Robots Designed to Act Morally?

NAO is the world’s most widely used humanoid robot for education, healthcare, and research. NAO is a fully programmable robot that can walk, talk, listen to you, and even recognise your face. However, robotic science is far from knowing how to instill human-like morality. How to build ethical robots is one of the challenges in artificial intelligence and machine ethics.

Boer Deng

In his 1942 short story 'Runaround', science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov introduced the Three Laws of Robotics — engineering safeguards and built-in ethical principles that he would go on to use in dozens of stories and novels. They were: 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm; 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law; and 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Fittingly, 'Runaround' is set in 2015. Real-life roboticists are citing Asimov's laws a lot these days: their creations are becoming autonomous enough to need that kind of guidance. In May, a panel talk on driverless cars at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington DC, turned into a discussion about how autonomous vehicles would behave in a crisis. What if a vehicle's efforts to save its own passengers by, say, slamming on the brakes risked a pile-up with the vehicles behind it? Or what if an autonomous car swerved to avoid a child, but risked hitting someone else nearby?

Read more here.

Related reading: The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence by Nick Bostrom

Reflections on the ACNA Catechism: The Third Commandment

Our Father who art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name…

In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord our Righteous Savior. Jeremiah 23:6

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived. Luke 2:21



What is the Third Commandment?

The Third Commandment is: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.”

What does it mean not to take God’s Name in vain?

All forms of God’s Name are holy, and those who love him should use his Name with reverence, not lightly or for selfish purposes. (Leviticus 19:12; Psalm 29:2; Psalm 99:1-5; Revelation 15:3 – See Questions 169-175)

Comment: The Semites in Jesus' time believed that a person whose name was spoken with reverence and love was actually present to one speaking the name. This belief was also held by the early Christians. In the monasteries it became the practice during prayer for monks to synchronize their breathing with the repeated invocation of the holy name of Jesus.

During the theophany at the burning bush (Exodus 3) God declares, "I am that I am" (Ehye aser ehye). The entire narrative is limited to the location of this mountain sacred to the Horites in that region. Moses' father-in-law Jethro was the ruler-priest of Midian. His status is designated by the initial solar symbol: Yetro. He is a descendant of Abraham’s son Midian, born to his cousin wife Keturah. God tells  Moses that the sign by which he will now that it is the Lord who sent him would be his return to worship once again on that mountain.

And He said, "Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain." Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

Moses is concerned that his Habiru (Hebrew) people might not recognize the Lord. To this God responds that Moses is to tell them that he was sent by "I Am" and yet when Moses tells Pharaoh that it is Yahweh who commands that the people be allowed to go three days journey into the wilderness to worship, Pharaoh appears to be familiar with the Holy Name.

In Exodus 3:15 we find the narrative as a polished creed: "And again Elohim said to Moses 'You shall say this to the sons of Israel, Yahweh Elohi of your fathers, Elohi of Abraham, Elohi of Isaac and Elohi of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever and this is my title from generation to generation." Here the divine name Yahweh is associated with another divine name: Elohi/Elohim, as in Genesis 24:7.

It is evident from these references that there were various names and attributions for the Creator among the Habiru. These include El, Elohi, Elyon, El Shaddai, I Am, and Yahweh. Abraham bargains with Yahweh over the fate of Sodom (Gen.18:1). He utters the name Yahweh in Genesis 24:3 and 24:7. In the latter instance he recognizes "Yahweh Elohim" as the one who called him out of Mesopotamia. Hagar the Egyptian recognizes her angelic helper as the angel of Yahweh (Gen. 16:7), and Abraham's servant invokes the help of Yahweh no less than ten times in his quest for Isaac's cousin bride.

Numerous ancient seals include the holy name Yahweh or the element Yahu. Yahu seals were used to identify kings and ruler-priests of Judah. There are many ancient seals that bear such inscriptions. They have been found in Ethiopia, Judah, Samaria and Jordan. One seal appeared on the lintel of a priest’s tomb at Siloam in Jerusalem. His name appears as Shebna-yahu and he was the High Priest Shebna. Shebna is mentioned in II Kings 19:2. Another seal with the divine name is from the 7th century B.C. and names Hanan, son of the ruler-priest Hilqiyahu. Hilqiyahu is better known as Hilkiah, the High Priest who served during the reign of Josiah. He is mentioned in II Kings 22:8.

Two hieroglyphic references dating to 1400 B.C. refer to “the land of the Shasu of YHW.” These are the oldest references to Yahweh outside the Bible. The "Shasu of YHW" is found on inscriptions from the Nubian temples of Soleb and Amara West and corresponds to the Biblical name Yahweh. 

More than any other name for the Creator, the name Yahweh came to express the divine nature: eternal, immutable, incorruptible, sovereign over all, jealous for his people, commanding obedience, purity, mercy and justice. This God is holy and so is His name.


How can you use God’s Name irreverently?

