RESPONSIBILITY vs. "moral" Responsibility (What is the distinction and what is the difference?)

by Terry 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  This is not intended to be a highbrow discussion!

  I would prefer it to be an interesting examination of something which affects each of us on some level (or has done) in our lifetime. To wit: moral responsibility.

  What is it? Where did it come from as an idea, a concept, a thing held over our head as a social and religious necessity?

  Read on!

  _________

  In the New Testament Greek we find the following word:

  opheiló: to owe

  Original Word: ὀφείλω

  _________

  There are 35 instances of the use of this word in varying contexts in the Christian-Greek Scriptures. From these situational uses, a consensus of meaning is extracted.

  opheílō (a primitive verb, NAS dictionary) – to owe, be indebted, i.e. obliged to rectify a debt ("ought").

  ---

  If you borrow money from the Bank, you are legally required to pay back the loan. This is different and distinct from the same act borrowing from a friend.

  Bank loan = legal responsibility

  ______

  You might say to your friend who borrowed a hundred bucks until payday:

  "Hey Bozo! You ( ought ) to pay me back that $100. You got paid yesterday."

  If you put the word ( opheílō ) inside the ( ) where the "ought" is--you get the basic idea.
  ________

  Hereafter is where the simple idea starts to acquire new layers.

  Bank loan = legal responsibility

  Friend loan = moral responsibility.

  What really is the difference and why does that difference matter?

  ____________

  (opheílō) "originally belonged to the legal sphere; it expressed initially one's legal and economic, and then later one's moral, duties and responsibilities to the gods and to men, or to their sacrosanct regulations. . . . opheílō expresses human and ethical responsibility in the NT"

  _____________

  Here is where language gets tricky!

  Writers and speakers can't help themselves--they love to exaggerate, stretch, and retool the way words are used.

  People like to use very specific terms--but-- poetically, metaphorically, and colorfully to make a point in their everyday speech.

  "I died laughing" is a pretty good example. No, you didn't actually die. The word "die" is a distortion and exaggeration to emphasize the EXTREME and ABSOLUTE nature.

  Such a distortion of language is with us and always has been. If you aren't aware of it--you may be an idiot, or just not paying attention. You aren't an idiot, of course. But do pay attention!

  _________

  Where are we in this discussion so far?

  We are about to discover how humans became MORALLY RESPONSIBLE: as in

  "owing a debt" and we are examining the metaphorical transfer of meaning from an actual legal debt to a friendly debt to a general social debt. We aren't there yet, however.

  ________

  Let's add one more instance of "owing" or obligation to "pay back". . .

  Bank Loan

  Friendly loan

  how about GIFT?

  When your grandmother sends you $20 for your birthday, where is the ὀφείλω "owing" or "debt"?

  I think this will be easy to understand.

  Granny loves you and gives money without your having to ask for it because she knows it is something useful. Where is there an implicit obligation for you to pay back granny?

  This is where this topic really begins!

  ____________________________

  I hope this isn't too subtle. I hope you can see where I'm going.

  How about a phone call thanking her, or a "Thank You" card, or a hug and kiss?

  Before you nod your head in agreement. . . STOP!

  If you love your grandmother, it is natural (inborn) to feel a genuine sense of response to her gift of $20--(wait for it. . . wait for it. . . wait for it) but--if you don't feel anything--WHAT THEN?

  OTHERS, who see the situation and feel sorry that you are an ingrate, will step in and chide you by REMINDING YOU OF A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY to thank your grandmother.

  See where we ended up?

  Suddenly we have this category of IMPOSED BURDEN of "owing a debt" which is neither a legal requirement nor a friendly loan.

  Where is the role of your "conscience" if you must have an outside imposed burden laid upon you?

  If you are a child, your "conscience" is nurtured through counsel, examples, discipline, and life experience. If you are an adult, you might be easily distracted, carefree, or otherwise negligent about ordinary duties.

  But if you are an unthinking, unfeeling, callous person, you may find you are always being reminded, urged, chided, pressured and otherwise obliged to respond against your own feelings of debt.

  WHAT THEN?

  _________

  The Bible is filled with MORAL OBLIGATION imposed directly by Deity upon mankind with various punishments, penalty, fines, and disciplines attached.

  Moses transmitted 613 commands/laws/ debts or obligations in the Old Testament.

  __________

  What about the New Testament?

  The entire books of Galatians and a major theme of Colossians communicates the central idea that CHRISTIANS are NOT obligated to those 613 laws or obligations of owing / opheílō

  therefore. . .

  Does this eliminate moral responsibility as well?

  DOES THIS ELIMINATE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY?

  ______________________________
  
  

  Romans 13:8 New King James Version (NKJV)

  
  

  8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled. . . the law.

  Romans 13:8 Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE)

  8 Owe (opheilō) no (mēdeis) one anything (mēdeis), except (ei mē ·ho) to love (agapaō) one (allēlōn) another; for (gar) the (ho) one who loves (agapaō) his (ho) neighbor (rheteros) has fulfilled (plēroō) the law (nomos.)

  __________________________________

  
  

  Chime in with your response to my conclusion, which follows.

  You cannot obligate another person morally to LOVE. They either feel love or they do not.

