AldenBrown
Dr.Martinez
SeniorThesis
2March2026
WrongForTheeButNotForMe:TheInadequacyoftheBible’s MoralGuidance
Foraslongasithasexisted,Christianityhaspositioned itselfasafoundationalsourceofmorality,socialvalues,and overallguidanceforhumanity.Overtimeithasinfluencednotonly individualandcollectivebeliefs,butalsogreatersocietiesandhow theyhavebeenshaped.Incontemporarysociety,Christianity continuestobeintroducedindebatesoflaw,politics,and philosophy,asasourceofmoralinstruction.However,makingthe assertionthatanybeliefsystemoffersobjectivityinitsmoral systemopensthedoorforscrutinyofitsclaims,particularlyin relationtothewayauthorityandhierarchyareinvolvedwithinthat tradition.Christianity’sprimarysourceofmoraltruthandguidance istheBible,giventhatitisunderstoodtoreflectGod’swill.The textservesasafoundationformoralreasoning,asitoffersrules, principles,andguidingstories.ThisfactmeansthattheBibleisthe perfectobjectofstudywhentryingtodecipherthelegitimacyof Christianity’sassertionofobjectivemoralauthority.More specifically,mygoalinparticularistoanswerthisquestion:isthe Bibleaviablesourceofobjectivemorality?Evenmoreprecisely, isthatevenpossibleifGod,themainauthorityfigureintheBible, isexemptfromhisownlaws.Inordertoanswerthisquestion,itis necessarytofirstunderstandwhatobjectivemoralityevenis,and thestandardsbywhichitcanbeevaluated.Therearemany possiblecriteriatodefinethisconcept,butthethreemost importantIhavediscoveredinmyresearchandchosentopursue aretherequirementsofuniversality,consistency,andknowability. Thatis,inorderformoralitytobeobjective,itmustapplytoall beingsequallywithoutexception,beharmoniousand
noncontradictory,andbeunderstandablebythosewhomustfollow it.Then,withthesebenchmarksinmind,therecanbean explorationoftheBibleitselfwithacriticaleye,namelythe actionsofGod.Godmustfirstbeestablishedto be amoral lawmaker,andoncethereissufficientevidenceofthisfact,suchas theTenCommandmentsandtheteachingsofJesus,itistherefore possibletoassessinstancesinwhichGod’sactionsdonotalign withhisownmoralcommandments,inparticularexamplesthatgo againstmoralityitself.Finally,Iwillbeabletoaddressthe commonphilosophicaldefensesofGodandhisactions,alongwith thelimitationsofdivinemoraldeclarationsforhumanmorality.By establishingthestandardsofobjectivemorality,thispapercan analyzetheBibleanditsportrayalofGod,layingthefoundation forevaluatingthemisalignmentbetweendivineauthorityandthese standardsofmoralobjectivity.Thisthesisarguesthatalthough ChristianitypresentstheBibleasasourceofobjectivemoral guidance,actualBiblicalmoralityfailstomeettherequirementsof objectivity.DuetothefactthatGodservesasthesuprememoral authoritywhileremainingexemptfromhisownlaws,theBible’s moralsystemcannotbeuniversal,consistent,orfullyknowable. Instead,Biblicalmoralityfunctionsasahierarchicaland authoritariansystemgroundedintheideaofdivineexemption.
Inordertoarguethemoralityorimmoralityofaparticular subject,theremustfirstbeanestablisheddefinitionofmorality, especiallyifsaidsubjectclaimstobeasourceofobjective morality.Commonly,moralityisdefinedas“principlesconcerning thedistinctionbetweenrightandwrongorgoodandbadbehavior” (“Morality”).Whilethisdefinitioncoversmoralityinabroad sense,philosophicalperspectivesareabletoofferadeeperinsight, aswellasadefinitionofobjectivemorality.Forexample, ImmanuelKantarguesthatmoralityisonlyobjectiveifitis derivedfromreason,notbypersonalexperienceorconsequences. Accordingtohim,moralactionmustbeinconcordancewith
principlesthatareabletobeuniversalizedforittobeobjective (Schönecker).Beyondphilosophy,moralityisalsoinvolvedinthe lawinanattempttocreateasharedmoralframeworkacrossthe world.TheRomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt assertsthatcertainactsareuniversallyacknowledgedtobewrong withoutexception.Thisincludes,butisnotlimitedto,genocide, enslavement,gender-basedcrimes,warcrimes,andothersuch crimesagainsthumanity(RomeStatute).Thefactthatthese standardsareappliedinternationallyandwithoutexceptionreflects howhavinganyinequalityinwhotheypertaintotakesawayfrom itsmeaningfulness.Thesestandardsmatterbecauseifamoral systemexemptsitsownauthorityfigure,itcannotplausiblyclaim objectivity.
