic theology belongs to St. Abba Dorotheus. He writes the following: “When God created man, He instilled in him something Divine, as it were a certain thought <…?>, which enlightens the mind and shows it what is good and what is evil: this is called conscience, and it is a natural law”[20]. In this definition, it is important to emphasize that conscience is part of human nature and, as a rational thought, is so closely connected to the law of human nature that it can be associated with it. Currently, in light of developments in moral theology , conscience can be defined _as a power of the soul or the highest form of moral consciousness, which is called to align a person’s worldview and behavior with God’s plan for them, testifying to the extent of their conformity to this plan through inner dialogue and the realm ofmoral sentiments. _At the same time, it is important to emphasize that it does not act independently, but receives the law by which it guides a person from the Creator Himself. Thus, in the Garden of Eden, God does not refer Adam to the testimony of conscience, but gives him the commandments Himself, indicating what he must do and what he must not do. In the same way, parents raising children cannot expect a child to know the norms of behavior until they have been taught to them in one form or another.

At the same time, it is important to note that the Fall, which brought discord into human nature, directly affected the moral sphere of man. The emergence of the gnomic will led to the conscience losing its ability to orient itself infallibly toward God’s plan; the choice between natural law and the law of sin became difficult for it. In turn, reason proved capable of creating its own law, which, though illusory in nature, can be accepted by the conscience and laid as the foundation for a distorted and sinful life. Although it is customary to speak of the preservation of a certain moral minimum in every person, the very fact of its preservation does not imply the infallibility of the conscience. Depending on the degree of its departure from its legislative function, the conscience may approach a “righteous” state, as was the case with some righteous people who lived “before” or “outside”—Enoch, Job, and many others. Conscience can also be so feeble, that is, incapable of making independent decisions. First and foremost, the newly converted Corinthian brothers can be cited as an example, who resolved to adopt Christian norms but still thought in pagan categories (1 Cor. 8:10). Finally, its testimony can be distorted to such an extent that people find themselves capable of “calling evil good and good evil, darkness light and light darkness” (Isa. 5:20). In the latter case, it is particularly evident that the legislative function of conscience depends on one’s worldview. In any case, the partial preservation of moral norms amidst a general distortion of value orientations leads to the overall structure of moral life remaining sinful and failing to lead to salvation.

In this regard, the giving of the law to God’s chosen people can be viewed as the initial stage of the restoration of conscience in man. It is precisely because of the conscience’s inability to independently discern what is right and wrong for a person that people are given a detailed law, which must be made the law of their hearts. This explains the necessity not only to know it, but also to constantly recall, repeat, and reflect upon it (Deut. 6:8, Prov. 6:21, 7:3).

The final restoration and transformation of the conscience occurs as a result of a person’s conversion to Christ. Catechesis, which involves the formation of the conscience, culminated in baptism, which, in the words of the apostle, “is not the washing away of bodily uncleanness, but a pledge to God of a good conscience…” (1 Pet. 3:21). If the apostle were speaking only of past sins, this would not apply to the baptism of infants and would have only a negative character of “purification.” However, his text implies not only a request for the purification of the conscience from sins, but also a readiness for a new life. It is no coincidence that St. Gregory of Nyssa says that “Christ is made visible through a good conscience”[21]. And if we recall that as a result of the Fall, man lost the ability to know God’s will, it turns out that in baptism this ability is restored. Thanks to the renewal of the mind[22], a person once again gains the ability “to discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2). At the same time, baptism is the gift of an opportunity, but not a guarantee of the infallibility of the voice of conscience, which develops dynamically and takes root in the truth through the Christian life.

Functions of Conscience __

In the study of the conscience, three functions are traditionally identified: legislative, judicial, and executive.

The legislative function of conscience refers to its preliminary testimony, in which a moral norm is revealed to a person. Under the influence of conscience, a person becomes certain of how they should act. For example, the Apostle writes: “Therefore one ought to be subject not only out of fear of punishment, but also out of conscience” (Rom. 13:5). Explaining these words, Blessed Augustine of Hippo asserts that “out of conscience” means “so that your conscience may be assured that you are doing this out of love for God”[23], while Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus says that the Apostle commands obedience “for the sake of fulfilling one’s duty—for this is what he calls conscience”[24].

However, one can speak of the closeness of conscience to the moral ideal only in the case of a person enlightened by the light of the Gospel. Whereas outside of Gospel truth, conscience “is not something absolute and can easily be led astray”[25]. Explaining such error, St. John Chrysostom says that in people who have fallen away from God, “the mind has become perverse,” and then “everything, finally, fell into disorder and confusion when the guide was found to be corrupted”[26]. Here we may recall that the Lord Himself corrected the conscientious testimony of His disciples when they relied on Old Testament norms instead of following His commands. Thus, the Apostle Peter refused to eat unclean animals, even as a voice in a vision urged him to do so (Acts 10:13–15). Furthermore, according to the Savior’s words during times of persecution, a person who kills a Christian “will think that by doing so he is serving God” (John 16:2).

