Theological Anthropology: Moral Creatures - Essay Example

Moral Creatures The book of Genesis teaches that human beings, both male and female, were created in the image of God. This import and interpretation of this notion has been debated throughout church history. While the term "image" can be interpreted in a variety of ways, the most pertinent for us here today would be to consider the moral image of God as opposed to any other means of likeness, say sexuality or creation in total perfection (a position that we shall see is problematic in itself). This approach should also free putting limits in the concept of God by considering the problem from the vantage point of only one religion; this is advantageous because as any study of comparative religion shows, the moral attitudes of the major religions tend to point in the same direction, regardless of the specific details of worship or theological singularities native to each faith. We shall thus consider that which is common to all faiths in terms of morality and then proceed to take this a step farther and liberating it from the traditional perspectives to encompass a broader view of humankind. In seeking to understand the morality of any given actions, it is helpful to use some sort of compass in which to judge any action as purely moral or not. In order to not bias the discussion to any one faith, we will apply a method that virtually anyone will be able to accept yet does not invoke the singular nature of any one faith. The most general and acceptable rule of this nature that has ever been attempted is to be found in Kant's categorical imperative. The categorical imperative would denote a requirement that is absolute and unconditional and whose authority must exert itself in all circumstances. According to Kant, we can distill the categorical imperative into three basic precepts: 1) Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law; 2) Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means; and 3) Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends. That is to say, any moral law that can be considered as a categorical imperative is one in which you can will it for everyone and is not limited to any person or group of people; what applies to the prince must also apply to the peasant and vice-versa. Next, we must focus on deontological ethics by necessity since to do otherwise would allow actions for expediency and outcome rather than the morality of the actions themselves. Each and every other person must be treated as an end and not a tool. in other words, there can be no inhuman use of human beings as tools to accomplish a goal. They themselves are the goal since the morality of an action cannot be separated from its application to every human being and in no way can this be interpreted as using one human being fore the benefit of the other. Lastly, this law must be considered as one in which all human beings, barring none, act as equals in enacting this law as a means of harmonizing the moral kingdom, thus bringing about a state of perfect moral equality among all humankind. Critics of this approach tend to follow the consequentialist schools of thought, in which the ultimate goal is looked at and not necessarily the means to achieve it. This approach to morality is faulty in large part because it ignores a critical aspect that Kant himself did not make much use of, but which has increasingly important as we see people trying to follow a moral code and failing miserably. The categorical imperative seems admirable in theory, but unworkable in practice, so thus people often ignore the internal aspects of the requirements in favor of practical success. The missing element in consequentialist theories and the element that makes many people view the categorical imperative as unworkable in practice is, in fact the focus on the external world rather than recognizing the primacy of thought itself. That is to say, thought itself is the original action and not anything that can actually be physically performed in the world. The Dhammapada opens with the following statement: All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage. In Buddhist and Hindu thought, the intent behind the action is just as important as the action itself. This is true of Islam and Christianity as well, although historically more emphasis has been given to expedience that to intent. Intent is the original action. This becomes apparent when we follow the not only the line of causation between the thought and the action, but when we consider that as Nietzsche stated, that human beings are not completed creatures . . . we are a rope between man and overman to use a memorable idea from Thus Spake Zarathustra. The human creature as it stands is either fallen, or incomplete, or somehow fallible. here we see the real importance of thought . . . the goal of the human being is not so much to worship God as much as to become a God. To certain traditions, this may seem blasphemous if left unqualified, yet the idea is always present in nearly any religious tradition. To become more godlike is to imitate Christ, to become more than we are, whether this state is considered a restoration back to a previously-held state of perfection or a progression from originally fallible creature to something more than we are at the present, the goal is the same; to leave behind the current, corrupted state of humankind and to progress to the point where we ourselves can all be considered gods, not necessarily free from fault, but progressing in the direction of greater freedom, love and purity. From Plato to Christ and Buddha, from Mohammed to Nietzsche and Gurdjieff, the overall tendency is clear: the human creature is not complete or whole as it currently exists and the will to progress is not only necessary, but unavoidable. In our current state, there may be no ultimate state of perfection apparent, but it is clear that we must struggle to attain any ideal of perfection we currently have before our perspective can expand to allow greater vistas of consciousness to take us even father. Deontological ethics is the key here because in setting ourselves up the