Max Severin

Essays, Articles, Videos & News

Tag: Moral Philosophy

Does The Bible Offer Sound Moral Guidance?

2021-07-11 /
Image by StockSnap from Pixabay

Without question the Christian Bible contains some timeless and sound moral principles.

For one, there is the golden rule — a moral maxim that predates Christianity, and is common to most of the world’s religions and life philosophies, in one form or another. In the Bible, the golden rule is expressed in a variety of ways. Most succinctly it is stated as: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31).

The principle of universal beneficence to other humans is also expressed in Galatians 5:14: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37), makes it clear that all people are to be considered “thy neighbor”.

There are many admonishments in the New Testament against self-righteous judgement of others, and hypocrisy (e.g., Matthew 7:3–5; Matthew 23:24; Jesus and the woman taken in adultery). Many of our modern over-zealous moralists could benefit from reading these passages. There are also many passages on the importance of forgiveness and compassion (e.g., Ephesians 4:31–32) — two things that the world definitely needs more of.

In contradiction of this noble wisdom stands the fact that most of the Bible is devoted to hatefulness and commandments to violence. Below are several examples.

The Bible prescribes the death penalty for actions that our society does not even consider criminal.

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB).

“All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense” (Leviticus 20:9 NLT).

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT).

“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death” (Leviticus 21:9 NAB).

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear” (Deuteronomy 21:18–21 KJV).

“But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl’s virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 22:20–21 NAB).

The Bible is degrading to women.

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are” (Exodus 21:7 NLT).

“When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening” (Leviticus 15:19–22 NIV).

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is god. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man” (I Corinthians 11:3, 8–9 KJV). *Note: New Testament verse.

“Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16 KJV).

“If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29 NLT).

“Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also sayeth the law” (I Corinthians 14:34–35 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“Let the woman learn in silence in all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression” (I Timothy 2:11–14 KJV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“’Have you allowed all the women to live?’ he asked them. ‘They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man’” (Numbers 31:15–17 NIV).

“If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity” (Deuteronomy 25:11–12 NIV).

The Bible is not tolerant of other religions.

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him” (Deuteronomy 13:13–19 NLT).

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst” (Deuteronomy 13:7–12 NAB).

“Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death” (Deuteronomy 17:2–5 NLT).

“He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:20 KJV).

The Bible does not condemn slavery.

“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property” (Exodus 21:20–21 NAB).

“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever” (Exodus 21:2–6 NLT).

“All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them” (1 Timothy 6:1–2 NIV). *Note: This is a New Testament verse.

The God of the Bible desires animal sacrifice.

“The Lord called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting. He said, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: When anyone among you brings an offering to the Lord, bring as your offering an animal from either the herd or the flock. If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, you are to offer a male without defect. You must present it at the entrance to the tent of meeting so that it will be acceptable to the Lord. You are to lay your hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on your behalf to make atonement for you. You are to slaughter the young bull before the Lord, and then Aaron’s sons the priests shall bring the blood and splash it against the sides of the altar at the entrance to the tent of meeting. You are to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces. The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Then Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including the head and the fat, on the wood that is burning on the altar. You are to wash the internal organs and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord’” (Leviticus 1:1–9).

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Many Argue that Jesus does away with the Old Testament Law, but, in fact, he seems to support it — at the least, he does not seem to oppose it.

“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid” (Luke 16:17 NAB).

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place” (Matthew 5:17 NAB).

Further, the Trinitarian doctrine — which most Christians espouse — confusingly holds that the Old Testament God, Yahweh, and Jesus are but different manifestations of the same entity.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Clearly the Bible does not accord with our modern consensus morality on most issues. Nor does it give much consideration to the suffering of non-human animals. It is easy to see how some of these passages may have inspired the historical atrocities committed by believers.

Fortunately, there are many life philosophies that offer an alternative to Christianity and traditional religion in general (e.g., secular humanism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Unitarian Universalism, secular Buddhism, etc.).

The Danger of Unrestrained Morality

2021-05-19 /

Moral foundations theory describes how humans evolved to possess innate moral impulses. These impulses drive us to value:

  • fairness
  • purity
  • in-group loyalty
  • liberty
  • caring for others
  • respect for authority

These six moral foundations are found across all human cultures, however, they are expressed and understood in various ways depending on the particular culture or subculture in question.