The**** judgmental function of conscience is understood as its ability to evaluate the moral quality of thoughts or actions, both in the context of God’s Law and in the context of the circumstances in which a person acts. In moral life, the judgmental function manifests itself through the virtue of discernment (διάκρισις—discrimination), about which the apostle wrote: “Solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish between good and evil” (Heb. 5:14). It is noteworthy that the ability to “discern (διακρίσεις) spirits” is listed by the Apostle Paul as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:10). At the same time, the Apostle John the Theologian urges us to “test (δοκιμάζετε) the spirits” to understand “whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1), which can be understood as a call to develop the gift of discernment.

Discernment or reasoning itself occurs on the basis of the commandments, which a person learns to apply in specific circumstances. St. John of Damascus writes very precisely about how conscience relates to God’s law. In particular, he asserts that “God’s law, entering our mind, draws it to itself and stirs our conscience” ([27]). At the same time, he himself calls it “the law of our mind,” which “rejoices in the law of God,” just as the Apostle says: “For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man” (Rom. 7:22). The third force, besides the law of God and the law of our mind, the reverend calls “the law of sin”[28]. According to St. John, a person chooses between God’s will, toward which his conscience inclines him, and his own will, which is driven by his passions.

Before the Fall, the judgmental function of conscience was infallible in the sense that a person was capable of infallibly assessing the quality of his or her actions. However, with the Fall, the judgmental or discerning function of conscience also underwent a change. A person became capable of justifying his or her actions using false grounds, a phenomenon known as self-justification. According to St. Theophan the Recluse, a neglected conscience falls silent, and in its place emerges “sensuality guided by the self,” which begins to “write laws.” Yielding to this, the mind itself begins to invent “false principles to justify the wrongs of life”[29].

There are many paths to self-justification: the impossibility of acting otherwise, the guilt of another person, a good intention, and so on. A conscience capable of making a false decision based on a false foundation is called deceitful. Immediately after the Fall, Adam commits an act of self- justification by shifting the blame for the sin onto Eve and God. Already in the New Testament, Pontius Pilate placed the blame for Christ’s condemnation on those who had come (Matt. 27:24). In such a situation, faced with one’s conscience, a person “invents excuses and employs every means to, at the very least, justify oneself with words”[30].

However, a person is capable of acquiring the skill of correct reasoning, as the apostle testifies, saying: “But for the mature there is solid food; their senses, through practice, are trained to distinguish both good and evil” (Heb. 5:16). Here it is important that the righteous do not decide what is good and what is evil—that is, they do not impose their own morality—but they know how to reason correctly.

The executive function of conscience refers to its actions that manifest in the joyful feelings of knowing one is right, or in a sense of guilt for what has been done. In the first case, the conscience is called pure or good, and its testimony takes the form of approval or at least peace of mind—that is, the absence of remorse. In the second case, the conscience is called impure or evil, and its testimony takes the form of a tormenting sense of one’s own guilt and impurity. At the same time, the feelings themselves are not objective in nature and must be interpreted in light of external criteria.

Positive feelings of a calm or even approving conscience may be based either on actual objective righteousness or on a numb conscience, which is called dormant. Given the danger of a numb or dormant conscience, which can lead a person to fail to see their sins, much more attention is devoted to it in ascetic literature.

Because a “clear conscience” is often viewed with suspicion, it is rarely mentioned. Job speaks of the feeling of a clear conscience, referring to it as the heart: “My heart will not reproach me all the days of my life” (Job 27:6). Already in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul says that “I have a clear conscience ( ?) toward God” (1 Cor. 4:4). Speaking of the martyrs of the early centuries, Martyr John Popov asserts that their steadfastness can be explained from a psychological standpoint only by “the extraordinary power of the pleasant sensations of a satisfied conscience”[31]. Finally, one of the strongest examples is found in the words of Abba Pinufius, who asserts that ascetics who “have torn from their hearts the thorns of a reproaching conscience, with a calm and completely pure mind, contemplating the Lord’s mercy and generosity”[32], gain access to the highest form of prayer—thanksgiving.

Much more frequently and in greater detail, the patristic heritage speaks of the false sense of a clear conscience, which arises either from self- justification and is temporary in nature, or is a consequence of having long neglected one’s conscience, causing its testimony to fade away. Thus, St. John Climacus asserts that one must constantly examine oneself to see “whether our conscience has ceased to reproach us, not for the sake of our purity, but as if it were weary[33]. And while the conscience usually examines a person’s actions, when it remains silent, one must examine the conscience itself. Thus, St. John Chrysostom advises the following in such a situation: “Plant reason as a judge in your conscience, and bring all your transgressions before its judgment seat; examine all the sins of your soul, and demand from it, with all severity, a detailed account…”[34].

Father John Popov sees the internal logic of such “numbing” as follows: “A strong will can, to some extent, control the flow of one’s thoughts and, through one’s own efforts, remove from them memories of past misdeeds”[35]. A person may do this in an attempt to “justify behavior that does not meet the requirements of morality”[36]. At the same time, he notes that even in this case, all actions of the conscience “disappear, so to speak, only from the surface of consciousness and continue to live a full life in the realm of the unconscious”[37], yet a time will inevitably come when “the conscience awakens and begins to torment a person in defiance of all his logic”[38].