tasks of becoming gods as we now understand the term, we need to understand the primacy and importance of thought and intent. That is to say, thought needs to be considered an action just as much as clubbing someone or helping a poor person. The key idea is to realize that like gods, we are creating ourselves with every thought that we think. This can be viewed as a means of seeing karma in action in our every day lives. What we are and what we will be is based on what we have thought in the past and what we will become in the future or what we can become is based on what we are thinking now, individually and en masse. The importance of thought is also an empowering idea since we all know that thought cannot be controlled or limited in any effective manner. States try to suppress thought, but they fail miserably. It is the one area where any individual has total freedom. No matter how restricted or limited, you are in fact, free. You choose the contents of your mind. This is the original act of creation from a human standpoint. Since thoughts on earth are generally private, not only are you free to choose them as you see fit, you are bound more strongly than ever, to be responsible for your own thought-actions. You cannot force your thoughts on anyone else, nor can they force theirs on you. Thus instead of the traditional emphasis that some faiths put on converting others to their own system of belief, the emphasis will be put on each individual to create his or herself in the way that they think they should evolve. In such a system - which in fact, is the system we have right now - no genuine coercion will be possible. At any and at all times, you are free to choose your own thought-actions; you cannot be otherwise. Now these thoughts may influence others, it is true, but they are always free to accept or reject them. When one understands the power of thought, and the nature of intent, you will never be able to wage a war on anyone in order to achieve peace since by the very act of waging war, you are altering your inner landscape and rendering yourself less capable of peace. The way to peace is through peace. This has been tried before, but in limited ways. Christians and Jews in the Roman Empire were offered a choice of paying homage to the Emperor or remaining faithful to their God; generally they chose their deaths in a way that supported their convictions in life. The modern mind tends to look down on such people as wasting their lives; on the contrary, however, they were validating their lives by dieing in a way befitting their convictions. Their deaths were not mere defeats, but triumphs of their chosen way of life; the choice of dieing in a manner that they found acceptable rather than living on in terms in which they did not. These were acts of will, of freedom. The wisdom of their actions may be debatable, but the empowerment, even through death, gave their entire life meaning in a way that a generation saturated with the Nausea that Sartre speaks of can scarcely imagine. A "pragmatic person" may argue that this idealistic view can never be sustained since it is a path that only the few will ever choose to follow. This, they say, is the self-delusion of woolly-minded idealists who do not understand the way the world works. However, this point of view is a direct outgrowth of their own thoughts in a way that they do not currently recognize. The "pragmatic" point of view is simply a philosophical perspective accepted by consensus reality, a reality created by the thoughts of those people who accept them. Ultimately, it does not matter if anyone accepts the categorical imperative as applied to the creative action of human thought. By their rejection of the proposition, they are in fact utilizing their own creative capacity to reject what their mind has already created. Since they are denying the very creative powers which allows them the freedom to deny their own creative powers, this is in itself a creative and magical act. The ultimate pragmatists are in fact the idealists, who insist that reality is the result of what we say it is. It is simply up to each individual to choose their own reality and form the world as they see fit. In understanding this power, and in utilizing its creativity in productive and responsible directions, we literally form reality as it exists. It should be apparent that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and most other faiths are "unnatural" in that they are taking their view of the world and placing it on a world that does not seem to conform to what they see. To a defeatist, this is denying reality. How can man be good when wars abound How can God be good when it allows such things to happen The idea of religion or decency seems to fly in the face of what we see on the news each night. Yet, it is this same imaginative "unnaturalness" that allowed the modern world with its machines and devices to be born. Nothing that is ever created seems natural at first. We create magic at every instant by imagining and thinking things then altering reality in ways that were "impossible" before. In keeping with this, it may be a good precept to view reality as something that we literally create by the creative act of intentional thought. We, as human beings both individually and collectively form physical and psychic reality as we use our creative powers. If we view earth as not merely a trial and understand it as a training ground for newly emerging units consciousness to learn to use the powers of thought and intention in a responsible manner, we can revolutionize the moral way in which we conduct ourselves and eventually the planet itself. In the act of emulating God by a creative act, we are both becoming more godlike and forming our reality as we experience it. References: Newton, Michael. Journey of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between Lives. Llewellyn, 2002. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Dover, 2003. Roberts, Jane. Seth Speaks. Amber-Allen: New World Library, 1994. Sherlock, Charles. Theological Anthropology. National Council of Churches in Australia, 2004. 28 October 2004. . Read More