In false or half-hearted worship, oppression of the poor, and conflicts cloaked with divine cause, people use God’s Name without reverence for him, and only to further their own goals. (Ezekiel 36:22-23)

Comment: In the ancient world assertions made in court, in public deals, and even in ordinary conversation were often backed up with conditional self-curses. These curses were believed to take effect if the one swearing the oath failed to fulfill the terms of the contract or if their testimony proved to be false. Typical assertions were: “By the life of the Lord I will (or will not)…” or “May the Lord do such and such to me if I do (or do not…). These oaths were a serious matter. A false oath showed contempt for God. The commandment appears in a slightly different form in Leviticus 19:12 – “You shall not swear falsely by My Name, profaning the name of your God: I am the Lord.” This is why our Lord Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, commanded: “Swear not at all” (Matt. 5:34).

George Washington set a good example in this regard. When he learned that some of his officers were given to profanity, he sent the following message to them on July 1, 1776:

“The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish and wicked practice of profane cursing and swearing, a vice heretofore little known in our American army, is growing into fashion. He hopes the officers will, by example as well as influence, endeavor to check it and that both they and the men will reflect that we can have little hope of the blessing of heaven on our arms if we insult it by our impropriety and folly. Added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense and character detests and despises it.”


How can you use God’s Name lightly?

Profanity, careless speech, broken vows, open sin, and meaningless exclamations all cheapen God’s Name. These treat God’s Name as “empty” of the reality for which it stands. (Matthew 5: 33-37; Articles of Religion, 39)

XXXIX. Of a Christian Man's Oath.

As we confess that vain and rash Swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ, and James his Apostle, so we judge, that Christian Religion doth not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the Magistrate requireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to the Prophet's teaching in justice, judgment, and truth.

Comment: It is evident that swearing an oath using God’s name was a practice in the 16th century or this Article of Religion would not have been necessary. First established in 1563, the articles served to define the doctrine of the Church of England as it related to Calvinism and Roman Catholicism.

Late Elizabethan drama contains a profusion of oaths using the words Jesus or God. Swearing on stage was so common that it was officially banned by the Act to Restraine Abuses of Players in 1606. Examples include 'slid for "By God's eyelid" (1598) and 'sfoot for "By God's foot" (1602); Gadzooks for "By God's hooks" (the nails on Christ's cross) and, egad for “oh God” in the late 17th century.


How can you honor God’s Name?

I honor and love God’s Name, in which I was baptized, by keeping my promises and by upholding honor in relationships, charity in society, justice in law, uprightness in vocation, and holiness in worship. (Deuteronomy 12:11; Psalm 138:2; Proverbs 30:7-9; Matthew 5:22-23; Ephesians 4:25; James 5:12)

Comment: Christians should be people of integrity. We should not enter in contracts or marriages, or commitment to serious endeavor lightly. Our word should not be flippantly broken. A Biblical view of promises calls us to a higher commitment to our word and involves calling upon God for help, but not uses God’s name in a profane way. We need God’s help to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth..." or "to faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States..." "to be my lawful wedded wife” and “to promise and covenant before God and these witnesses to be thy loving and faithful husband, in sickness and in health..." 

In the Book of Common Prayer the people of the local parish are called upon to do all in their power to support the newly married couple in upholding their promises.

In Romans 13, St. Paul makes this argument: Honor and respect are due to earthly rulers not because they are powerful and influential men, but because they have been appointed by God. It follows that to treat them with less than their due is to dishonor God. Jesus likewise told Pilate, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.” John 19:11


Summary of this five week study of the first three Commandments

The first three commandments are of central importance for Christians because they are part of what makes our Faith distinctive. They set the standard of righteousness that we are to seek in our own lives. Contemplation of these commandments reveals that only love can activate in us the yearning to fulfill these commandments. Jesus told his followers, “If you love me, you will obey my commandments.”

The Ten Commandments constitute the heart of the Law. They are of universal application while the ceremonial or ritual laws applied only to Israel and to those who attached themselves to Israel. These made the Habiru/Hebrew unique among the other peoples of the ancient world. They were known to be fastidious in the performance of their religion.

The truth can be known because God has revealed truth by various means and most especially in the person of Jesus Christ. One measure of truth is the divine moral code delivered to the Hebrew people through righteous rulers appointed by God. Among these righteous men were Enoch, Abraham, Job, Moses, and David. Analysis of the kinship of the Horite rulers named in the Bible reveals that all these were of the ruling lines that can be traced back to the Neolithic rulers named in Genesis 4 and 5. These are the rulers to whom God made the first promise of Scripture in that a Woman of their lines would be overshadowed and conceive the “Seed” of God who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15). Jesus claims to be this Seed in John 12. Speaking of his death, the Lord told his disciples, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."

Paul makes this connection in Galatians 3:16 and 29: Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy Seed, which is Christ… And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

None of the Hebrew/Habiru rulers fulfilled righteousness perfectly. That can be said only of Jesus Christ. He embodies the righteousness of the Law and he fulfills the Law. His sacrifice and resurrection are proof that He is the long-expected Righteous Ruler. The proof of that is His resurrection.

