Spotted at Philosophy Now:

Imagine that right after briefing Adam about which fruit was allowed and which forbidden, God had installed a closed-circuit television camera in the garden of Eden, trained on the tree of knowledge. Think how this might have changed things for the better. The serpent sidles up to Eve and urges her to try the forbidden fruit. Eve reaches her hand out – in paradise the fruit is always conveniently within reach – but at the last second she notices the CCTV and thinks better of it. Result: no sin, no Fall, no expulsion from paradise. We don’t have to toil among thorns and thistles for the rest of our lives, earning our bread by the sweat of our brows; childbirth is painless; and we feel no need to wear clothes.

So why didn’t God do that and save everyone a lot of grief? True, surveillance technology was in its infancy back then, but He could have managed it, and it wouldn’t have undermined Eve’s free will. She still has a choice to make; but once she sees the camera she’s more likely to make the right choice.

HT:  Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish

Comments

Search

metallurge   |2010-06-29 14:12:20 This is a very interesting article to me. Does people's perception of God-as-equal-to-surveillance-cameras affect behavior? And, if so, is it weakening of general morality? Generally, I would say we are presently at Stage 5 in the article's nomenclature. I personally have grave reservations about the sort of society that this brings. There is certainly every sign of the broad decline of moral character. I do not think these two phenomena are unrelated. Societally, it seems we have elevated "acting out of self-interest" (a.k.a. market forces) completely above "acting out of duty". I think this is in part due to the rise of the fiction of corporate personhood. Corporations' highest "duty", seemingly, is to act purely in their self-interest. Nobody bothered to worry about the moral development of these so-called "people". And so, we have raised up a generation of sociopaths among us. It is also interesting to contemplate the intersection of this article and Romans 13.

emperorbma   |2010-06-29 14:45:50 I suspect your use of the phrase self-interest doesn't include the possibility that self-interest extends beyond simply serving one's own wants.  Are you sure we should be so quick to invalidate all self-interest, though? For example, breathing is a self-interest. Would we consider breathing an immoral self-interest that we should eschew out of duty? One can even characterize altruism as a self-interest because one has a (preferably God-given) motive and desire to do good for others. A deontological perspective should not preclude a genuine self-interest motive. What it should preclude is a "self-centered" self-interest that can admits no other genuine value besides "self-centered" concerns. How would it consider the principle of "enlightened self-interest" is that one should act in a way that is beneficial to oneself but not in a manner that is harmful to oneself later on? Consider that one might include as "harmful to oneself" anything which injures one's relationship with other people and with God. Cast in that light, what isn't self-interest? Anything with a genuinely human motivation behind it falls within this category.  Furthermore, Kantian Deontologism emphasizes the point of a "universalizable maxim" that applies to everyone. A self-interest is, quite feasibly, the most universalizable maxim since every person that has existed and ever will has had a self-interest and this even includes God, who makes clear that He "cannot deny Himself." Thus, even excluding a "fear of Hell" as one's motive for duty to God, a desire for a loving relationship with God would not preclude a self-interest at all. On the contrary, we act in an "enlightened self-interest" as well as concern for others.

PineHall  - Agape Love   |2010-07-03 16:51:42 Does not pure agape love preclude self-interest? Self-interest taints everything we do, because we are sinful. And yet there is some altruism inside us that causes us to set aside our self-interest and help a stranger, even to the point of putting our own life at risk, like diving into a burning car to pull out the stranger. And we have the example of Jesus who was willing to die for us, rebellious, ungrateful, and undeserving.