Image by Anil John from Pixabay

Moral impulses were selected for in our evolutionary history due to the fact that they are essential to a social species, and because they tend to enhance group fitness. In a society these moral impulses are codified into laws and moral norms —what we generally refer to as morality.

Morality, however, is often a double-edged sword.

While moral impulses and moral norms tend to enhance group fitness, some moral systems may harm group fitness. And unrestrained morality, in any society, has the potential to be a serious threat to the well-being and liberty of the individual.

Those who run afoul of popular morality have been treated with extreme cruelty throughout human history — either by a retributive (rather than remedial) legal system or through vigilante acts. Morality has also been used to drum up support for various forms of violent aggression (e.g., pogroms, terrorism, wars of aggression, etc.), and it has been weaponized in order to persecute those who have simply been accused of wrongdoing.

In recent times we see this type of abuse associated with “cancel culture”, however, this phenomenon is nothing new (for historical example see: McCarthyism, witch hunts, the Inquisition).

A modern philosophically and scientifically informed view of morality demonstrates the complexity of moral questions, and it confirms descriptive moral relativism — that is, it shows that what is considered morally good (or bad) in regards to particular issues changes over time and varies from culture to culture. This fact provides prima facie grounds for being skeptical about moral realism, and at the very least it should make us question the epistemological status of generally accepted morality.

A philosophically informed view also provides prima facie reasons (at the least) to be skeptical about free will. If humans do indeed lack metaphysical freedom of will, then no one can be said to be deserving of punishment. Even if we assume some degree of free will, there are many reasons to oppose cruel punishments, and any sort of aggressive violence in general. Additionally, ignorance and neuro- or psychopathology are much more parsimonious explanations of antisocial behavior than metaphysical evil (all of which are possibly remediable).

In consideration of this view, one may be tempted to give up on the project of morality entirely (that is, to accept a passive form of moral nihilism), but this would be a mistake. Morality is necessary for the practical functioning of human society.

What is needed is a system of morality that is grounded in compassionate understanding, and which is appropriately restrained by philosophical reason.

Plato, and Freud — who borrowed from Plato in his work — wrote about why morality must be restrained or guided by reason. Both Plato and Freud viewed the human psyche as being divided into three parts: a rational part, a primitive desire-driven part, and a moral part. Plato uses the analogy of a charioteer (reason) who has to restrain and coordinate the actions of a white horse (morality) and a black horse (primitive desire). Freud describes a tripartite psyche divided into the ego (the organism’s conception of self — which uses reason to understand the world), a superego (morality), and an id (primitive desire). These conceptions are helpful when we think about the influence of morality on the individual, and on society.

Both of these thinkers emphasized the importance of reason as a moderating force to restrain or guide these two instinctual drives. If either of these instinctual drives is given too much freedom the individual will be in peril (as will be those they interact with).

Reason, for example, informs us that retribution and cruel punishment are not actions that have clear justifications (see my point about free will above). Rational analysis also shows us that we should withhold assent to some moral impulses — such as those to purity — since they are outmoded in light of a modern understanding (such as a modern understanding of disease causation).

If one’s moral impulses are not restrained by reason, they may become an inspiration for cruelty in the form of retribution, hate, and aggressive violence. History is rife with examples of aggrieved groups standing up to injustice, only to end up matching or overshadowing the injustice of those they opposed. We see this today in some of the most zealous segments of the cultural Right and Left.

Generally speaking, certain segments of the cultural Left want to enact violence on those who do not share their conceptions of the moral foundations — their egalitarian view of care and fairness, and their emphasis on positive conceptions of liberty; whereas those in certain segments of the radical Right want to enact violence on those who do not share their in-group loyalty / care, their meritocratic conception of fairness, and their emphasis on negative liberty.

If one’s moral code can be used to justify a non-defensive infliction of harm, then it is not sufficiently restrained by reason. And without reason we have no hope of arriving at significant intersubjectivity about moral questions — we will only have competing systems of morality based on epistemically suspect cultural conventions like dogmatic religion or folk wisdom.