Some laws attributed to Moses were already observed by Jesus’ ancestors who served as priests at the most prestigious shrines of the ancient world. Two of these – Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) and On (Heliopolis) were on the Nile during the African Humid Period (Neolithic Subpluvial). These have been definitively identified by archaeologists and anthropologists. The people living there had a distinctive red skin tone like that of the rulers of Edom: Abraham, Seir the Horite (Gen. 36), and later the Nabataeans of Idumea. Idumea was the Greek word for Edom. It means "land of red people."

Jesus is a direct descendant of these Horites (what Jews call their "Horim"). Their red African ancestors were a cattle herding people who sacrificed calves. Abraham sacrificed a calf when the Lord in three persons visited him at Mamre (Genesis 18). In Numbers 19:9 we read of a statute that Jews selectively ignore though it pertains to a "perpetual sacrifice" of a red calf outside the camp for the purification of the people. This points to Jesus, the Calf of God, who like David and Esau had a red skin tone. He is the red calf sacrificed “outside the camp” for the purification of the people.


Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law.  Increase in us the yearning to love you more perfectly. Write these commandments on our hearts that we may fulfill your law through the power of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Related reading:  Reflections on the ACNA Catechism 1; Reflections 2: The Law and Righteousness; Reflections 3: The First Commandment; Reflections 4: The Second Commandment; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection; Adam Was a Red Man; Solving the Ainu Mystery

Reflections on the ACNA Catechism: The Second Commandment

Lord, incline our hearts to keep this law.

Alice C. Linsley


This continues the five-part series on the catechism presently used by the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA). The first three parts are linked under "related reading" at the bottom of this page.


“O God, I have tasted Thy goodness, and it has both satisfied me and made me thirsty for more. I am painfully conscious of my need of further grace. I am ashamed of my lack of desire. O God, the Triune God, I want to want Thee; I long to be filled with longing; I thirst to be made more thirsty still. Show me Thy glory, I pray Thee, that I may know Thee indeed. Begin in mercy a new work of love within me. Say to my soul, ‘Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away. Then give me grace to rise and follow Thee up  from this misty lowland where I have wandered so long. In Jesus’ Name, Amen.” --A. W. Tozer, “The Pursuit of God”

The Second Commandment

What is the Second Commandment?

The Second Commandment is: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them.”

Comment: Note the specification of things in heaven above, things beneath the earth, and things in the water under the earth. The description of the earth at the center with the firmament (waters) above and the firmament (waters) below comes from Genesis 1. The things above and the things below are hidden from us or only partially known. They cannot be adequately represented by any image that even the most talented artist could create. Any attempt to show an image of these things fails. It always misses the mark, falling short of the glory of God.

Hathor-Meri

Abraham's people understood this. That is why they used the sun as an emblem of the Creator and did not worship the sun. The sun was portrayed as serving God as a solar boat and as YHWH's chariot. The overshadowing of the ruler by the sun meant his divine appointment. This was indicated by the Y, symbolizing the long horns of the Ankole cow. The original context is that of Abraham's Nilo-Saharan cattle-herding ancestors. On ancient images, the Y image appears as a cradle  for the sun and as a crown on the head of the one who is divinely appointed. This is why many of the Horite rulers have names beginning with Y in Hebrew: Yishmael, Yitzak, Yacob, Yosef, Yisbak, Yaqtan and Yeshua are examples.

A widespread image of the Y crown is shown right. This image depicts the divine appointment and overshadowing of Hathor, the mother of Horus, the son of the Creator. The Horites were devotees of the Creator, Hathor, and Horus. At Nile shrines, Horus was often shown as the Calf of God resting in a manger. His mother is shown wearing the symbol of divine appointment. the sun cradled in the long horns of the cow. It was long expected that a "woman" of the ruler-priest lines would be overshadowed and conceive the "Seed" of God who would "crush the serpent's head" (Gen. 3:15).

What does the Second Commandment mean?

God’s people are neither to worship man-made images of God or of other gods, nor make such images for the purpose of worshiping them. (Deuteronomy 4:15-24)

Comment: The bottom line is that images are not to be worshiped or adored. However, as any parent who has sat to read a book to a preschool child knows, images are helpful. We use images in books to educate children.  The younger the child, the more images we use. As the child grows, the books have less images and more text.

Images were used throughout the history of the Church to inform illiterate people about the Gospel. Stained glass windows were used to tell the story of Jesus’ life, passion, death, resurrection and ascension. Statues of Mary and Jesus were placed in side chapels and for centuries people have prayed while contemplating the images. In the Orthodox churches the icons that are front and center are those of Jesus (on the right as one faces the most holy space) and the Theotokos (on the left). Contemplation and veneration of these icons draws the Christian deeper in the mystery of the Incarnation by which God redeems the lost and begins renewal of the material world.