emperorbma  - I'm not talking about incurvatus in se...   |2010-07-03 19:12:11 See, I think that we're being divided by a common language here. I completely agree with you and laika that incurvatus in se ipsum is always a corrupt and sinful motive. What I don't agree with is that all "self-interest" is necessarily equivalent to incurvatus in se ipsum. As I have seen it used, "enlightened self-interest" merely means that you had a personal interest in attaining some thing that you value and consider to be good. For example, a father can lay down his life for his daughter in a completely selfless manner, but this does not mean that he has no self-interest. Rather, he considers the life of his daughter more valuable than his own and has acted on that personal interest. Returning to our Lord, I am fairly sure that you and I both agree that Jesus didn't die on the Cross for no reason whatsoever. Rather, He died to save us from our sins because He has a personal interest and considered each and every one of us valuable in some way. This would be referred to as "enlightened self-interest" by modern philosophy but it is clearly NOT incurvatus in se ipsum. To exclude all self-interest, Christ would have died simply because He wanted to kill Himself, which is absurd for any Christian to believe. Wikipedia wrote: Enlightened self-interest is also different from pure altruism, which calls for people to act in the interest of others often at the expense of their own interests and with no expectation of benefit for themselves in the future. Some advocates of enlightened self-interest might argue that pure altruism promotes inefficiency as well. In fact, in modern times so-called "pure altruism" described seems more like a false altruism because nobody really acts without some self-interest. What I am seeing here is that "pure altruism" is beginning to include doing things because of the absence of motive. As I stated, even God does have a personal interest and motive in saving us. If, for the very reason that God considers it valuable, we pursue something, it is still a self-interest because we personally value the goal of pleasing God. To be absolutely "selfless," as it is described today, would entail an atheistic motivation that considers people worthless but does good for them anyway. In short, the meaning of "no self-interest" carries a sense that certainly ain't what you and I preach... "Enlightened self-interest" can look beyond oneself, intending to serve a greater good (such as family, or God or one's fellow human beings) and it is clearly contrasted with "unenlightened self-interest" which refers to the simple greed that would be more aptly comparable to incurvatus in se ipsum. In that vein, I consider this wording to be a more realistic take on altruism and I think that our agape concept falls into this category. Of course, not all "enlightened self-interest" is necessarily good, either. One's motives can fall short of the enlightenment that agape requires, even with a so-called "enlightened self-interest" such as one might find in secular humanism. It, nonetheless, behooves us to realize that self-interest can encompass more than simple selfishness. P.S. Compare this to the "selfish gene" that we discussed elsewhere. The rationale behind these meanings is similar... P.P.S. The atheists' "be good for goodness sake" might be a demon of our own creation, if we think they might be following that "atheistic motivation that considers people worthless but does good for them anyway" out of a desire for "pure altruism."  That, frankly, is scary because, if I am correct, we have literally pushed so far into "altruism" that the goodness is coming out of it. We should not be advocating throwing away the baby (Jesus) with the bathwater, even unintentionally.

emperorbma   |2010-07-03 19:33:08 P.P.P.S. In my opinion, the proper advocacy is not a principle of "more altruism = better" so much as "proper altruism = better." As I implied, "more altruism" can entail the opposite of what we're trying to attain. It isn't that we need no self-motive, it is rather that our self-motives should be aligned with the correct goals. An idol starts from a proper motive, but ends with the wrong goal. Similarly, if we force people to have no motive, then they won't bother trying to attain the goal which is the sin of "apathy." In fact, I know apathy is a sin because the literal Greek word in Ephesians 2:2 is απειθειας (apetheias) from which apathy is derived. "Sons of disobedience" is actually, literally, "sons of apathy." What we need is not "no personal motive," but rather "properly focused personal motive" and that motive is "Love the Lord your God..." and "love thy neighbor as thyself"...

PineHall  - Definitions   |2010-07-04 17:44:22 Okay, our disagreement may be a matter of how we define things and you have a much better grasp on the philosophical than I do. But I see Jesus as having "pure altruism", motivated out of agape love to save us at great risk with no benefit to himself. I do not see that as being enlightened self-interest. And I think we have a sense of that "pure altruism" also when our conscience tells us we ought to help that stranger even when it puts us at risk. Again it may be definitions behind our disagreement.