Just as the feeling of a clear conscience may or may not correspond to reality, so too may the opposite feeling of impurity. A conscience that is objectively impure testifies to a person that he has committed evil. The experience of remorse should lead a person to repentance. Speaking of the state in which a person experiences his own sinfulness, one can recall King David, who says: “My sin is ever before me” (50:5). The fact of the impurity of conscience does not mean that the conscience is bad, but, on the contrary, shows that it is functioning and pointing to the moral impurity of the person himself. One result of this impurity is a person’s inability to pray. This is precisely what the apostle speaks of when he calls us to approach God “with a sincere heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience” (Heb 10:22). We find motifs similar in their inner content in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:22–23) and in the Didache, which states explicitly: “Do not approach your prayer with a deceitful conscience” ([39]). However, while for ancient civilization the purification of conscience seemed an unsolvable problem, Christianity saw its solution in turning to Christ. Thus, describing the tormenting effect of an unclean conscience, St. John Chrysostom says that it rebels against man in order to “constantly cause us pain, like a certain executioner who torments and afflicts our reason and points out the magnitude of sin, and only Christ says: ‘I will give rest to those who are burdened by sin and bent over as if under a heavy load, granting forgiveness of sins; only come to Me’[40].

In turn, a conscience that reproaches a person excessively or, for example, subjectively, is called a suspicious conscience. Often, a suspicious conscience is the result of its weakness, which arises in a person due to ignorance of the commandments. A person fears that they have sinned, even though they do not know if this is actually the case. Thus, the Apostle Paul writes that in time hypocrites will appear in the Church “whose consciences are seared, forbidding marriage and commanding abstinence from various kinds of food, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:2). In this case, the Slavonic text more accurately conveys the meaning of the Greek and refers to them as “those whose consciences are seared.” The Apostle means that their conscience considers a sin even what is not actually a sin, so that it burns them with its heightened exactingness. St. Gregory of Nyssa comments most extensively on this issue. “He who lacks chastity is depraved; and he who indulges in it excessively is burned by his conscience, as the Apostle states (1 Tim. 4:2). One wallows uncontrollably in pleasures; the other despises even marriage on a par with adultery…”[41]. The problem of a false conscience proves to be the most complex, because sin is usually obvious, whereas a hypocritical over-exigency is very difficult to assess. While there is a commandment that limits sins, there is practically nothing to tighten the rules except tradition, as a certain generally accepted standard on which a person can rely.

As the highest form of moral consciousness, conscience plays a key role in the entire moral life of a person. However, despite its importance, its state is not immune to distortion. As a specific moral form of consciousness, whose workings are expressed in feelings, conscience is in a state of constant formation and dialogue with God, whose will it is called to manifest in its testimony.

[1] Jerome of Stridon, Blessed. Fourteen Books of Commentaries on the Prophet Ezekiel. Book 1. // Works, 17 vols. Vol. 10. Kyiv, 1886. p. 10.

[2] Macarius the Great, St. Works. Moscow, 2002. p. 254.

[3] Bottero, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago, 1992, p. 187.

[4] Breasted, J. The Dawn of Conscience. 1933. p. 255.

[5] Breasted, J. The Dawn of Conscience. 1933. p. 255.

[6] Chadwick H. Studies on Ancient Christianity. Collected Studies. Ashgate / Variorum, 2006. p. XX,7.

[7] Euripides. Tragedies. In 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1999, p. 325. (Orestes 396).

[8] Plato. Vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 2007. P. 181. (Phaedrus 242c)

[9] Plato. Vol. 3, Part 2. St. Petersburg, 2007. pp. 125–126. (Laws 653b)

[10] Cicero. On Old Age. On Friendship. On Duties. Moscow, 1974. p. 135. (On Duties 3.44)

[11] Menander Comic., Menandri sententiae, / Ed. Jaekel, S. Leipzig: Teubner, 1964. (TLG 541/42 Line 81)

[12] Old Slavonic Dictionary (based on manuscripts from the 10th–11th centuries): Approximately 10,000 words. Moscow, 1994. p. 644.

[13] A Dictionary of the Old Slavonic Language Based on the Ostromir Gospel. St. Petersburg, 1899. p. 812.

[14] Sreznevsky, I. I. Materials for a Dictionary of the Old Russian Language Based on Written Sources. St. Petersburg, 1912. Vol. 3: R–S. pp. 679–680.

[15] Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 11th–17th Centuries. Issue 23. 1996. pp. 133–134.

[16] [16, p. 351]

[17]St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Psalm IV // Works in 12 vols. Vol. 5. Book 1. St. Petersburg, 1899. p. 24.

[18] The only instance of the word “conscience” in John 8:9 in all ancient translations is either absent entirely or appears without the word “conscience,” suggesting that the word “conscience” is a later insertion here, explaining the reason for what is happening.

[19]Glubokovsky, N.N. St. Paul the Apostle and Stoicism // Christian Reading. 1907, No. 10, p. 399.

[20] Dorotheus of Gaza, Abba, Venerable. Edifying Teachings, Epistles. Sergiev Posad, 2007. pp. 62–63.