Thefirstoftheidentifiablestandardsforanobjectivemoral systemistherequirementofuniversality.Thisdesignatesthatrules formoralitymustapplytoeveryone,regardlessofpersonalfactors suchaswealth,identity,status,oranotherdistinguishingelement. Kant’sfundamentalmoralprincipleisthe“Categorical Imperative",whichhedescribesas“actonlyonthatmaxim throughwhichyoucanatthesametimewillthatitshouldbecome auniversallaw”(Kant24).Kantarguesthat“ifwearetospeak meaningfullyofmoralprinciplesatall,thentheseprinciplesmust bebindingforallrationalbeings(universallybinding) unconditionallyandwithoutexception(necessarilybinding)”, whichmeansmorallawsareonlyvalidiftheycanbeapplied universallywithoutexceptionorcontradiction (Kant16).Ifa morallawisnotequalforeveryone,thenitceasestofunctionasan objectiveprincipleandbecomeshierarchicalandconditional.This pertainsparticularlytosystemsinwhichthereisasignificant authorityfigurewho,atthesametime,establishesthemoral framework,andisalsoexemptfromadherencetoit.Moralsystems thatallowforexceptionsbasedonpowerfailtomeetthestandards oftheirownclaimtoobjectivity,asitisnolongeruniversal.In
particular,anymoralsysteminwhichthelawgiverisexemptfrom thelawthereforefailstherequirementofuniversality.
Thesecondstandardforobjectivityistherequirementof consistency.Thisassertsthatmoralrulescannotcontradict themselves,forexample,ifanauthorityfiguredecreeskillingtobe unlawful,butonlywhenitisn’ttheauthorityfigurecommittingthe act,thenthelawisnolongerobjectivelymoral.Foramoralruleto beconsistent,itmustapplyequallyacrosscomparablesituations; actionscannotbemoralsolelybasedonwhoauthorizesorcarries themout.ThisparticularissueisarguedinPlato’s Euthyphro,in whichthequestionisposed“isanactionrightbecauseitis commandedbythegods,ordothegodscommanditbecauseitis right”(qtd.inMisselbrook).Itillustratesthatifmoralrulesrelyon adeity’sauthority,ratherthanonsetprinciples,thentheylosetheir consistency,andcancreateaneasyentryforhypocrisy.Platoalso observesthat“thesamethingswillbehatedbythegodsandloved bythem;thesamethingswouldalikedispleaseandpleasethem” (Plato,176)whichhighlightstheinherentinconsistenciesthat occurwhenmoralityisnotdependentonfixedprinciples,but insteadthewhimsofdivineorauthoritarianfigures.Ifmoralityis reliantoncontradictoryjudgmentsofanauthorityfigure,the systemcannotbedeemedobjective.Thisconnectsbacktothe RomeStatute,whichwascreatedinordertoestablishglobal ethicalconsistency.Ifexceptionstosuchrulesareofferedtothose inpositionsofpower,themoralandlegallegitimacyofsaidrules iscompletelyundermined.Inananalysisof Euthyphro,P.T.Geach argues“nocommonwealthwillholdtogetherwithoutagreatdeal ofmoralconsensus;ifeveryonemadeuphisownmoralityby"free decision"and,asintheBookofJudges,everymandidthatwhich wasrightinhisowneyes,thensocietywoulddisintegrate”(Geach 374).Hispointemphasizesthatmoralconsensus(consistency)is necessaryforsociety’sstability.Intheabsenceofconsistently appliedandagreeduponrules,structurebreaksdown.This
reinforcestheimportanceofconsistencyasastandardofobjective morality,becausemoralitywithexceptionsorcontradictory moralityfails.Ifmoraljudgementsdependontheactorratherthan onwhatisactuallydone,consistencycrumbles.