In the eastern churches Mary is rarely shown apart from her Son. Most icons of Mary show her holding the Christ Child. She is the “Theotokos” – the God-bearer, the appointed and overshadowed Woman whose cooperation with God fulfills the expectation of the Righteous Ruler who is salvation (Yeshua). In this sense, Mary is a model of the obedient and fruitful Christian life. The honor the Virgin Mary is shown in the Church is the reason Feminist interpretation of the Bible ultimately fails in logic.

How did Israel break the first two commandments?

Israel worshiped the gods of the nations around them, neglected God’s Law, and corrupted the worship of the Temple, thus earning God’s punishment. (Exodus 32; Judges 2:11-15, Psalm 78:56-72; Jeremiah 32:30-35)

Comment: In Biblical theology disobedience has consequences and the consequences are viewed as divine punishment. Doubtless, some consequences described in the Bible were natural outcomes, but others, such as the plagues of Egypt, represent supernatural interventions. So it is that the Habiru/Hebrew are repeatedly warned not to transgress the order of creation (as in homosex and onanism) or to violate the moral code. The moral code, represented by the Ten Commandments, strictly forbade following after the deities of other peoples. Yahweh alone is to be worshiped and obeyed. He is not like other gods. Yahweh's nature cannot be adequately represented by any created thing. And this is where things become very interesting!

Among the Habiru, the appointed ruler with his council of ruler-priests ideally served as the earthly counterpart of the heavenly council and therefore these rulers were called "gods" or elohim. The Horite ruler-priests were regarded as deified "sons" of God. They are called "gods" (elohim) as in Exodus 22:28: "Thou shalt not revile the gods (elohim), nor curse the ruler of thy people." It becomes evident that in Horite theology the living creature alone can embody righteousness, and among living creatures, only the human has the potential for deification. No image of stone or metal qualifies.

Further, it is evident that the ruler-priests could use this claim to bolster their power among the people, as did Sargon (Biblical Nimrod) when he claimed to be the righteous ruler appointed by God on the basis of his lowly mother's miraculous conception of him while she was in the temple of Azu. No claims made by the ruler-priests could be regarded as proof of their divine appointment. The only proof of the deification of the "son" was resurrection from the dead.

The Habiru/Hebrew broke the first two commandments when they allowed themselves to be influenced by peoples with an inferior moral code and an animistic-shamanic worldview. Such syncretism brings decay and destruction to the True Faith. The catechism cites examples: Exodus 32; Judges 2:11-15, Psalm 78:56-72; Jeremiah 32:30-35. We will consider the last three first, as the example from Exodus 32 is not an example of syncretism.

Example 1 - (Judges 2:11-15): “Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord and served the Baals. They forsook the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who had brought them out of Egypt.  They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They aroused the Lord’s anger because they forsook him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths. In his anger against Israel the Lord gave them into the hands of raiders who plundered them. He sold them into the hands of their enemies all around, whom they were no longer able to resist. Whenever Israel went out to fight, the hand of the Lord was against them to defeat them, just as he had sworn to them. They were in great distress.”

The word “Baal” means Lord or Master. It can sometimes refer to the Lord, as in Baal Shalisha, meaning the Three God (an early Trinitarian reference?); a Deity associated with the number 3, a triune God. The number 3 is repeatedly found in connection to the most enlightening passages and the most astonishing acts of God. Jonah was 3 days in the belly of the whale. Moses was hidden for 3 months (Ex. 2:2). Job's 3 friends struggled with the mystery of why the righteous suffer. Moses asked permission to make a 3-day journey into the wilderness to worship. Abraham traveled 3 days to a mountain only God could reveal and upon which God provided His own sacrifice. The Covenant God made with Abraham involved cutting up 3 animals that were 3 years old. God in 3 Persons visited Abraham (Gen. 18). The 3 measures of flour made into cakes for those Visitors. The 3 gifts offered them: curds, milk and a calf. Abraham prayed 3 times for Sodom. Joseph had a dream of a vine with 3 branches (Gen 40:10-12). The “Son of Man” appeared with 3 men in the fiery furnace. Jesus rose on the third day.

Ashtoreth shrines at high elevations were dedicated to the moon goddess. As the moon merely reflects the radiance of the sun, it was regarded as an inappropriate symbol for the Creator among the Habiru and no lesser god or goddess was to be worshiped.

Example 2 - (Psalm 78:56-64): “But they put God to the test and rebelled against the Most High; they did not keep his statutes. Like their ancestors they were disloyal and faithless, as unreliable as a faulty bow. They angered him with their high places; they aroused his jealousy with their idols. When God heard them, he was furious; he rejected Israel completely. He abandoned the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent he had set up among humans. He sent the ark of his might into captivity, his splendor into the hands of the enemy. He gave his people over to the sword; he was furious with his inheritance. Fire consumed their young men, and their young women had no wedding songs; their priests were put to the sword, and their widows could not weep.” 

The Habiru rebellion expressed itself in accommodating to the cultures around them. So God abandoned them to their dark ways. Their paths led them to destruction. I am again reminded of the demise of the Episcopal Church.