emperorbma  - self-interest = value judgment   |2010-07-04 20:58:11 Heh, please don't sell yourself short, PineHall.  My only advantage is that I have had a little more exposure to this type of philosophy and have had a little more time to ponder what it means. You are graciously trying to keep up with me without the benefit of that exposure. In fact, it is I who should be apologizing for being unable to communicate my point more effectively. I think what I'm having a hard time communicating here is that "enlightened self-interest" isn't only about material gains but it also includes personal values. There is such a thing as an "indirect self-interest" which isn't merely deferring one's own gratification rather putting it off entirely.  That's what we would call "altruism." Wikipedia wrote: For instance, a soldier may fight on behalf of his country; he may be wounded or get killed, but the interest of his own country is at stake, so his action is prompted by self-interest. There is a reason many people like to view soldiers in Christlike terms. They echo in an imperfect and worldly sense what Christ does in a perfect and eternal sense. A soldier loves his country and dies to save his people. This is tainted, of course, by the sins that cause people to war against each other as well as the sins of the soldier him or herself, which Christ died for as well. As for Christ, "[He] so loved the world" that He "endured the cross" in order to "save [us] from [our] sins." The concept of "enlightened self-interest" does not exclude entirely deferring one's own personal gain. Rather, it is simply one category of "enlightened self-interest." What makes an "enlightened self-interest" is not the promise of a personal reward. Many "self-interests" do have a reward, including a "deferred self-interest" which holds off on an immediate reward in favor of a "better" reward at a later date. However, the key to an "enlightened self-interest" is actually the concept of a "value judgment." Basically, an "enlightened self-interest" is a judgment that "A is "better" than B." You say that someone "ought to help [a] stranger."  From whence comes this ought? Is it not a value judgment? Have you not determined that it is "better" to help someone than not to? We believe it is better because we believe that it is good to help others and that God desires that we should. In short, we are really attempting to discuss the same basic concept and real altruism is also "indirect self-interest," not a lack of interest. Some people have (erroneously, perhaps) conceived of "pure altruism" as a lack of any personal interest in doing good whatsoever and this is utterly inhuman and not what we want to be unintentionally misleading people to believe. The reason I consider "altruism" a self-interest is because it is rooted in a value judgment that one alternative is "better" than another, not because it is interested in anticipated personal gains. I believe that there is no genuine altruism that does not have such a value judgment and if there were, it would have to be the opposite of what we preach as I mentioned above: atheistic and viewing humans as worthless but doing good despite this belief. The sin of the world is not that we desire to do good, but that our desire to do good is corrupted. We do things that are not good while pursuing something we think is good and we think that our own will is what determines good, not God's. In net, what really distinguishes a Christian here is that (by grace and the work of the Holy Spirit) we place God's "value judgment" at the highest premium and try to follow His judgments through Christ and hence, imperfectly, counter that trend to place faith in one's own "values apart from God". Even altruism must be rooted in a desire to "Love the Lord" and to "Love our neighbor as ourselves," making it a very "indirect self-interest."

PineHall  - Thanks   |2010-07-05 15:44:01 Thank you EmperorBMA for clarifying things. I follow you now and I see we are in agreement. And I have learned something more. Thank you.

emperorbma   |2010-07-06 02:07:19 No trouble. I hope we can both be blessed to use this knowledge in wisdom.

laika   |2010-06-30 19:29:53 God is the Panopticon. providing some sort of visual reminder of this in the Garden might have saved us all a lot of trouble. "He knows when you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness sake!" metallurge wrote: I think this is in part due to the rise of the fiction of corporate personhood. Corporations' highest "duty", seemingly, is to act purely in their self-interest. Nobody bothered to worry about the moral development of these so-called "people". And so, we have raised up a generation of sociopaths among us. knowingly or otherwise, corporations and their investors do act without regard for society, so effectively, we have indeed raised a "generation of sociopaths."