Thefinalstandardforobjectivemoralityistherequirement ofactionability,orknowability.Morallawmustbeunderstandable andfollowablebyreason,andthereforemoralobligationis meaninglessifitisbeyondthecomprehensionofthosefollowing thesystem.Ifthereasoningofanauthorityfigureisoutsideof humanunderstanding,humanscannotbeheldresponsiblefor beingabletofollowthatreasoning.ThisideacomesfromKant, whostatesthatmoralityisgroundedinhumanreasonasopposed todivineauthority.InananalysisofKant’swriting,Dieter Schöneckerwrites“neithernaturenorindeedGodistheoriginor groundofthebindingforceofthemorallaw.Forthisgroundis purepracticalreasonalone”(Schönecker22).Thissupportsthe ideathatmorallawmustbeknowable,becauseifitisdependent onadeityoragreaterforce,itisoutsidetherealmofhuman understanding,andthereforenotmorallybindingtohumans.He alsosays‘“Fromwhatwehaveadduceditisclearthatallmoral conceptshavetheirseatandoriginfullyaprioriinreason”’ (Schönecker(Kant),22).Theoriginofmoralconceptsmustbe reason,nototherforceslikedivinecommandorevenexperience. Theconceptsmustbeaccessibletoanyrationalbeing,andcannot bemysteriousorbeyondcomprehension.Amorallawthatcannot beunderstoodorjustifiedtothoseboundbyitcannotfunction objectively.
IfChristianityclaimsthattheBibleisasourceofobjective moralityandprovidessuchethicalguidance,thenGod,asthe morallawmaker,andHisactions,mustactaccordinglywiththe standardsofobjectivemorality-universality,consistency, knowability-asdescribedpreviously.
IntheBible,Godispresentedasanabsolutemoral authority,issuingcommandstobeunequivocallyobeyed,and holdinghumanityaccountabletothem.ObediencetoGodis framedasmoralrighteousness,whiledisobedienceisdefinedas sin,ormoralfailing.Thecommandsthatheoffershavenothingto dowiththeagreementorunderstandingofhumanity,butinstead aretobefollowedwithoutquestion.Hisindisputablemoral authorityisexplicitinpassagesoftheBiblesuchasinthe introductiontothedeclarationoftheTenCommandments,where heproclaims,“IamtheLordyourGod”(Exodus20:2).This positionshimtobethesingularsourceofmoralguidancefor humanity,thelawgiverandtheenforcer,especiallygiventhat directlyafterthisquote,hedeclaresthelawsforhumanity.This alignswiththephilosophicalconceptcalledDivineCommand Theory,whichassertsthatmoralcorrectnessisdecidedsolelyby Godandhiscommands(Adams).
TheTenCommandmentsserveasaconcretesetof guidelinesforhumanity’smoralitywhichcomedirectlyfromGod, withtheintenttoguidehumanbehaviorandestablishrightfrom wrong.Theycoverhumanity’sdutiestoGod,suchas“youshall notworshipthemorservethem;forI,theLORDyourGod,ama jealousGod,visitingtheiniquityofthefathersonthechildren,on thethirdandthefourthgenerationsofthosewhohateMe,but showinglovingkindnesstothousands,tothosewholoveMeand keepMycommandments”(Exodus20:5-6),displayinghowGod’s commandsarenotoptionalandheexpectsobedience.The principleisthathumanshaveadutytoworshipGod,andfailureto dosocarriesthethreatofpunishment,creatingthebasisofa standardofobjectivemoralitybasedinGod’sauthority,putting Godintotheroleassolemorallawmaker.Itisalsosignificantthat hecommandsdirectlyagainstmurder,theft,andthecovetingof thingsoutsideofyourpossession.Mostimportantly,theyare explicitdirectivesfromGodtobeunconditionallyfollowed.The
rulesapplytoallhumanswithoutexception,thereforebecoming universalstandardsofwhatismoralandwhatisnot.Notonlydoes Godcommandtheselawsintoexistence,buthealsoisthesingular truejudgetoenforcethem.TheseCommandmentsillustratethe factofGodbeinganabsolutemorallawgiver.