As Christ followers we are to hold fast to the Gospel, not accommodating the received tradition under pressure from the world. As St. Paul reminds us,“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Romans 12:2)

Example 3 -  (Jeremiah 32:30-35): “The people of Israel and Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth; indeed, the people of Israel have done nothing but arouse my anger with what their hands have made, declares the Lord. From the day it was built until now, this city has so aroused my anger and wrath that I must remove it from my sight. The people of Israel and Judah have provoked me by all the evil they have done—they, their kings and officials, their priests and prophets, the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem. They turned their backs to me and not their faces; though I taught them again and again, they would not listen or respond to discipline. They set up their vile images in the house that bears my Name and defiled it. They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”

The Valley of Ben Hinnom is the supposed area south of Jerusalem where the offal was burned. It was characterized by fires and constant smoke plumes. Diseased and impure corpses were burned there. It became a metaphor for the wrath endured by the dead in Ge-henna.

The word Molech has a meaning similar to Baal. It means king. Molech was an Ammonite fire deity known among the Moabites as Chemosh. The ancient Habiru did not associate the elements of fire, water, air, and earth with the Creator. To do so would have been regarded as idolatry since these were created. Nor did the Habiru practice human sacrifice. Such practices were found among other peoples, but for the close-knit Habiru these practices were forbidden.

Example 4 - (Exodus 32): When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, “Come, make us a god who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don’t know what has happened to him.” Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “This is your god, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.”  So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry. Then the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.’ “I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people. Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation.” But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people. Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac and Israel, to whom you swore by your own self: ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and I will give your descendants all this land I promised them, and it will be their inheritance forever.’” Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Exodus 32 concerns the golden calf that Aaron made. This is an image of Horus and is the dynamic equivalent of the idea of the "Lamb of God." The Hebrews asked the ruler-priest Aaron to create for them a graven image (Hebrew: pesel). Apparently, Aaron was one of the members of the priestly caste trained in metal work. The image he formed of gold incorporated the sun and would have been a representation of the divine overshadowing of the Calf of God, and an image of Horus as the appointed. Below is picture of what it would have looked like.

The calf is suggestive of Horus as a child. Horus' anthropomorphic form is either as a adult male or more usually as a boy wearing the sidelock typical of royal Egyptian youth. On cippi, Horus as a boy is often shown dominating crocodiles and serpents. Consider this in light of the Woman, the Child, and the Dragon in Revelation 12. Consider also the red cow of Numbers 19 that stands as a perpetual symbol of Israel's need for cleansing. The cow is sacrificed and burned outside the camp and the ashes used for "water of lustration." (Num. 19:9) This account from Exodus 32 is not an example of syncretism because Horus was not regarded as the calf of God by any other peoples except the ancient Horites, Abraham's ancestors.

What we have is an interpretation of early Horite theology through the lens of the Deuteronomist Historian. The accusation that Aaron failed in righteousness likely comes from the iconoclastic Deuteronomist, the last known editor of the Old Testament material. The Deuteronomist urged the breaking of images. "... thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire." (Deut. 7:5) Failure to do this served as an example of moral failure on the part of Israel's rulers and justified the terrible treatment which the Jews received at the hands of the Babylonians, far worse than they ever experienced in Egypt where their rulers were recognized by the Pharaohs.

The Deuteronomist presents a religion quite different from that practiced by Abraham and his Nilo-Saharan ancestors. It moves the focus from the Righteous Ruler who would be conceived by divine overshadowing to the theology of the land as Israel’s rightful possession if she obeys the Law. This is the beginning of political Zionism.

Why did the nations make such images?

Israel’s neighbors worshiped false gods by means of images, or idols, believing they could manipulate these imaginary gods to gain favor with them. (Isaiah 40:18-26; 44:9-20)

Comment: One difference between the Habiru religion and the religions of other peoples was this matter of gaining favor from the deity. For the Habiru, God could not be appeased by offering food, wine, oil, grain or a sacrificed animal or child. Propitiation involved sacrifice that adhered to the ritual law; in other words, sacrifice on God's terms alone. J. I. Packer in "Knowing God" (p. 207) explains that there is a distinct difference between pagan and Christian propitiation: "In paganism, man propitiates his gods, and religion becomes a form of commercialism and, indeed, of bribery. In Christianity, however, God propitiates his wrath by his own action. He set forth Jesus Christ... to be the propitiation of our sins."

Are all carved images wrong?

No. God, who forbids the making of idols and worship of images, commanded carvings and pictures for the Tabernacle. These represented neither God nor false gods, but rather angels, trees, and fruits from the Garden of Eden. (Exodus 37:1-9; 39:22-26; 1 Kings 6:14-19)

Comments:  God gave explicit instructions to the artisans and craftsmen concerning how objects for the Temple were to be made. He also gave specific instructions as to how all these objects were to be consecrated, that is, set aside for sacred use. God had been doing this with the Habiru for a long time before Moses. Consider how God gave instructions to Abraham and Jacob on how to construct an altar.