If we do not challenge priggishness on the individual level we risk developing a judgmental attitude that results in conflict and possible social alienation; similarly, internally focused judgment can harm us by engendering unproductive guilt and shame. On the societal level we risk the possibility of letting anger and vindictiveness grow until violent conflict is unavoidable. Only critical thought and reason can prevent these damaging consequences.

The Ethical Case Against the Death Penalty

2020-01-02 /
Image from National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty — http://www.ncadp.org/

There are a number of arguments that have been used to challenge the death penalty. For example, many have argued that the criminal justice system is flawed by biases and other errors of judgement. Due to this fact, innocent people have been put to death in the past.

According to one study, 4% of those sentenced to death are wrongfully convicted.

Since humans are prone to bias, and because mistakes can be made, more people will undoubtedly be executed for crimes they did not commit in the future.

Opponents of the death penalty have also pointed out that there is racial bias in capital punishment sentencing, and that there is no definitive evidence to support the hypothesis that the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than non-lethal options.

These arguments, like those that appeal to the comparable costs between capital punishment and life-long imprisonment, are largely pragmatic arguments — that is, they show that there are problems associated with using capital punishment, rather than showing why it should not be considered as an option on ethical grounds (even if there were no problems involved in its administration).

In this article, I will focus on what I find to be the most compelling ethical arguments against the death penalty . These arguments appeal to generally agreed upon human values such as compassion and fairness .

I believe one of the strongest ethical arguments against the death penalty is that it runs counter to the idea of reforming individuals; rather, the death penalty gives up on the hope of changing a person for the better.

As our understanding of the mind and human behavior increases it is likely that we will one day come to better understand the causes of antisocial behavior, and effectively eradicate these causes or their effects. For example, we now understand that head trauma and environmental factors like abuse and toxins can result in neurological injury that predisposes individuals to impulsive and violent behaviors.

Additionally, neuroscience has discovered that executive function, including impulse control, relies on a degree of frontal lobe development which may not occur until the mid-thirties (and can be retarded by chronic substance use, toxins, physical or psychological trauma, etc.).

The fact that the state has executed a number of minors (including 14 year-old George Stinney, whose guilty verdict was posthumously overturned) and intellectually disabled persons becomes even more depressing in light of this awareness.

Dramatization of 14 year-old George Stinney being strapped into the electric chair in the movie Carolina Skeletons.

A more informed and rational view of severe antisocial behavior makes it apparent that we should regard this behavior not as incorrigible evil, but as neurological or psychological pathology — pathology which we currently may not be able to effectively treat, but which we one day will. [Note: For a beautifully done theatrical exposition of this argument view Star Trek: Voyager “Repentance” Season 7, Episode 13.]

Another strong ethical argument against the death penalty points out the hypocrisy of the act, and the effect it has on society of promoting retribution and cruelty.

If we are to take a morally legitimate stand against non-defensive violence, we have to oppose such acts in all instances. Since an incarcerated individual is in a situation where they are unlikely to continue to harm others, there is no justification for committing an act of violence against them. To do so would be to act in aggression, rather than in defense. Further, a cogent case can be made that state uses of aggressive violence help to foster a culture that sees the use of violence as an acceptable, morally defensible way to deal with conflicts or perceived injustices.

It may, of course, be argued that chronically violent individuals still pose a threat when they are incarcerated — to other inmates, and, possibly, to the general public if they were to escape. This, however, is only a practical argument which points out one potential negative consequence of death penalty abolition. Rather than viewing this as a strong argument for the death penalty, it would make more sense to see this as an argument against allowing individuals predisposed to extreme violence to have unsupervised or unrestrained contact with others — and for taking stronger measures to prevent the escape of individuals who pose a danger to others.

A civilized society must, if it is to be ethically consistent, oppose all uses of violence that are not justifiably defensive in nature. The state has no moral legitimacy in condemning murder if it engages in acts that could also be seen as murderous or torturous by rational persons. As long as we allow the state to use aggressive violence we are all complicit in these unjustified killings.

Please take action by donating to the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty or Amnesty International.

© 2026 Max Severin

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