Beyondsimplygivingdecrees,theBibleportraysGodas theultimateauthority,whoenforceshumanadherencetohislaws. ThisroleisestablishedatthebeginningoftheBiblewiththe introductionofAdamandEve,inwhichGoddeliversaclearmoral command,tonoteatthefruit,andwarnsthatdisobediencecarries consequence(Genesis2).WhenAdamandEvedoinevitably partakeinthefruit,Goddeliversonthepromiseofpunishmentfor theirmoraltransgression(Genesis3).Morallawisnotonly declaredbyGodaslawmaker,buthealsoprovidesretribution whenthislawisbroken,whichalsoframeshimasthejudgeof morality,holdinghumanitytoastandardthatheisthesolecreator andenforcer.
IntheNewTestament,God’smoralhierarchyiscontinued throughJesus,whospeakswithdivineauthorityinordertodefine moralrighteousness,reinforcingandexpandinguponGod’s previouslyexplainedethicalsystem.Jesusisshowntohavemoral authorityintheSermonontheMount,inwhichhedeliversthe Beatitudes.Inthispassage,Jesusdeclareswhoismorally “blessed”accordingtothestandardsofferedbyGod,which establishescriteriaforbeingmoral.Forexample,hestates, “blessedarethemerciful,fortheyshallreceivemercy”(Matthew 5:7).ThisquoteconnectsalignmentwithGod’smoralsystemto thepromiseofrewardanddivineapproval.Goodmoralityis determinedbyagreementwiththestandardsarticulatedbyGod throughJesus,ratherthanbyhumanreason,rationality,orsocial agreement.
ThroughouttheBible,God’smoralauthorityispresented asabsoluteandunquestionable,unaccompaniedbyethical
reasoningorrationaljustification.Thismoralsystemisrootedin God’ssovereigntyandhumanity’sobedience.Thisframingis madeparticularlyexplicitintheNewTestament,inwhichany attempttoquestionGod’scompleteauthorityisswiftlyrejected.In Romans,Goddeclares,“...whoareyou,Oman,whoanswersback toGod?Thethingmoldedwillnotsaytothemolder,‘Whydid youmakemelikethis,’willit?”(Romans9:20).Thisverse perfectlyillustratesthewaythatGodestablisheshisabsolute authorityoverhumanitybylikeningthemtoamindless,moldable objectsuchasclay,dismissingtheirabilitytoquestionandthink forthemselves,describingcreaturesofpureobedience.
Collectively,theseexamplesdemonstrateGodbeingthe solesource,enforcer,andjudgeofmorallawwithintheBible. Moralitystemsfromdivineordainment,andisinherently hierarchicalandauthoritativeoverhumanity.Thissystemhas everythingtodowithobediencetoGod,ratherthanbeing groundedinhumanrationality.Therefore,iftheBibleistobe understoodasasourceofobjectivemorality,theactionsofGod himselfmustalsobeconcurrentwithandevaluatedbythemoral standardshecommands.
Byestablishingthecriteriaforobjectivemorality,and settingupGodasamorallawmaker,itcannowbeexamined whetherornottheBible’sdepictionofGodactuallyadherestohis ownmoralstandardsinpractice,inordertoprovewhetherornotit isplausibleforthissystemtoclaimobjectivity.Oneofthemost prominentexamplesofGod’sactionsdivergingfromhisown principlesistheFlood,asthisparticularinstanceconflictswiththe moralprohibitionagainstkilling.InExodus,Godestablishes murder-theintentionalkillingofhumans-tobewrongwithout exception,proclaimingstraightforwardly,“youshallnotmurder” (Exodus20:13).ThisisaccompaniedbyhisdeclarationinGenesis that,“‘whoevershedsman'sblood,Bymanhisbloodshallbe shed,ForintheimageofGodHemademan’”(Genesis9:6).In
bothoftheseverses,thereisnoreferencetoanyexceptiontothe rulings,nordoesGodstatethathehimselfisnotincludedinthem. ItisdistinctlyshownthatGodunambiguouslycondemnsthe takingofhumanlifeasmorallyreprehensible.Hegroundsthis prohibitionintheinnatevalueofhumanlife,consequentlyframing thetakingofittobefundamentallyincompatiblewithmoral righteousness.