Are idols always carved images?

No. Relationships, habits, aspirations, and ideologies can become idols in my mind if I look to them for salvation from misery, guilt, poverty, loneliness, or despair. (Ezekiel 14:4-5; Isaiah 2:20; Ephesians 5:2; 1 John 5:21)

An idol is anything that comes between us and our Creator or that leads us astray from the Truth revealing in Jesus Christ.

How was Jesus tempted to break the first two commandments?

Satan tempted Jesus to bow down and worship him, promising him a world kingdom without the pain of the cross. Instead, Jesus loved and worshiped God faithfully and perfectly all his life. He chose the will of his Father over the promises of the Devil, and accepted the cross. (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 22:39-49; Hebrews 4:14-16)

Comment: Satan and those who serve him are constantly trying to make Jesus into a magician who turns substances into other substances. Satan observed Jesus turn the water into wine at a family wedding in Cana and the next thing we know he is tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread. The religious leaders likewise tested Jesus by asking him to perform some sign for them, but Jesus refused, saying, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.” (Matthew 12:39-42; Mark 8)

Jesus’ love of God was and is perfect adoration. He is the Righteous Son who endured the cross in order to win his bride the Church and to reign eternally. He shall wipe away every tear and in His presence every sorrow shall be forgotten. C.S. Lewis’ explains in “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” that the evil Witch didn't realize that there is an older magic from before the dawn of time. It is the magic of divine love within the Trinity extended to humble clay like ourselves.

How will idolatry affect you?

If I worship idols I will become like them, empty and worthless, and alienated from God, the only One who can make me whole. (Psalm 115:4-8; Jeremiah 2:11-19; Romans 1:18-32)

If we commit to follow a false leader or cause, we will be led astray. Only one leader has the power to lead His people to eternal life: Jesus Christ, the Righteous. He is the firstborn from the grave and by his resurrection He delivers to the Father a "peculiar people." He leads us in the ascent to the Father where we receive heavenly recognition because we belong to Him.

How can you love God in worship?

The Holy Scriptures teach me how to worship God, and the Church’s liturgy guides my worship in keeping with the Scriptures. I can show love to God by worshiping him in this way. (Romans 12:1-2; Hebrews 9:11-14; 10:11-25; 12:18-29; 13:1-19)

Comment: C.S. Lewis wrote in Letters to Malcolm, “Relying on God has to begin all over again every day as if nothing had yet been done.” Trusting God is one way that we worship God. We are more likely to slip into idolatry when we fail to trust and rely on God in the smallest details of daily life.

Related reading:  Fundamentalism and Syncretism in Hebrew History; Graven Images and Idols; Reflections on the New Anglican Catechism (Part 1) - Introduction; Reflections on the New Anglican Catechism (Part 2) - The Law and Righteousness; Reflections on the New Anglican Catechism (Part 3) - The First Commandment; The Moral Code of Ani; What Does Genesis Speak of "gods"?; Kushite Kings and the Kingdom of God

Reflections on the ACNA Catechism - Part 3

Part 3 - The First Commandment
Alice C. Linsley

What is the First Commandment?

The First Commandment is: “I am the Lord your God, You shall have no other gods before me.”

Comment: The first three words, Anochi Havayah Eloecha, mean “I am God your Ruler.” These are not originally Hebrew words. Anochi refers to the royal first person in Ancient Egyptian. The Rabbis speculated a length about the meaning of the word. In the Talmud (Shabbat 105a) they recognize that anochi is an unusual pronoun. It is is related to the word Anu, an Akkadian name for the High God. The appointed ruler who represents God on earth takes a deriviative name Anoch/Enoch, a royal title.

Neither is the word Ha-vayah of Hebrew origin. This is evident in that there is no V in the Hebrew alphabet. However, the V appears in many Nilotic words. In Luo, for example, V relates to separating, spreading out, or any valley between rivers. If the valley is circular it is called kikar (ring, disk, circle) as in "Kikkar ha-yarden" which is translated "all the valley of the Jordan" (Genesis 13:10).

We have a clue as to the origin of the word Havayah in Genesis 2:11 which speaks of a region called Ha-vilah. This refers to the V-shaped place between the two main tributaries of the Nile as shown in the map above. In Genesis 2:13, we are told that the Blue Nile was called the Gihon. This suggests that the White Nile was called the Pishon (Gen. 2:11) These rivers bound Eden on the west and the Tigris and Euphrates bound Eden on the east. Obviously, Eden was a vast and well-watered region.

The word El is a very ancient name for God. Variants are Al and Elohim. Eloecha, the third word in the opening of the First Commandment, likely is a corruption of El-echad. Echad is an adjective meaning "a compound unity" and some Bible commentators hold that the Shema (Deut. 6:4) means Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, The LORD is a compound unity. If this is correct, El-echad would be similar in meaning to another ancient reference to God: Baal-Shalisha, the Three God or the God associated with the number three. Abraham was visited by the Three Person God before the destruction of Sodom. The author of Genesis 18 struggles to describe this theophany, and presents the Lord appearing with two angelic beings. Baal Shalisha - usually rendered ‘God of three powers’ or ‘the third idol’ - is also inadequate. ‘Baal’ means Lord and ‘shalisha’ is the number three, so it is possible that the idea of a Triune God was already circulating before the time of Abraham. If this is the case, Christians cannot be accused of inventing the concept of the Trinity.


