Commandments and meta-commandments
There is a lot of silliness going on with the Ten Commandments,
especially with the people who seem to actually believe that the stone
tablets that Moses brought down had the commandments numbered with
Roman numerals. Or who don't even know that different branches of
Christianity number the commandments differently, since there is no
numbering the Bible and the commandments are immediately followed by a
bunch of other laws which are rather embarrassing from the modern
standpoint. Or who happily take family photos and other graven images.
However, few things are as silly as when someone claims that the Fifth Commandment (as a Finn who has diligently sat through the religion classes in school, I naturally use the Protestant numbering) "Thou shalt not kill", means that all killing is somehow forbidden. This idea often comes up in arguments against the death penalty. For anyone who has read the Old Testament or even has a cursory idea what is going on in there, the idea of God commanding all killing to be forbidden is nothing less than surreal. I can't speak a word of Hebrew, but having actually read the Old Testament, I am quite willing to believe that the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder".
It is strange that the people who translated the Bible to English made such a silly mistake. Even more curious is the fact the Finnish translators made the exact same mistake. I wonder if the same holds in other languages too. Next time the Bible is to be translated, perhaps somebody could gently hint the translators not to make the same mistake again.
There is another possible explanation, though, which when I realized it seemed obvious to me but which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else. (It is so much fun to be an original thinker.) Namely, if the commandment actually said "Thou shalt not murder", it would be a zero-information tautology the same way as the sentence "No bachelor is married".
As we all know, not every killing is a murder worthy of punishment, since some killings are perfectly good and acceptable since the killer has some acceptable reason for his act. For example, killing in self-defense or in war, or killing someone who wears clothes made out of two different materials or has killed the King's deer. In the set of all killings, some killings are unacceptable and said to be "murders". Since the concept of "murder" by definition entails that the act is forbidden, the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" would be as tautological as the commandment saying "Thou shalt not do forbidden things".
Perhaps a better form for the Fifth Commandment would therefore be "Thou shalt not kill without an acceptable reason", which is by definition exactly the same as "Thou shalt not murder", since murder is by definition a killing without an acceptable reason. Of course, you could say that there is same difference between these two alternatives as there is between the sentences "Clark Kent can fly" and "Superman can fly". But presenting the commandment in the form "...kill without an acceptable reason" would make the "absolute" nature of Biblical commandments more evident. Whenever a religious person claims to represent the absolute truth, he simply has reserved himself the subjective right to define what the words mean. But this game can be played both ways. If "murder" is a killing forbidden in the law, then abortion is not murder assuming that the law allows it. Of course, at this point a Christian might argue that God's law is above the secular law, and in God's law "murder" means "killing an innocent", but this is merely a trick to secretly sneak the necessary subjectivity to the definition of "innocent". And so on.
The other commandments don't seem to have the same problem, except the seventh, "Thou shalt not steal", which is by definition the same as "Thou shalt not take things whose taking is forbidden" or "Don't take things unless you have an acceptable reason to do so". But if we start on this road, then instead of ten commandments, you would only need one: "Don't do anything without an acceptable reason that makes this act to be not forbidden." Despite being a tautology, this commandment would cover all possible situations that a person may encounter during his life. It's too bad that such a commandment does not appear anywhere in the Bible, since it would really bring in the point of how God's commandments are absolute compared to all kinds of relativism and situational ethics. The only real difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that whereas a moral absolutist says "If A, then X", a moral relativist says "If A and B and not-C, then X or Y unless Z".
As an end note, where exactly in the Bible is the commandment that says that the Ten Commandments must be obeyed? And where is the commandment that says that the previous commandment must be obeyed? And so on, in an infinite regression.
However, few things are as silly as when someone claims that the Fifth Commandment (as a Finn who has diligently sat through the religion classes in school, I naturally use the Protestant numbering) "Thou shalt not kill", means that all killing is somehow forbidden. This idea often comes up in arguments against the death penalty. For anyone who has read the Old Testament or even has a cursory idea what is going on in there, the idea of God commanding all killing to be forbidden is nothing less than surreal. I can't speak a word of Hebrew, but having actually read the Old Testament, I am quite willing to believe that the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder".
It is strange that the people who translated the Bible to English made such a silly mistake. Even more curious is the fact the Finnish translators made the exact same mistake. I wonder if the same holds in other languages too. Next time the Bible is to be translated, perhaps somebody could gently hint the translators not to make the same mistake again.
There is another possible explanation, though, which when I realized it seemed obvious to me but which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere else. (It is so much fun to be an original thinker.) Namely, if the commandment actually said "Thou shalt not murder", it would be a zero-information tautology the same way as the sentence "No bachelor is married".
As we all know, not every killing is a murder worthy of punishment, since some killings are perfectly good and acceptable since the killer has some acceptable reason for his act. For example, killing in self-defense or in war, or killing someone who wears clothes made out of two different materials or has killed the King's deer. In the set of all killings, some killings are unacceptable and said to be "murders". Since the concept of "murder" by definition entails that the act is forbidden, the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" would be as tautological as the commandment saying "Thou shalt not do forbidden things".