Inreferencebacktothedefinitionofobjectivemorality, moralstandardscannotbeselectivelyapplied,asintheymustbe universal,withoutlosingtheirobjectivity.Moralrulesthatdon’t bindtheirsourceceasetofunctionobjectively.ThereforeifGodis exemptfromhiscommandedmoralprohibitions,Biblicalmorality becomesahierarchicalsystem,giventhatGodispresentedasthe ultimatemorallawmaker.
InthenarrativeoftheFlood,Godisdepictedto deliberatelyenactthelarge-scaledestructionofhumanlife.He states,“theLORDsaid,‘IwillblotoutmanwhomIhavecreated fromthefaceoftheland,frommantoanimalstocreepingthings andtobirdsofthesky;forIamsorrythatIhavemadethem.’” (Genesis6:7).Hedescribestheintentional,completedestructionof anentirepopulationbasedonnothingmorethanhisowndesireto doso,causingthedeliberate,totaleradicationofapeople.When Goddoesnotlikesomething,hesimplyremovesitfromexistence inanactofretribution.God’sdeclarationisvaluableduetothe factthatitindicatedpremeditation.
TheFloodisnotanunfortunateconsequenceofnatural forces,norisitevenanecessarypunishmentdoledoutbyhumans undertheestablishedmoralsystem.Becausethereisspecificintent tokill,thisactcanbeunderstoodasmorallyculpablekillingthatis condemnedelsewhereinthescripture.Intent,scale,andauthority donotnegateanact.FortheactualactoftheFlood,thetextreads, “allfleshthatmovedontheearthperished,birdsandcattleand beastsandeveryswarmingthingthatswarmsupontheearth,and
allmankind;ofallthatwasonthedryland,allinwhosenostrils wasthebreathofthespiritoflife,died.ThusHeblottedoutevery livingthingthatwasuponthefaceoftheland,frommanto animalstocreepingthingsandtobirdsofthesky,andtheywere blottedoutfromtheearth”(Genesis7:21-23).Thisverseremoves anypossibleambiguityabouttheextentofthedestructionbeing selective.Inconcordancewithoneanother,thesetwopassages displayGodintentionallyanduniversallyeradicatinghumanlifein directviolationofthemorallegislationhehimselfputinplace.As inanearlierpoint,ifrulesformoralityapplyonlytotheiragents andnottotheircreator,thesystemofBiblicalmoralitysimply cannotbeconsideredobjective,andisauthoritarianinstead.
AnothercrucialinstanceinwhichGodviolateshisown moralstructureoccursintheBookofJob,inwhichsufferingis inflictedonamorallyinnocentpersonwithoutanykindof justification,presentingadirectchallengetotheconsistencyand knowabilityofBiblicalmorality.Throughoutthescripture,God establishesasystemofmoralitywhereinrighteousnessis rewarded,andwrongdoingispunished.Asenseofconsistencyis createdunderthisframework,thatmoralbehaviordirectly correspondstooutcomeandwhatisreceivedinreturn.InMatthew, Jesus-asthevoiceofGod-decrees,“‘blessedarethosewho hungerandthirstforrighteousness,fortheyshallbesatisfied’” (Matthew5:6),meaningquitedirectlythatmoralstrivingis presentedasleadingtoreward,withtheinclusionofsubtextthatif youdonot“hungerandthirst”formoralrighteousness,youwill notreceiveareward,andperhapsinsteadbegiventheoppositeof one.ThisisalsostatedtobethecaseinDeuteronomy,inwhich Goddeclarestheblessingsonewillreceiveiftheyareobedient, andconversely,thecursesthatwillcomeuponyouifyoudonot obey,asspokenhere,“‘butitshallcomeabout,ifyoudonotobey theLORDyourGod,toobservetodoallHiscommandmentsand HisstatuteswithwhichIchargeyoutoday,thatallthesecurses
Brown11 willcomeuponyouandovertakeyou’”(Deuteronomy28:15). Godisdisplayingthedirectconnectionbetweenactionandresult, andteachinghumanitythatone’smoralrighteousnessisthe determiningfactorintheoutcomeoftheirchoices.