What does it mean to have no other gods?

It means that there should be nothing in my life more important than God and obeying his will. I should love, revere, trust, and worship him only. (Exodus 334:14; Deuteronomy 6:4, 10-15; 12:29-31; Jeremiah 0:6-10; Matthew 4:10; 28:8-20)

Comment: In the ancient world there were castes or clans of priests dedicated to different gods. Abraham's ruler-priest ancestors (the Horim or Horites) refused to acknowledge any god except the one who created all things. The Creator was known by different names including Ra, El, Al, Elohim and YHWH.

The Creator's emblem was the sun, an important symbol for the Horites. They oriented their shrines and temples toward the rising sun. In Canaan, their rulers were indicated by the solar cradle - Y - at the beginning of their names: Yaqtan, Yitzak, Yacob, Yisbak, etc. In very ancient scripts of Arabia, the sun symbol is a an orb - O. This appears in the older word for Hebrew was O-biru (O-piru), a reference to the sun temples.

Horite temples were open to the sunlight and had no statues of the Creator because he was represented by the sunlight. At the center of the temple there was an obelisk and an altar. The most most prestigious of the Horite temple was in Heliopolis (Biblical On). This shrine city was erected by Abraham's Anu (Ainu) ancestors. Joseph married one of the daughters of the High Priest of On. The pyramids of Giza, Zaqqara and Abusir were aligned to to the obelisk of Heliopolis.

In the ancient world the Horite priests were known to be especially fastidious in the practice of their religion and in their moral behavior. Plutarch wrote that the "priests of the Sun of Heliopolis never carry wine into their temples, for they regard it as indecent for those who are devoted to the service of any god to indulge in the drinking of wine whilst they are under the immediate inspection of their Lord and King. The priests of other deities are not so scrupulous in this respect, for they use it, though sparingly." The Horite priests were recognized for their devotion to the Creator, for their sobriety, and for their purity of life. Before their time of service in the temple they prayed, fasted, shaved their bodies, ritually bathed, abstained from sexual relations with their wives, and did not consume wine.

The oldest known Horite shrine city is Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) on the Nile, dating to about 4000 B.C. Here priests placed written invocations to the Creator and his son Horus in the summit wall as the sun rose. The son and the father were regarded are equal. Horus gave his name to the rulers of the Nile as he was the one to unite the peoples (Upper and Lower Nile) and therefore was crowned with two crowns (ataroth, cf. Zechariah 6:11). Messianic expectation appears to originate with the Horites who Jews call their "Horim."


Can you worship God perfectly?

No. Only our Lord Jesus Christ worshiped God perfectly. He leads the Church today to seek to do the same. (Matthew 4:1-11; 26:36-46; Revelation 4-5)

Comment: The Son alone is able by his virtue to exalt the Father. When we are baptized into Christ, when we "put on" Christ, we enter into a radical new existence in which the Holy Spirit working in us enables us to please God. This is a process called "sanctification" or "deification." It is a great challenge because sometimes we try to do the work by our own strength. There is also the reality of spiritual warfare. Dark forces constantly work to draw us away from God and to make us stumble. These forces are far greater and more subtle than we generally imagine. C.S. Lewis explores this reality in his Screwtape Letters.


How are you tempted to worship of gods?

I am tempted to trust in my self, possessions, relationships, and success, believing that they will give me happiness, security, and meaning. I am also tempted to believe superstitions and false religious claims, and to reject God's call to worship him alone. (Psalm 73:11-17; Romans 1:18-32)

Comment: I posed this question to my students, wondering what responses would I get from them. Judging from their insights, I am encouraged about the rising generation. Here are some of their answers to that question:

• Human pride leads us to make our agendas more important than God's.
• Utopian ideologies would have people believe that social and political systems can save us.
• Social pressures distract me from God and can make me do the wrong thing.
• The honor due to God is given instead to celebrities.
• Sometimes I don't go to church. I spend Sunday on my personal device and play games with my friends. Sometimes I compete at online games with strangers.

How we spend our time says so much about what we value. To the world we seem a strange people because as Christians we prefer to spend our time together. We prefer to read and study the Bible, and to gather whenever possible to worship the Holy Trinity. The manner of our lives is distinct and peculiar because we love God above all else. The world hates that about us, but before God we are a heavenly fragrance rising to the Throne of Heaven.

Related reading: Horite temples; Why Nekhen is Anthropologically Significant; Part 1 Introduction to the New Anglican Catechism (The Ten Commandments); Part 2 The Law and Righteousness; Righteous Rulers and the Resurrection; Genesis in Anthropological Perspective

The Moral Code of Ani

The Code of Ani is a negatively worded moral code, like the Ten Commandments. It dates to c. 2500 B.C. It has 42 confessions and appears to have a chiastic structure.