[21] Gregory of Nyssa, St. Letter 3 // Works in 8 vols. Vol. 8. Moscow, 1871. p. 455.

[22] It is worth recalling that Solomon asks God for “a discerning heart” (1 Kings 3:9)

[23] Biblical Commentaries of the Church Fathers and Other Authors of the 1st–8th Centuries. New Testament. Vol. VI: Epistle to the Romans. Tver, 2003. p. 480.

[24] Theodoret of Cyrus, Blessed. Works in 7 Parts. Part 7. Moscow, 1861. p. 141.

[25] Popov, I.V. The Natural Moral Law. (Psychological Foundations of Morality). Sergiev Posad, 1897, p. 196.

[26] St.John Chrysostom. Homily XII On Idols / St. John Chrysostom. // Works: in 12 vols. Vol. 9. Book 2. – St. Petersburg, 1903. – p. 523.

[27] John of Damascus, the Venerable. The Source of Knowledge. Moscow, 2002. p. 325

[28] Ibid. p. 230.

[29] Theophan the Recluse, St. Commentary on the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Romans – Zvenigorod, 2006, pp. 160–161.

[30] John Chrysostom, St. Homily V on the Second Epistle to Timothy // Works in 12 Volumes. Vol. 11. Book 2. St. Petersburg, 1904. p. 792.

[31] Popov, I.V. The Natural Moral Law. (Psychological Foundations of Morality). Sergiev Posad, 1897, p. 188.

[32] John Cassian the Roman, St. Writings. On the Rules of the Cenobites. Conversations of the Egyptian Ascetics. Moscow, 1892. p. 333.

[33] John Climacus, St. The Ladder. Sergiev Posad, 2007. P. 140, P. 103. (5:37)

[34] John Chrysostom, St. Homily XLII on the Gospel of Matthew // John Chrysostom, St. Works in 12 vols. Vol. 7. Book 1. St. Petersburg, 1901. p. 448.

[35] Popov, I.V. The Natural Moral Law. (Psychological Foundations of Morality). Sergiev Posad, 1897, p. 184.

[36] Ibid., p. 102.

[37] Ibid., p. 184.

[38] Ibid., p. 102.

[39] Didache // Writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Moscow, 2008. p. 49 (4:14).

[40] John Chrysostom, St. Catechetical Homilies. Tver, 2006. p. 154. (SC 50, 122)

[41] Gregory of Nyssa, St. On the Life of Moses the Lawgiver // Works in 8 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow, 1861. p. 366.

The Concept of Shame in Various Languages

In the language of the Old Testament, the category of shame can be conveyed by several terms. The primary and most common root is בּוֹשׁ (bôš)[1], which in the broadest sense is associated with disgrace resulting from the exposure of the inadequacy of the disgraced person, that is, the one who experiences shame. Both individuals (Gen. 2:25, Ps. 44:16, Jer. 12:13) and a people (Hos. 10:6, Isa. 20:5), as well as nations (Ps. 43:8) and even cities (Jer. 48:39), can feel shame or avoid it. Unlike the arrogant, those who trust in God will not be put to shame (Ps. 21:6). Thus, David cries out in hope: “O Lord, let me not be put to shame when I call upon You; let the wicked be put to shame and silenced in Sheol” (Ps. 30:18). The term כָּלַם (kālam) also conveys the idea of shame as a subjective feeling, meaning that the one who is shamed is humiliated and insulted[2]. The rare term חָפַר (ḥāp̄ar) also means “to be ashamed”[3] (Jer. 15:9) or to be embarrassed.

In Ancient Greek, the primary root associated with the concept of shame was αἶσχος. Words derived from this root were often used to translate the Hebrew term b ôš and other Hebrew terms. Thus, the word αισχυν is translated as “shame, disgrace, dishonor, humiliation, disgraceful behavior, defilement, bringing dishonor.” There is the verb εντρέπω, which may be close to the idea of humiliation or shaming (Ps. 34:4; 70:13) or modesty (Matt. 21:37, Mark 12:6, Luke 20:13). Less commonly encountered is the term αιδώς, which denotes embarrassment at nakedness, or modesty as chastity (1 Tim. 2:9), while in negative forms it signifies boldness and impiety.

The Slavic word стыдъ derives from Proto-Slavic *студъ or *стыдъ, which go back to Indo-European *stewə-: *stū- “to contract, harden, freeze”[4] . The association of “shame” (as disgrace) with “cold” (as chill) stems from the fact that someone who acted immorally could be expelled from their home or, upon punishment by society, subjected to so-called humiliating punishments during which the person was traditionally naked and would experience physical cold. However, by the 19th century, such connotations had been forgotten, and while noting the connection to cold, dictionary authors saw in it a coldness of the soul, “the blood running cold from a humiliating, sorrowful feeling”[5] .

The Concept of Shame in Scripture __

The concept of shame first appears in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis. Moreover, it appears indirectly, since we read that shame did not originally exist in paradise, even though the first parents “were naked… and were not ashamed” (Gen. 2:25).