ButintheBookofJob,Jobhimselfisconveyedasmorally righteous,andmoreimportantly,innocent.Thetextstatesatthe verybeginningofthebook,“therewasamaninthelandofUz whosenamewasJob;andthatmanwasblameless,upright,fearing Godandturningawayfromevil”(Job1:1).Godhimselfeven affirmsJob’sgoodness,stating,“‘myservantJob?Forthereisno onelikehimontheearth,ablamelessanduprightman,fearing Godandturningawayfromevil’”(Job1:8).Thetextexplicitlythe possibilitythatJob’ssufferingisadirectresponsetohisownmoral failing.Butdespitetheemphasisonhisinnocence,Godgives explicitauthorizationforthedestructionofeverypartofJob exceptforhislifebySatan,anddoesnotsimplyallowsufferingto occurinamorallyneutralmanner.Godstartsoffbygiving permissiontoSatanasspoken,“thentheLORDsaidtoSatan, ‘Behold,allthathehasisinyourpower,onlydonotputforthyour handonhim.’SoSatandepartedfromthepresenceoftheLORD” (Job1:12).Here,GodhasauthorizedthemoraltestingofJobby destroyinghisearthlypossessionsandhisfamily,butnotJob himself.ButGodloosensSatan’srestrictionsfurther,inthat,“so theLORDsaidtoSatan,‘Behold,heisinyourpower,onlyspare hislife’”(Job2:6).NowSatanhaspermissiontolayhandsonJob, justtonotgosofarastokillhim.WhileSatanmaybethedirect enactorofJob’ssuffering,itisclearthatheonlyactswithdirect instructionfromGod,whodoesnotmerelyforeseeJob’ssuffering, butauthorizesit,establishesthelimit,andallowsittoproceed withouthesitancy.DuetothefactthatGodretainsultimate authority,themoralblameforwhathappenstoJobcannotbe displacedontoasubordinatebeing,inthiscaseSatan.Directly afterGodpermitsJob’ssuffering,Satanimmediatelycarriesout
hisopportunity,“thenSatanwentoutfromthepresenceofthe LORDandsmoteJobwithsoreboilsfromthesoleofhisfootto thecrownofhishead”(Job2:7).DespiteJob’sapparentmoral righteousness,hisoutcomemirrorsthatwhichBiblicalmorality wouldconsiderpunishment.ThefoundationalcorrelationGodhas previouslycreatedbetweenmoralbehaviorandconsequence collapses.
GodsaystoSatan,“‘...althoughyouincitedMeagainsthim toruinhimwithoutcause’”(Job2:3).Thetextitselfeliminatesany moraljustificationbyexplainingJobbeingruined“withoutcause”, removingmoralwrongdoingasanecessaryconditionforsuffering tooccur.Ifsufferingcanbeinflictedwithoutcauseunderthe scaffoldingofBiblicalmoralitydespitebeingpreviouslystatedto necessitatecause,thenmorallawlosesitsobjectivity,asitbreaks therequirementofconsistency.Thereisalsoacollapseofthe requirementofknowability,becausewhenJobseeksexplanation forwhathappenedtohim,Godrefusestoprovideone.Insteadof justifyinghisactions,Godinsteadchoosestoasserthisauthority, andemphasizeJob’sinferiority.InJob3,Joblamentsand questionshissuffering,andinJob38,Godresponds,“‘whoisthis thatdarkenscounselBywordswithoutknowledge?’”(Job38:2). Godexplicitlydismissesmoralinquiry,framingquestioningofhis actionsashumanignorance.ByaccusingJobof“darkening counsel”,Godimpliesthatmoralexaminationactuallyobscures thetruthinsteadofbringingittolight,removingethical questioningasafactorfromthemoralframeworkaltogether. Instead,Goddeclareshisownauthority,“‘wherewereyouwhenI laidthefoundationoftheearth?TellMe,ifyouhave understanding’”(Job38:4).God’sresponsecreatesan inaccessibilityinrelationtomoralreasoningforhumanity,which underminesthenecessityofknowabilityformoralobligation.If JobisunableornotpermittedtounderstandGod’sreasoning,then knowabilityisimpossible.TheBookofJobdemonstratesthatthe
Bible’smoralstructurecanbeenforcedoutsideoftherequirements ofconsistencyandknowability,andthereforenolongerfallsunder thenotionofobjectivity.Whenmoralinnocenceisnotenoughto protecthumanityfrompunishmentandsuffering,moralrules becomeindistinguishablefrombasicauthoritarianism.
