History as past ethics; an introduction to the history of moralsMyers, P. V. N. (Philip Van Ness)
Philosophy
History as past ethics; an introduction to the history of morals
Myers, P. V. N. (Philip Van Ness)
Ethics -- History
Now the Hebrew conception of the future state was the same as the
Babylonian. Sheol, like the Babylonian Arallu, was a vague and shadowy
region beneath the earth, a sad and dismal place which received without
distinction the good and the bad. The same fate was allotted all who
went down to the grave: “The small and the great are there; and the
servant is free from his master.”[339] There was no return there for
good, or for evil: “But the dead know not anything, neither have they
any more a reward.”[340] Memory and hope were there dead: “For in death
there is no remembrance of thee.... They that go down into the pit
cannot hope for thy truth.”[341]
We shall see later how this vague and feebly held idea of the future
life reacted upon the evolution of the moral consciousness in Israel,
how deeply it influenced the troubled ethical speculations of the more
thoughtful minds of the nation, and how it inspired theories of the
moral order of the world which have not yet lost their power over the
thoughts and the conduct of men.[342] We need in this place merely to
point out how it was the absence of a clearly defined belief in a life
of rewards and punishments in another world that created, or helped to
create, the Messianic ideal, one of the most fruitful conceptions, in
its ethical outcomes, that ever entered into the mind of man.
II. THE EVOLUTION OF THE MORAL IDEAL
_1. The Development up to the Exile_
[Sidenote: The primitive moral
code]
The history of Hebrew morals is the record of a long and slow
evolution. The primitive code with which the development began was
the code of Semitic nomadism. It was essentially the same as that
which to-day governs the conduct of the practically unchanged kinsmen
of the Hebrews, the Bedouin of Arabia and neighboring lands. It was
the morality of the kinship group.[343] The principle of communal
responsibility, which affords the key to a large part of the moral
history of Israel, had not yet been challenged as unethical, and
blood revenge was a most sacred duty. The circle covered by the moral
feelings was still narrow; there was practically no sentiment of duty
or obligation toward tribes or nations outside the group of tribes
constituting the people of Israel. The conception of Yahweh as a
jealous national god prevented the growth of feelings which might have
formed the basis of a true international morality. The wars which the
Israelites waged against their enemies were wars of ruthless slaughter
and rapine.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account