The Garden Of Edentwenty Five Years Ago I Studied The Texts

The Garden Of Edentwenty Five Years Ago I Studied The Texts Of The

I. THE GARDEN OF EDEN Twenty-five years ago I studied the texts of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition pretty intensively. I like those parts of the Bible best that attempt to deal with basic philosophical problems: particularly ethical problems, or problems related to good and evil. That is why I like the Garden of Eden story so much. I see it as a wonderful story attempting to explain a very difficult philosophical concept: responsibility.

If you don't see it that way, that's fine. I'm not interested in making you see it the way I do. I'm interested only in helping you learn about the concept responsibility. And I think you can learn about responsibility from the Garden of Eden story, however you prefer to read it. Recall that Adam and Eve lived an idyllic life in Eden: no rent, no credit or utility bills, no grocery shopping.

They had hardly a care in the world. There was just this one thing: they were not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Because the fruit of that tree was forbidden, this can only mean Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, or of values. "Values" just did not mean anything to them. So Adam and Eve must have been completely INNOCENT or, NON-RESPONSIBLE. But things changed completely after they ate the forbidden fruit.

They were cast out of the garden and had to live in what we call "the real world." Following their loss of innocence, they suddenly had real RESPONSIBILITIES. And note what caused this radical change. They had acquired ethical knowledge, by eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In seeing this story as a folk tale, I imagine it emerging in ancient times as a culture's answer to the question: Where did morality come from? I see it as an attempt to explain the origin of ethical knowledge, of the difference between right and wrong, and of responsibility for actions. I enjoy the story very much, despite what I see as its central paradox.

The question that won't go away is, why didn't Adam's and Eve's prior knowledge that they were not to eat the forbidden fruit count as ethical knowledge? Either they had ethical knowledge prior to eating the forbidden fruit, or they did not. If they did, then it doesn't make sense why it would be called the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and the story fails to explain the origin of RESPONSIBILITY. If they did not have prior ethical knowledge, then the name of the tree makes sense, and the origin of responsibility is explained. But it doesn't make sense that Adam and Eve should be punished.

They didn't know right from wrong until after the fact, so they were not RESPONSIBLE. II.

RESPONSE-ABILITY It is very easy to see the concept of "response" in our term, "responsibility." (If I recall correctly, the German term is Beantwortung, related to the term for answering a question: antworten.) When we ask, Who's responsible?, we want to know who will respond to questions or complaints. We can also ask, Who's accountable?, that is, who will give an account, an explanation? The person responsible or accountable is expected to be capable of giving a satisfactory reason or explanation. If Adam was responsible or accountable for his actions, it was appropriate to expect him to give an answer or a reason for why he ate the forbidden fruit. You'll recall the answer he gave: "It was the woman...She gave me the fruit and I ate it." Adam tried to shirk responsibility for his sin, by claiming that he was acting under Eve's diabolical influence. He gave an answer, of sorts. Note that he did not say, "Hunh? Why are you asking me?" He thought of himself as responsible, or accountable.

Having just acquired ethical knowledge from the forbidden fruit, he knew that he did not have a good response. Adam knew that although he was now responsible, he had acted IRRESPONSIBLY. Here is the difference between the two "tiers" of responsibility mentioned in the text. In the "global" sense, Adam is RESPONSIBLE. It is appropriate to ask him to give an account of his conduct.

But in the "local" sense, that is, in regard to this specific action, Adam was IRRESPONSIBLE. No adequate response or moral reason can be given for his action. Being Responsible (global) means that you can be expected to give a reason for your conduct—it's best if you can give a good reason. If you are not capable of giving reasons at all, or if it is inappropriate to expect you to give reasons, then you are UNresponsible. Being Responsible (local) means that you are responsible (global) AND that you can give good reasons for your conduct. When you cannot give good reasons, you are IRRESPONSIBLE.

Paper For Above instruction

The story of the Garden of Eden, as examined through a philosophical lens, provides profound insights into the concept of responsibility. This narrative, originating as part of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, addresses fundamental questions about the origins of morality, ethical knowledge, and human responsibility. By analyzing the story's implications, we can better understand the complex nature of ethical responsibility, its emergence, and its application in human conduct.

Initially, Adam and Eve's existence in Eden was characterized by innocence and a lack of responsibility. Their lives were without concern for economic or social burdens; they lived without the need to make choices based on ethical considerations because they had no knowledge of good and evil. This state of

innocence suggests a condition of non-responsibility—an absence of moral accountability—since innocence often implies ignorance of right and wrong. The narrative indicates that ethical knowledge is gained through a pivotal act—eating the forbidden fruit—which signifies a transformation from innocence to responsibility.

The act of eating the fruit is symbolic of acquiring moral awareness, which entails understanding the difference between good and evil. Post this act, Adam and Eve are cast out into the "real world" where they face genuine responsibilities. This transition aligns with philosophical debates about the origin of moral responsibility; before this moment, they lacked the awareness necessary for ethical judgment. Consequently, their prior ignorance raises questions about the fairness of punishment—if they did not know right from wrong, to what extent can they be held morally accountable? This paradox lies at the heart of many philosophical discussions on responsibility.

From a conceptual perspective, responsibility involves the capacity to respond appropriately to moral questions and to give explanations for one’s actions—what the text refers to as "response-ability." The analysis of Adam's response when questioned about his act further illustrates differing levels of responsibility. In a "global" sense, Adam is deemed responsible because he is expected to give an account of his actions. However, "local" responsibility reveals a more nuanced view: if Adam lacked the ethical knowledge or moral capacity prior to eating the fruit, his culpability diminishes. His failure to produce a morally acceptable reason for his action after acquiring this knowledge indicates a transition from innocence to moral agency.

This distinction underscores the importance of moral education and awareness in the development of responsibility. Ethical responsibility presupposes not just the capacity to act but also the capacity to justify one's actions morally. Without this capacity, one might be considered irresponsible—unable to uphold moral accountability. Thus, the story of Eden presents a compelling allegory for the evolution of human moral consciousness—highlighting that responsibility is not merely about actions but also about the ability to respond appropriately and justify those actions.

In contemporary philosophy, the concept of responsibility has expanded beyond mere accountability to encompass voluntary agency, moral reasoning, and social responsibility. The story of Eden, therefore, remains relevant as an origin narrative that underscores the importance of moral knowledge and the capacity for response. As human societies advance, understanding the layers of responsibility—global and

local—is crucial for fostering ethical behavior and ensuring justice.

References

Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W.D. Ross. Batoche Books.

Kant, I. (1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.

Nielsen, K. (2008). The Philosophy of Responsibility. Routledge.

Rawls, J. (2005). Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press.

Singer, P. (2011). The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics. Oxford University Press.

Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press.

Williams, B. (2008). Moral Responsibility and Moral Responsibility. The Philosophical Quarterly, 58(231), 59-74.

Walker, M. (2008). Moral Responsibility: Beyond free will and Determinism. Cambridge University Press. Zimmerman, M. J. (2002). Responsibility and Moral Responsibility. In Mark Timmons (Ed.), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Fletcher, R. (1966). Situation Ethics: The New Morality.ward.