AlthoughChristianitypresentstheBibleasasourceof objectivemoraltruth,theprecedinganalysisdemonstratesthatits moralframeworkfailsundertheveryrequirementsofobjectivity. Amoralsystemcannotbeuniversalifitshighestauthorityis exemptfromthelawsitcommands.Itcannotbeconsistentifmoral innocenceisinsufficientinshieldinghumanityfromsuffering. Finally,itcannotbeknowableifquestioningdivinejudgmentis condemnedasignoranceandinsignificant.Whenevaluatedby thesestandards,Biblicalmoralityisunabletofunctionasan objectiveethicalsystem,butinsteadasahierarchicalsystem.
Thisparticulardistinctionismorethanjustatheological discussion.Whenamoralsystemistreatedasuniversallybinding, whileexemptingitshighestfigurefromscrutiny,itestablishesa problematicmodelbasedontheideathatpowerdefines righteousness.Underthatideal,itisasmallsteptoframeharmas justice,orsufferingasdivinewill,andthingsthatarewithheldby theauthorityfigurearesimplyacceptedasthingswearenotable, orallowedtoknow.Thiscreatesanormalizationofsovereignty withoutanykindofchecks,balances,oraccountability,and objectivitybecomesindistinguishablefrombaselineobedience.
AppealingtoBiblicalmoralityisfrequentlyusedinthe modernworldtoinfluencesocialpolicies,legalarguments,and culturalnorms.Butifthesystemitselfisflawed,thenanimperfect modelofmoralityisbeingendorsedandfollowedtodirecthuman behavior.Whenauthorityistreatedasinherentlyrighteousand insulatedfromcriticism,itnolongersafeguardspeoplefrom injusticeifthatisnotthewillofthecentralfigureinpower.
Ultimately,thequestionisnotonlywhethertheBibleoffers objectivity,butwhethersocietiescanresponsiblyacceptanymodel ofmoraltruththatequatesauthoritywithabsolutetruth,especially insubstituteforethicalreasoning.Amoralitythatcannotmindits sourcecannotreasonablyalsobindhumanity.Otherwise,societies riskperpetuatinginequality,andsupportingharmthatexistsunder theguiseofvirtue.
Adams,RobertM. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. OxfordUniversityPress,1999.
Cooper,Lane.“EUTHYPHRO.” The Collected Dialogues of Plato, editedbyEdithHamiltonandHuntingtonCairns,Princeton UniversityPress,1961,pp.169–85.JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1c84fb0.11.
Geach,P.T.“PLATO’S‘EUTHYPHRO’:AnAnalysisand Commentary.” The Monist,vol.50,no.3,1966,pp.369–82. JSTOR,http://www.jstor.org/stable/27901650.
Kant,Immanuel.“GroundworkfortheMetaphysicofMorals.” JonathanBennett,1785.
“Morality.” Merriam-Webster,Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality.
Misselbrook,David.“TheEuthyphroDilemma.” British Journal of General Practice,vol.63,no.610,May2013,pp.263–263, https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13x667286.
“ReadtheNewAmericanStandardBibleFreeOnline.” Bible Study Tools,2024, www.biblestudytools.com/nas/#google_vignette.
RomeStatuteoftheInternationalCriminalCourt. International Criminal Court,July1998, https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-en g.pdf.
Schönecker,Dieter,etal.“Kant’sPreface:TheMetaphysicsof MoralsandtheStrategyoftheGroundwork.” Immanuel Kant’s
Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary, HarvardUniversityPress,2015,pp.1–31.JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0k9f.4.