From this brief passage, as well as from the context, several conclusions can be drawn. First, for Moses, who tells this story, it is important to show that God is good and did not create anything shameful in and of itself.

Second, and this brings us very close to understanding the essence of what is called shame. The fact is that before pointing out the absence of shame, Moses quotes words that will later be considered proof that marriage already existed in paradise: “A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). That is, they were not ashamed of their nakedness not only because God created everything good, but also because they were in a special relationship that speaks of a deep personal unity in love and trust for one another.

However, in the very next chapter, immediately after the Fall, they react to their nakedness in a completely different way: their eyes are opened, they realize they are naked, and they make loincloths for themselves out of fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). Nothing here speaks of shame, yet it is shame that compels them to “clothe” themselves. Today, our understanding of nakedness and clothing is so different from that of ancient times that it is difficult for us to grasp exactly what is happening. In our day, nakedness is largely associated with sexuality, whereas in ancient times, it signified vulnerability and a lack of status. Thus, when Job, in his sickness, says, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return,” he clearly does not mean only the absence of clothing; there is also a certain lack of status and simplicity. A newborn is, for the time being, simply a human being, just like a dying person. In this sense, for the Old Testament, to see oneself or another as “naked” means to see oneself as simply a human being, deprived of all status—whether real, like Job, or imagined, like Adam and Eve. Desiring “to be like gods” (Gen. 3:5), they eat the forbidden fruit. The perfect sin separates them, and they see that they have failed to achieve their goal, not only remaining human but also having lost divine grace. The loss of status might lead a person to sorrow if they were alone, but here we see something else—an attempt to hide one’s condition from another, as from someone who will not only see but also judge and condemn your unworthy state. Moreover, they will judge from the perspective of one who knows the reason behind the act. Knowing that they aspired to something else and proved incapable in that aspiration, they feel shame and seek to protect themselves from the judging—and, most importantly, devaluing—gaze of the one who now feels like a stranger and an enemy. It is merely perceived, not actually becoming so, because in reality nothing happens to confirm their perception, and the fact is that they themselves are changing; their inner perception of one another is changing.

However, in the Fall, the image of not only another person but also of God is distorted; for the first parents, merely hearing God’s voice is enough to prompt them to try to “hide among the trees of the garden” (Gen. 3:8). Why, then, did Adam hide? Not because he found himself naked, since he had been naked even before that, but because he was frightened by God’s judging presence. In reality, God had not changed His attitude toward man, while Adam clearly began to perceive Him as a stranger and a foe. It is interesting that, in his response, he does not say that he “was ashamed”, but rather that he “feared,” which perfectly reveals the very essence of shame, for which the following conditions are necessary:

First, a person experiencing shame always feels it in the presence of “another” whom they perceive as a stranger and a judge.

Second, the person feeling shame has an idea of norms and qualities and attributes knowledge of them to the other in whose presence the act was committed.

Finally, third, the cause of shame itself turns out to be failure, the collapse of hope that a person experiences in the presence of another. Their failure to meet the norm might cause sadness, but the presence of the one in whom they suspect hostility gives rise to precisely the feeling of shame.

The Concept of Shame __

Given all of the above, shame can be defined as a feeling of inadequacy that arises in a person in the presence of the person or persons with whom they share common ideas about their own qualities and norms of behavior, in a situation where they have failed to live up to those qualities and norms. Shame extends to the whole person. At the same time, the object of shame can be anything perceived as behavior or a state that is condemned by others. In Scripture: nakedness (Gen 3:7), self-confidence (Isa 65:14), placing more hope in people than in God (Isa 30:5), depravity (Rom 1:26, 6:21), violation of generally accepted traditions (1 Cor 11:4-6), refusal to fulfill one’s duties (2 Chr 30:15), poor upbringing of children (Prov 29:15), and even discussing sinful topics (Eph 5:12).

Shame arises as a feeling of alienation, as a fear of being rejected due to one’s failure to meet certain conditions established within the social context. This, in turn, means that shame may not arise in situations where the very conditions that must be met lose their significance. Thus, shame as a fear of losing status may not arise because the status itself turns out to be unimportant, due to the absence of a social environment—both real and potential. The greater the inner distance, the less a person is bothered by the “other’s” opinion of them[6]. However, the reverse situation is far more interesting, in which a person is confident of the unconditional acceptance of themselves by the other. The fear of being rejected due to a failure to meet status and certain expectations may not arise in a situation of trust and love. Moreover, unconditional love, which, in the words of St. Isaac the Syrian, knows no shame. It knows no shame precisely because, by trusting the one who loves, a person is not afraid of their own imperfection. This does not mean that imperfection ceases to be imperfection and does not need to be corrected; however, it may not lead to a rupture with God, but rather to a repentant turning to Him. However, as we know from the Book of Genesis, people not only refused repentance and reconciliation with the Creator, but also began to create their own communities, formulating their own conditions for communion and mutual acceptance, because “they walked in the counsel and stubbornness of their evil hearts” (Jer. 7:24).