  You can nag somebody into behaving a certain way and pressure them, but you can't penetrate the center of their character from which emotions arise.

  If you guilt-trip a person into actions which appear to be meeting moral debts or obligations what have you actually accomplished?

  _____________________

  Love is love when it comes from within the central persona, character, mindset, and emotional core of a human being. Imposing an obligation to love is a ridiculous distortion of human nature.

  A "moral" person is one who naturally, spontaneously feels moved to pay and pay back.

  Forcing these actions is the act of a prison warden or taskmaster or tyrant.

  THE WATCHTOWER RELIGION consists of obligations placed on its members to fill their minds, their days, their activities with "moral gult trips."

  The Governing Body is your mother. Loyalty and Love are imposed toward anything and everything they teach.

  In view of this discussion, isn't this over-reaching self-aggrandizement?

  If a member FAILS to "pay" their "debt" to the Governing Body's rules--they are threatened with Armageddon death and shunning until that time.

  Where is love and where is the tyranny in this? You can answer that easily.

  What are your views on moral responsibility?
• 

  Terry

  "Responsibility is the state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something, you are in charge of. That is you are directly involved with it, for an action that happens, you are directly involved in the action,
  
  Moral responsibility can refer to responsibility for a moral action, but generally, this is not the meaning people refer to. It also means responsibility for something that you did not do directly, but you were, in a way causal for that action to happen. For example, if you break up with someone badly, and that person commits suicide, you are not 'responsible' for the suicide since you had no actual part to play in it or any involvement. However, you are 'morally responsible' for it, since it was an indirect consequence, of your actions."

  https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-responsibility-and-moral-responsibility
  
• 

  Ruby456

  banks charge interest

  secondly they only lend to people who can afford to pay them back

  they can ruin your reputation and credit if you default
• 

  Terry

  To secure a loan from a Bank, you agree to sign a legal document.

  There is no "moral" component to the loan.

  You may be desperate in your plea to a Bank, but the Bank is not "morally" obliged to lend you money.

  See the difference?

  In Religious matters, your behavior and your thoughts are under a different yoke which is MORAL responsibility.

  The OLD TESTAMENT was a legal matter.

  The NEW TESTAMENT is a matter of LOVE.

  Why has a "Moral Responsibility" been invented to guilt-trip

  humans into acting AS THOUGH they feel something which they, in fact, do not feel?
• 

  Nameless

  I like that! It's like me calling my grandmother and saying "thank you" and everyone else is telling me things like "did you call and thank her", "calling is not enough you need to send her a card telling her how grateful you are" or "you better be grateful she did that because she didn't have to" when I already am grateful and thankful and expressed it in my own way. I hope I'm in the same line of thought.

  It's their way of exploiting others to make themselves look they know what they are talking about, plus it helps them fleece the sheep! Control, control, control!
  
• 

  Ruby456

  both are based on reciprocity imo - the bank loan and what you call moral responsibility
• 

  Ruby456

  nameless

  I like that! It's like me calling my grandmother and saying "thank you" and everyone else is telling me things like "did you call and thank her", "calling is not enough you need to send her a card telling her how grateful you are" or "you better be grateful she did that because she didn't have to" when I already am grateful and thankful and expressed it in my own way. I hope I'm in the same line of thought.

  It's their way of exploiting others to make themselves look they know what they are talking about, plus it helps them fleece the sheep! Control, control, control!

  the problem is that control and letting go both originate from within people anyway. but yes I agree that there are extremes in institutions like religions but I would include banks too
• 

  Terry

  Ruby 456: both are based on reciprocity imo - the bank loan and what you call moral responsibility

  ____________

  
  

  Ruby, I would ask that you explain the "basis" of reciprocity.

  What is it founded upon? What reason for it can we derive?

  
  

  My view is this: We either ARE or we ARE NOT personally moved to act beneficially toward others depending on our personal, individual character.

  About 3% of the population is Sociopathic with no empathy, no 'fellow feelings' at all, and who must adapt by imitating "normal" behavior.

  For people such as that, for example, all moral arguments are like colors to a color blind person. Invisible.

  
  

  What interests me about this discussion is this. Why does our society spend (waste) so much time and money and effort using "moral obligation" as the premise of life?

  Aren't there more compelling, legitimate arguments to be made? If so--WHAT ARE THEY?

  
  
• 

  Ruby456

  i prefer to think in terms of ethical obligations rather than moral ones

  the basis of life and non life is interdependence

  edit; our bodies our brains illustrate this principle
• 

  Terry

  Ruby, you distinguish between "moral" and "ethical" in your comment.

  I've always thought of Ethics as choices of behavior which are outcome based, chiefly using one's own Life as the paramount value. This calls for rational thinking and productivity. Morality must be chosen and not forced by Authority to be an intrinsic value.

  Yet, in a Christianized society, authority and obedience as well as self-sacrifice are considered virtues even though those are altruistic canards promoted by men pretending to know things mystically rather than rationally.

  I'm not sure the analogy of our bodies and our brains is applicable to our individual selves and society. A man can live solitarily on an island without society, and persons such as Thoreau may well have proved the worth of it.

  Reciprocity is, after all, a practical matter and not a moral one in any conventional sense.

  Pragmatism seems much more practicable than morality.