Is is possible that there are two moral orders, a lower justice-based moral order and a higher, mercy-based moral order? Just thinking out loud here.
The more I think about this, the more I am unsatisfied with a single moral system.
UPDATE: I wrote this hastily and as a consequent, I did not make the proper distinctions or descriptions necessary to really get at what I was wanting to express. Instead of re-writing the post, I invite you to peruse the comments to get everyone’s thoughts on the matter of God and ethical systems.
12 Comments
Can you elaborate a little more?
Initially, I’m thinking ‘no.’ I have in mind the whole, ‘do justly and love mercy’ passage. It doesn’t seem to me that they need be separate spheres of moral order.
But I’m with Dave, it might be helpful if there was a little more elaboration.
I don’t necessarily think “systems” are useful to begin with. Systematizing something as complex and difficult as morality seems rather pointless to me.
I’d say it’s better to operate with “principles” or something like “an ethic,” and see how those work within specific given situations.
I like to play with questions. Nice question. I don’t mind walking down this road but I would need more details to your thoughts.
My first thoughts would be no. No, because morality is based on the nature of God. Because of his essence and being we get morality. God is at all times perfectly “loving” and “just.” So the playing field is on one level not two distinct levels. God bridges them together.
While waiting for you to expand on your thoughts… I would say that I don’t think that justice and mercy are in conflict with each other.
I think that we, as humans, often misunderstand both justice and mercy. I am not sure that I fully understand each of these. But I think that especially with justice, people often equate justice and revenge, which is quite problematic.
Here’s how I understand the two concets:
Justice is getting the results one deserves based on their actions. It denotes an idea that one receives due punishment for offenses and due rewards for positive deeds.
Mercy, on the other hand, is NOT getting the results one deserves based on their actions. When one should receive due punishment according to the principles of Justice, and they do not…that is mercy, or injustice depending on the point of view.
Unless I’m wrong in my understanding…how don’t they contradict one another?
I can see how they appear contridictory. But I guess I see no reason they have to be. The Cross is both the epitome of justice and mercy. If all my enforcement of justice is coupled with the mercy exemplified in the cross, then I see no reason why there must be two competing moral orders. Certainly they are different, as cheapham has pointed out. But I see them as part of the same moral order - not competing moral orders.
Ok - looking forward to responses.
I think that I Cheapham hinted at what I was alluding to in the post. I don’t know if I would say that they are in competition with each other, but that they are two wholly different methods at determining a moral course of action.
Tom, when you point to biblical examples, you are jumping ahead of what I am saying. I am not saying that they are never able to work in tandem, but I am suggesting a taxonomy of the two concepts as they relate to moral behavior.
First one looks at the situation in terms of what is just, then the situation is looked at in terms of what is just and merciful. Only then can the best moral course of action be determined. Justice precedes (is lower) mercy (which is higher) in terms of evaluating a morally laden action.
I don’t know yet if I consider purely just actions to always be morally right course of actions- the “I’m within my rights…” mentality. I don’t know if I am wanting to say that conversely, purely merciful acts are moral ones. It might be that one has to have both components in order to have a moral course of action, or there may be three moral courses and that the one that combines mercy and justice is the higher order action.
With that said, I need to leave for Kansas City!
(I have enjoyed reading your responses everyone - please rip mine apart)
Okay - my bad. I was entirely misunderstanding what the original question was. Sorry - wasn’t trying to be distracting. I’ll get back to this question when I’ve seen the conversation develop a bit more.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone. I’ve enjoyed and been challenged by you all.
there are (at least) a couple of different ideas of justice - distributive and retributive.
Retributive Justice is what we have in America - everyone gets what they deserve.
Distributive Justice seems to be more of what God had in mind (especially in the HB) - everyone gets what they need.
Hey Honzo, I think I agree with the mercy/justice combo view. The property ‘being merciful’ and the property ‘being just’ are both good making features of actions. Of course there might be other properties that are good making features of actions as well. Right actions will be ones that have an appropriate balance of all of the relevant good making properties. I think we should deny that people who only care about justice are getting at a different type of morality. They are just ignoring part of morality. What they do is right according to what they believe about morality. But what they believe about morality is false. It does not reflect any complete moral order. It just reflects part of the moral order, and by confusing justice with the whole of morality they are getting morality wrong. (I think a lot of libertarians make this mistake.)
-Philip
Today I was reading James 2:1-13 ESV in my morning quiet time (it really is quiet at 2:30 am sitting in my car having spent the past thirty minutes listening to Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards and now reading and praying in the UPS parking lot). The ESV reading seemed that it might lend some light one this subject, especially James 2:8-13 ESV and 2:13 most specifically. If it doesn’t pertain to the subject, hope it still blesses you anyways.