It is noteworthy that shame, as a social phenomenon, is often associated with a sense of disgrace, that is, the public (nowadays exclusively condemnatory) gaze. Furthermore, it stands in opposition to such social concepts as glory and honor, which in traditional cultures were linked to a person’s social significance and the benefit they brought to society. For example, in the language of the Old Testament, the concept of כָּבוֹד (kāḇôḏ) did not simply mean fame and glory, but social significance and influence.

Classification of Shame __

Shame, as a complex phenomenon of inner life, can be viewed from various angles; however, one of the most important and obvious classifications is provided to us by Sacred Scripture itself. Thus, Jesus, son of Sirach, says: “There is a shame that leads to sin, and there is a shame that is glory and grace” (Sirach 4:25).

The very fact of distinguishing between true and false shame is very important. As has already been said, shame is a subjective emotion. It undoubtedly arises under the influence of external circumstances, but a person’s conceptions of the norm and the desire to conform to that norm are of decisive importance. A person raised in a particular tradition may not feel shame when encountering norms of other communities, considering themselves and their tradition to be entirely self-sufficient. Furthermore, the modern world, with its respect for diverse traditions and cultures and its conviction that all are valuable in their own way, may perceive shame as something erroneous, as a stigmatization of oneself and a reluctance to see one’s own value even in imperfection. In contrast to modern trends, in which everything turns out to be relative, and the comparison of traditions—and especially their evaluation—is practically unacceptable, Scripture affirms a specific framework within which there is good and evil, right and wrong, as well as shameful and, conversely, praiseworthy actions. It is precisely this well-defined system of values that allows a devout Jew, such as Jesus, son of Sirach, to assert that one must not be ashamed of certain actions at all, because such shame would be frankly sinful, while shame for others is entirely appropriate, as it helps a person to renounce the path of unrighteousness. At the same time, both righteous and unrighteous shame can arise both before and after an action.

False Shame __

As has already been said, shame depends on what exactly a person considers the norm and what evaluation they expect from others. This means that it can arise from false attitudes, which may appear as a result of improper upbringing (Isa 5:20) or gradual moral degradation (1 Cor 15:33). Evidently, when a person finds themselves dependent on a sinful community and fears rejection, they feel ashamed of their possible failure to conform to false norms—which, of course, they do not consider false. In this case, the basis for the shame that leads to sin is flattery (Sir. 4:26; 20:22; 42:1,8).

Examples of false shame, which arises before an action and stops a person on the path of righteousness, prompting them to sin further, include the situation in which Herod Antipas placed himself, having promised Herodias to fulfill her desire and being ashamed to go back on his word at the very moment she demanded the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:26). However, such shame is possible in less obvious situations as well. Thus, the Savior says that He will be ashamed of those who are ashamed to show their discipleship before others (Luke 9:26). In this case, the point is that a person may fear disgrace in a society where the Christian faith or way of life is considered shameful. At the same time, the shame of Christ that He foretells for such a person is entirely in the tradition of Wisdom literature, in which God “mocks the blasphemers” (Prov 3:34). However, the point of this instruction is that God accepts a person’s attitude as their choice and, respecting the “proposed framework of the relationship,” treats the person in the same way.

Evidently, the willingness to appear ridiculous in the eyes of others for the sake of faithfulness to the Lord is found repeatedly even in the Old Testament. One need only recall Isaiah, who walked naked (Isa 20:2), or David, who leaped and danced before the Ark of the Covenant (2 Sam 6:20–21). For the latter, his wife’s words and the shamefulness of his actions become a reason for even greater self-abasement for the sake of rejoicing in the Lord. A person who goes against false shame may appear shameless and even feel an inner discomfort that he must struggle with, but David is confident that through this he “will be glorified.”

After Pentecost, the apostles were not ashamed to be disciples of Christ and called upon the all disciples to do the same (1 Pet 4:16). The foundation of their boldness was not merely self-confidence or indifference to the opinions of others, but true knowledge of the One “in whom they believed” (2 Tim 1:12) and of the saving fruits that this faith produces (Rom 1:16). Among apologists, false shame is perceived as a kind of challenge from the world, which they accept and do not fear. Thus, in defending his belief in the resurrection before a pagan society for which the body was a prison, Tertullian writes that he is ready, having cast aside shame, to be “happily shameless and salvifically foolish” ([7]).

False shame, which arises after performing a good deed, is much rarer. Perhaps we can recall the example of the Apostle Peter, who, upon arriving in Antioch, initially associated with Christians of Gentile origin, but after the arrival of Jewish Christians from the Jerusalem community, changed his behavior (Gal 2:11–13). However, such shame arises much more frequently in the minds of criminally-minded people, who perceive their kindness as weakness.

True Shame __

Unlike false shame, saving shame helps a person rise up against sin. At the same time, like false shame, it can arise both before the act itself—thus preventing a person from committing it—and afterward, serving as the cause of repentance for what has been done. Often, the circumstances in which saving shame arises may seem external to the person. It is as if they are not so much ashamed of themselves as they are compelled to feel shamed, and humiliated. In reality, of course, while external influences do contribute to shame—being God’s care for the sinner—they by no means guarantee repentance. From a formal standpoint, an apostle who suffers for Christ but does not feel disgraced or humiliated in his hope is no different from a Jew who suffers because he has put his trust in a false god, having forsaken the true God. The issue lies not in the circumstances themselves, but in the inner stance a person takes. A sinner can persist even in the most difficult circumstances, refusing to acknowledge his shame, having forgotten about shame (Jer 3:3). The vineyard tenants in the parable continue to sin, even when the son comes to them, in front of whom they ought to be ashamed (Matt 21:37).