Perhaps a better form for the Fifth Commandment would therefore be "Thou shalt not kill without an acceptable reason", which is by definition exactly the same as "Thou shalt not murder", since murder is by definition a killing without an acceptable reason. Of course, you could say that there is same difference between these two alternatives as there is between the sentences "Clark Kent can fly" and "Superman can fly". But presenting the commandment in the form "...kill without an acceptable reason" would make the "absolute" nature of Biblical commandments more evident. Whenever a religious person claims to represent the absolute truth, he simply has reserved himself the subjective right to define what the words mean. But this game can be played both ways. If "murder" is a killing forbidden in the law, then abortion is not murder assuming that the law allows it. Of course, at this point a Christian might argue that God's law is above the secular law, and in God's law "murder" means "killing an innocent", but this is merely a trick to secretly sneak the necessary subjectivity to the definition of "innocent". And so on.
The other commandments don't seem to have the same problem, except the seventh, "Thou shalt not steal", which is by definition the same as "Thou shalt not take things whose taking is forbidden" or "Don't take things unless you have an acceptable reason to do so". But if we start on this road, then instead of ten commandments, you would only need one: "Don't do anything without an acceptable reason that makes this act to be not forbidden." Despite being a tautology, this commandment would cover all possible situations that a person may encounter during his life. It's too bad that such a commandment does not appear anywhere in the Bible, since it would really bring in the point of how God's commandments are absolute compared to all kinds of relativism and situational ethics. The only real difference between moral absolutism and moral relativism is that whereas a moral absolutist says "If A, then X", a moral relativist says "If A and B and not-C, then X or Y unless Z".
As an end note, where exactly in the Bible is the commandment that says that the Ten Commandments must be obeyed? And where is the commandment that says that the previous commandment must be obeyed? And so on, in an infinite regression.
Actually, you could have been more inclusive yet on the numbering difference.
The Jews have yet a different enumeration from all the different Christian ones. (Lutherans and Epicopaleans, BTW, follow the Catholic version.)
The Jewish First Commandment is:
"I, Yawweh your god, am a jealous god, visiting the iniquities of the fathers ..."
Posted by Gadfly | 12:14 PM
Greetings from the Carnival!
A few comments. First:
"As we all know, not every killing is a murder worthy of punishment..."
Do we all know this? If we did, then it wouldn't require a divine commandment to tell us so. Perhaps the Almighty is trying to give us information beyond our common understanding. Granted, an absolute prohibition on killing would conflict with God-ordained warfare and animal sacrifice.
""Don't do anything without an acceptable reason that makes this act to be not forbidden." ...would really bring in the point of how God's commandments are absolute compared to all kinds of relativism and situational ethics."
Would it? Or would it require God's commandments to list each & every "acceptable reason"? If the divine direction is to be all-encompassing, this would be a practically endless list, given the span of human experience. It would also necessarily weigh one situation against another, which is one definition of situational ethics.
Posted by Anonymous | 12:19 PM
I think "thou shalt not murder" is not tautological. Here's why:
I think most people understand "murder" as killing someone because you wanted to, that you have a choice about it, and kill out of your own considered wishes (as opposed to compelled situations such as self-defense, which is seen as an emergency mode action, or war, which is compelled by authority of the state).
The commandment just says this killing out of wish or whim is forbidden by God.
You have defined murder as "forbidden killing", but that is putting the definitional cart before the horse. It is only divinely forbidden AFTER the fact of the 5th commandment.
It should be defined as killing by choice, whim, wish, anger, etc. And THAT is what is forbidden.
This might be clearer if you imagine we instead were given The Nine Commandments with "Thou Shalt not Murder" left off. Well, then, in that case killing by choice would be fine with God. That is logically imaginable (though we are unused to such an idea of God).
Similarly, stealing is not "forbidden taking" but taking of things which you don't own and another person does and is not giving to you freely. One can logically imagine Eight Commandments where God said that stealing was also morally just fine. There is here also no tautology.
Posted by cm | 1:24 PM
cm...
You may have a point with your choice formulation -- but that doesn't help us in the question of capital punishment. Here is a case where the state has the choice to kill or not kill, and chooses to do so.
IIRC, the Bible also permits, within strict regulations, "revengers of blood" who are authorized to kill murderers. Even though they can choose not to.
Posted by Anonymous | 6:35 PM
It is apparent then, that what we need is an authoritative interpretation of the law. We can each come up with different but reasonable interpretations on our own. Our place in history (post-enlightenment) encourages us to ask “What makes sense to me?”, when what the ancients asked was “By whose authority do you do this?” Morality is based on authority, not our own reason (though reason can help us come to knowledge of it). At the very least, we need someone or some group claiming the moral authority to interpret the law. We can be sure of this: anyone not claiming moral authority to interpret the law is definitely wrong.
Posted by stevedoetsch | 1:40 PM