emperorbma   |2010-06-29 14:12:37 Ah, but God is omniscient and wisdom can perceive this. It was not explicitly stated that Adam and Eve were unaware of this fact. Technically, then, they were under surveillance albeit of a non-obvious and comparatively compassionate sort.  It is, however, implied that they were unaware due to their subsequent actions. In either case, it was certainly in their heart to rebel at that time regardless of whether they did or chose not to for fear of surveillance and, therefore, obvious surveillance would not have "increased morality." Quote: But there is another perspective – the one informed by Kantian ethics. On this view, increased surveillance may carry certain utilitarian benefits, but the price we pay is a diminution of our moral character. Yes, we do the wrong thing less often; in that sense, surveillance might seem to make us better. But it also stunts our growth as moral individuals. The reason for doing less wrong under surveillance is not because it is less wrong, but because there is an implicit threat carried when someone does something that society deems "wrong," regardless of whether it is actually wrong or not. This is, in fact, a double edged sword. It is also possible to cause people to do more wrong because of surveillance if the state were one which idealizes wrongdoing, as has been amply demonstrated in history. As it is written, the Law does not cause one to be good, and neither does human law which follows in that archetype.  Even though God establishes the authority of governance does not give it carte blanche. Indeed, it is the duty of everyone to be moral despite the state's contribution or non-contribution, whichever the case may be. Let it not be obscured, the authority of the state is implicitly rooted in the threat of force. It is explicitly stated both in Scripture and in observations. Even though authority can be used constructively, it should always be checked and never be allowed to dictate. When it is not checked, it becomes a threat to genuine morality.  In the case that a governor is not actively doing evil, it still results in people failing to realize their responsibility to behave well. In the case that a governor is actually doing evil, it becomes a tool to blind the people to that evil. I am of the opinion that libertarian society is more conducive to actual moral behavior as it removes the veil that evildoers can use to hide their deeds. Each person stands or falls on their own and does not cause others to stumble who did not choose to follow his or her wicked schemes. Neither does it stifle the freedom to adapt to changing needs as we all must throughout our lives. Finally, the opportunity to abusively control information is eliminated when everyone has access to the same freedoms. In a managed system, however, the hope is that the manager is not corrupt and the very nature of the office itself gives an incentive for the corrupt to seek it. One must trust that the government does not hide the truth and deceive the people for some evil agenda. All too often, such trust is not rewarded and the government is, at best, wasteful and, at worst, evil.

PineHall  - No Difference   |2010-07-03 16:23:10 I see Adam and Eve looking at the camera and resenting the surveillance. They still take a bite of the "apple" because they want to be like God and they don't like their lesser position. They think that they will be elevated by disobeying God, so surveillance does not make any difference.

laika   |2010-07-05 19:40:26 PineHall wrote: I see Adam and Eve looking at the camera and resenting the surveillance. i see a couple of children being seduced by the most sophisticated creature that ever God made. if God could expose A & E to Satan there in the Garden, is it so crazy to expect that He might also leave some reminder of His "surveillance" at the crucial moment?

emperorbma   |2010-07-05 22:59:02 Hang on, weren't A & E the most sophisticated being that they were literally "created in the image of God?"

laika   |2010-07-06 13:34:01 dunno. in the tradition of my youth, they were always presented as a couple of rubes who encounter the cleverest, craftiest creature in creation. i'm not sure what all "made in the image of God" encompasses. A & E are portrayed as lacking in knowledge and seeking same to be like God, so it's unclear to me what "image" expressly refers to. God is said to sit on a throne with Jesus on his right, so i assume that God has a left and a right and a form suited to sitting; we would in that respect, at least, be made in his image.

emperorbma   |2010-07-06 19:29:41 Traditionally, I am led to believe that the "image of God" is supposed to entail a certain set of reason, wisdom and dignity. You can suppose that if reason and wisdom are aspects of that image, Adam and Eve were not as unequipped nor as stupid as to run into something blindly. Even the wisest person can be misled, (e.g. Solomon) though. Perhaps it isn't really something we can answer conclusively.

laika   |2010-07-07 21:40:55 emperorbma wrote: You can suppose that if reason and wisdom are aspects of that image, Adam and Eve were not as unequipped nor as stupid as to run into something blindly. interesting. i don't recall having seen them presented as being able to match wits with Lucifer. emperorbma wrote: Perhaps it isn't really something we can answer conclusively. i'm satisfied that the story conveys a truth that we somehow became estranged from God.

emperorbma   |2010-07-07 22:03:29 laika wrote: interesting. i don't recall having seen them presented as being able to match wits with Lucifer. Clearly they failed that or else we wouldn't be here lamenting it today, but one has to imagine that had they relied more on God's grace they would have had a better chance. laika wrote: i'm satisfied that the story conveys a truth that we somehow became estranged from God. Yes, that is the important point a well as through whom to rectify that situation...

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."