Thus, shame, which can lead to glory and grace, may precede an action or, conversely, may follow it.

However, before speaking of shame itself, we should turn to the state that precedes it. The righteous person who trusts in God does not allow the matter to become shameful, but asks for support so as not to be put to shame (Ps. 21:6, 24:3, 24:20, 30:2, 36:19, 1 John 2:28). Interestingly, the righteous person not only worries about not being put to shame himself, but also expresses the hope that he will not become the cause of shame for other righteous people (Ps. 68:7).

Often, the shame that precedes sin turns out to be a pedagogical measure that God uses to prevent a person’s fall. This is particularly evident in the prophecies that promise the people of Israel imminent disgrace and shame. The cause of this is their betrayal of the true God, for which the people are compared to a harlot (Isa. 47:3, Ezek. 23:29). Sometimes this pedagogy involves not so much preventing a fall as encouraging growth and a rejection of spiritual complacency. For example, Christ calls His disciples to humility, without which a person often finds themselves in shameful situations (Luke 14:9). Likewise, the Apostle Paul warns the Corinthians that if they are not generous, they will be ashamed to acknowledge their condition in the presence of other disciples (2 Cor. 9:4). However, sometimes a person is capable of experiencing shame that deters them from sin without being reminded of it. Thus, one might suspect that this explains the behavior of Shem and Japheth, who, fearing to bring shame upon their father, bashfully entered his tent backward and covered him without raising their eyes to him (Gen. 9:23).

Finally, the most common form of shame turns out to be the shame a person feels after committing a sin. Realizing their own inadequacy, a person may recognize the error of their chosen path and repent. However, as is known from the story of Adam and Eve, who were ashamed, repentance may not occur. A contrasting example is provided by Ezra, who, addressing God, says: “My God, I am too ashamed and afraid to lift up my face to You, my God, because our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has reached to the heavens” (Ezra 9:6). However, such depth of repentance is not accessible to everyone, and some need admonition similar to that which the apostle addresses to the Corinthians: “Come to your senses, as you ought, and do not sin; for, to your shame, I say that some of you do not know God” (1 Cor. 15:34). However, sometimes a righteous person, seeing another’s shamelessness, lacks the strength to rebuke them and can only marvel at such behavior (Job 19:3). In an attempt to bring his overly pious friends to their senses, Job asserts that sometimes external circumstances that seem shameful are not actually so. However, his friends do not listen and continue to insist that his disgrace is no accident. Just as Adam and Eve once did not believe in God’s love and saw Him as a stranger, so too do Job’s friends—those who were supposed to love him—prove unfaithful. Rebuking those from whom he expected support, Job compares them to streams of water that gradually dry up and deceive the hopes of travelers who lead their caravans to them, but “are put to shame in their hope; they come there and blush with shame” (Job 6:20). This last example shows that reproaches intended to evoke shame leading to repentance can come only from one who is able to look beyond external circumstances and penetrate to the depths of actions, seeing their true nature.

__

Contemporary views on shame

Updating our understanding of shame is extremely important because shame is a social emotion; to a large extent, how it is experienced depends on what is considered acceptable in a given society. The crux of the problem lies in the fact that in traditionally Christian communities, it is still customary to view shame as an important moral guide, even though social norms have changed significantly since the so-called sexual revolution. Traditionally, a person’s reference group was the society in which they lived. A peasant oriented himself toward “the world,” a nobleman toward “high society,” even though both groups, in many ways—though not in all—were guided by the Biblical commandments. For every person, the group they oriented themselves toward was equivalent to the society in which they lived. However, given the total secularization of all aspects of social life, for a believer, the society in which they live cannot serve as a reference group, because it is guided by the commandments only in part, often referring to norms of Christian origin as universal human values.

Traditionally, shame is perceived as a feeling close to conscience, whereas in reality it may be associated with non-compliance with any norms and qualities, including those unrelated to the realm of good and evil. Thus, a person may feel shame, believing that the quality of their life or their physical condition does not conform to what is generally accepted. This latter circumstance means that, as a subjective category, shame can be illusory, arising from mistaken beliefs. Furthermore, shame differs from “pangs of conscience” in that a person who feels ashamed evaluates negatively not so much individual actions as their entire self, losing a sense of their own worth and significance. At the same time, it is important to note that unlike other emotions (joy, fear, grief), which can be shared with others, shame creates a situation of rejection in which a person usually feels rejected, even if this rejection is imaginary. In turn, the fear of rejection can lead a person who does not wish to feel shame to strive to avoid it. In this case, the person conforms to the norms of their reference group, perceives this conformity as a virtue, and finds spiritual justifications for considering themselves right. Obviously, a person may act in this way while experiencing both types of shame—true and false. However, in the case of a Christian, the guiding principle for them should be not so much the norms of society as the commandments of Christ.

