So I'm supposed to be working on a paper for this ""moral reasoning"" class about the role of reward and punishment in morality. but I'd really rather post a blog, plus I don't know what I'm writing about yet, so here's a test run.
One question that could reasonably be asked is, presuming the presence of G-d, does He run the world on just principles? Are rewards given to the moral and punishments to the immoral? In Deuteronomy (7:12- ), this would seem to be the clear implication, as Moses relates that ""this will be the reward when you follow these rules...[G-d] will bless you and multiply you...and the fruit of your land...G-d will remove from you every illness...etc.""
On the other hand, we have the complicated discussions in Job. Job spends a lot of time insisting on his complete and total innocence of any wrongdoing, and yet he suffers immensely. Indeed, G-d clearly affirms his innocence in the prologue (Chs 1-2). Then G-d appears to him from the whirlwind &c. and goes to great lengths to demonstrate that no human can comprehend His ways. The basic implication seems to be that any search for causality in life events, i.e. their being due to sins or good deeds, is futile, as no clear causality will emerge.
Now one could easily conclude that the passages are in conflict and that each articulates a radically different notion of reward and punishment. But is it possible to reconcile these two stances into one coherent and sophisticated moral system?
What, in fact, is the nature of the human inference of causality? Are we truly equipped to track and connect all the disparate elements of our existence into a meaningful whole? Most psychologists would say that causality is simply an effective mental tools that allows us to understand the behavior of physical objects. A clear demonstration of the breakdown of human causal reasoning can be demonstrated with the following anecdote from the life of a sports fan:
In 2004, the Boston Red Sox were (as usual) in the playoffs, and a large number of college students were gathered in the common area of my residence hall to watch a game. It was about the seventh inning, with the Red Sox batting, when a new person came into the area and took a seat in close proximity to the television. The Red Sox then rallied and scored a run. One viewer then told the newcomer: ""You're not moving from that seat."" The implication being that it was the presence of this one person in this one residence hall in Cambridge that had somehow caused the Boston Red Sox to score a run.
Similar examples are no doubt commonplace, particularly in the realm of sports. The point is to demonstrate that humans are not reliable agents for determining causality. This is, in a way, the message of G-d from the whirlwind in Job. While the blessings of the land and the lack of illness may be directly caused by our positive or negative actions, we may simply be unable to comprehend the channels and processes that connect these factors to our actions in a chain of causality.
Ok, sure, but who's going to say that Job was in reality being rewarded for his positive actions? The possibility (suggested ad nauseum by Job's three friends) that Job actually deserves his manifold sufferings is clearly ruled out by the prologue, where G-d declares Job's innocence of wrongdoing, and in the end, where G-d reaffirms this declaration.
Reference to the introduction also raises the question of the ultimate reason for Job's misfortunes. G-d engages in a conversation with ""the satan"" (literally - the prosecutor), who claims that Job is only so righteous due to his good fortune (Job was initially a rich man with many children who apparently wanted for nothing). G-d grants the satan free reign to hurt Job as he wishes, so long as he doesn't kill him. Thus, Job's sufferings seem to be a form of test: will Job's faith and goodness persevere in the face of extreme suffering?
If one presumes the existence of an afterlife, then many of these problems can be resolved with relative ease...
No comments:
Post a Comment