[1]__ Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Vol. II, p. 50

[2] Klein, E. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. 1987. p. 278

[3] Klein, E. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. 1987. p. 228.

[4] Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language / Compiled by A.K. Shaposhnikov : in 2 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow: Flint: Nauka, 2010. p. 392

[5]__Dal, V. I. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language. Vol. IV. Moscow, 1956. p. 347

[6] A fine illustration of such a situation is the proverb: “I won’t baptize my children with him,” which means that since a person does not expect to have a close relationship with someone, they can afford to disregard that person’s opinion entirely.

[7] Tertullian , Selected Works: Translated from Latin / Edited and compiled by A. A. Stolyarov. — Moscow: Progress and Kultura Publishing Group, 1994 — p. 166.

  • The Natural Moral Law and the General Structure of Moral Consciousness
  • Experience of shame
  • Conscience as a Phenomenon of Moral Life

Moral consciousness is a person’s ability to perceive themselves as a rational, free, responsible—and moral—being. In various ethical concepts, the structure and content of moral consciousness is described differently. Generally speaking, the structure includes shame and conscience, while the content includes norms and qualities at everyday level, as well as principles and values at a theoretical level.

As mentioned at the beginning of the course, the moral sphere is about what is right and wrong. In a direct relation to existence and the real world, it is, in a certain sense, similar to biology, although its laws do not operate quite so straightforwardly. The laws of physics or chemistry operate inevitably, because they are determined by one another. The laws of biology are in many ways similar to the laws of physics and chemistry, yet they operate at a different level of organization, which is called life. In science, life is defined as the form of existence of protein bodies, but it is quite evident that reducing it to simple physical or chemical interactions is impossible. Moreover, regardless of the level of consciousness, life is perceived as a value that every living being strives to preserve. At the animal level, there are instincts that influence their behavior, dividing all actions into those that are conditionally proper or necessary for the preservation and development of life, and those that are conditionally improper or dangerous, leading to illness and death.

However, as far as we know, animals do not possess consciousness or, at the very least, self-awareness; therefore, their behavior is not described as moral, ethical, or virtuous. Their actions are unconscious and subjugated, which means they bear no responsibility for them. Indirectly, with the fact that God does not set absurd and meaningless tasks before man, we can understand that man is capable of the activity for which he was created, that is, he possessed consciousness, will, and freedom. At the same time, his physical, that is, biological life, was characterized by the same processes that are characteristic of any living being: the cells of his body fed and divided; this process was natural and uncontrolled. God allows man to eat from the trees of paradise, from which we can conclude that all physiological processes inherent in the human body are natural and good, since God created the world “very good” (Gen. 1:31). At the same time, two circumstances must be taken into account. On the one hand, we must remember that the paradisiacal state of man is described in non-scientific, but poetic and prophetic language and refers to man before the Fall, so that all our reasoning must be understood in light of the limitations of our knowledge. On the other hand, man was created from the dust of the earth as the head of the material world. Uniting the earthly and the heavenly within himself, he was part of this world, although, thanks to the spirit, he was incomparably higher than all that is material.

The Natural Moral Law

The very definition of the moral law as natural directly points to its deep roots in human nature. As a being created in the image of the good Triune God, he is by nature inclined toward the good, so that love and indeed every virtue can in principle be called ontologically necessary for him.

Turning to Holy Scripture, it is worth noting that in this case the term “natural” has a specifically biblical origin. Speaking of the Gentiles, who, though ignorant of the Old Testament law, act in accordance with it, the Apostle Paul writes that they “do by nature what the Law requires” (Romans 2:14), because “the work of the Law is written on their hearts” (Romans 2:15). It is noteworthy that a similar idea is present in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, in which he writes: “A man of good character and of noble birth will conduct himself as if he were his own law”[1]. Returning to the apostle’s thought, it is worth noting that there can be no question of the Gentiles knowing the law in its entirety. Moreover, from the very beginning, this natural law was not sufficient for living according to God’s will. This is evident from the fact that even before the Fall in Paradise, God did not direct Adam toward the innate law, but gave him commandments. In a similar way, after the Flood, the commandments were given to Noah, from whom all people received them.

Traditionally, the natural moral law is defined as “a rule that obliges a person to good intentions and actions by the power of his own moral sense”[2]. In this definition, it is important to emphasize that we are not speaking of knowledge, but specifically of a sense that moves a person beyond his intellectual convictions.

A person possessing free will can act in accordance with nature, or contrary to it; that is, they can be good or evil. Unlike animals, which act instinctively and cannot normally go against their nature, a person acts consciously. They may err by setting the wrong goal for themselves, or strive toward the right goal using the wrong means. All of this undoubtedly relates to their moral consciousness, which is perfectly illustrated by the second and third chapters of Genesis, where we encounter the mention of shame, which is the simplest and most ancient form of human moral self-assessment.

[1] Nicomachean Ethics IV, 14

[2] Yanishchev, I.L., Prot. Orthodox Teaching on Morality. St. Petersburg, 1906. pp. 54–55.

Graph View

Backlinks