The text is Akkadian and the authority of the code is derived from the Father God Anu/Anum, whose divine son was called Enki, meaning "Lord over the Earth." Among the Nilotic peoples, God Father was called Ra and God son was called Horus.

Papyrus of Ani

It appears that the moral codes found in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus derive from an earlier tradition. The Code of Ani shows evidence of influence from the Law of Tehut which dates to c.3200 BC. Parallels can be found to later Nilotic writings, such as Utterance 125 in the Egyptian Book of the Dead (c.1500 BC) which speaks of the heart of the dead king being weighed.

The word Ani is related to the Akkadian word anaku - the royal First Person. It is related also to the Anu priests who served at the most prestigious shrines throughout the ancient world. This image shows a tera (priest) of Seth in service to the God of Seth at a HT temple of the Anu people.

The temples of the ancient world were located on mounds which is why they are often labeled as "high places." The Horite mounds and the Sethite mounds were sacred Hebrew shrines. Though separate, they shared common religious practices and beliefs.

It is clear in the Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (2400 BC) that the Horites and the Sethites maintained separate settlements. Utterance 308 addresses them as separate entities: "Hail to you, Horus in the Horite Mounds! Hail to you, Horus in the Sethite Mounds!"

PT Utterance 470 contrasts the Horite mounds with the mounds of Seth, designating the Horite Mounds "the High Mounds."

The AN root appears in variants such as Anoch/Enoch; Anakim; Ana; Annas; Ananus; Ananias and Hannah. The three Anakim clans were named for the three highest ranked sons of Anak whose names were Sheshai (Shasu), Ahiman, and Talmai (Josh.15:14).

The Shasu are mentioned in ancient texts as the "Shasu of YHWH." Two hieroglyphic references dating to the New Kingdom (1550-1069 BC) refer to “the land of the Shasu of YHWH” in reference to ancient Edom. These inscriptions are found on the Nubian temples of Soleb and Amara West, and are the oldest references to YHWH outside the Bible.

Many priests are named for the High God Anu/Ani. The High Priest Ananus was appointed by Herod the Great. Ananus served as the High Priest of Edom/Idumea from 6-15 AD. Edom was home of some of the greatest Horite Hebrew rulers, and all of Abraham's territory was in the region of Edom. Edom was known as one of the ancient seats of wisdom.

The moral Code of Ani (below) represents ancient wisdom which would have been used to instruct sons, as in Proverbs.

I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men and women.
I have not stolen grain.
I have not purloined offerings.
I have not stolen the property of the gods.
I have not uttered lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not uttered curses.
I have not committed adultery, I have not lain with men.
I have made none to weep.
I have not eaten the heart.
I have not attacked any man.
I am not a man of deceit.
I have not stolen cultivated land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have slandered [no man].
I have not been angry without just cause.
I have not debauched the wife of any man. (This repeats.) I have not debauched the wife of [any] man.
I have not polluted myself.  (This is the center of what appears to be a chiasm about purity.)
I have terrorized none.
I have not transgressed [the Law].
I have not been wroth.
I have not shut my ears to the words of truth.
I have not blasphemed.
I am not a man of violence.
I am not a stirrer up of strife (disturber of the peace).
I have not acted (or judged) with undue haste.
I have not pried into matters.
I have not multiplied my words in speaking.
I have wronged none, I have done no evil.
I have not worked witchcraft against the King (or blasphemed against the King).
I have never stopped [the flow of] water.
I have never raised my voice (spoken arrogantly, or in anger).
I have not cursed God.
I have not acted with evil rage.
I have not stolen the bread of the gods.
I have not carried away the khenfu cakes from the spirits of the dead. (cf. Ps.106:28)
I have not snatched the bread of the child, nor treated with contempt the god of my city.
I have not slain the cattle belonging to the god.

Related reading: Ancient Moral Codes; Edom and the Horites; The Nubian Context of YHWH; Menes the Law Giver; The Laws of Ur-Nammu,

Revising Good and Evil

Writing in the New York Times, Harvard Professor Howard Gardner proposes a revision of traditional morality.

Howard Gardner

Gardner writes,

"For millennia, religious believers have attributed our nature to God’s image, as well as to God’s plan. In recent years, evolutionary psychologists peered directly at our forerunners on the savannahs of East Africa; if human beings change, we do so gradually over thousands of years. Given little or nothing new in the human firmament, traditional morality — the “goods” and “bads” as outlined in the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule — should suffice.

My view of the matter is quite different. As I see it, human beings and citizens in complex, modern democratic societies regularly confront situations in which traditional morality provides little if any guidance. Moreover, tenable views of “good” and “bad” that arose in the last few centuries are being radically challenged, most notably by the societal shifts spurred by digital media. If we are to have actions and solutions adequate to our era, we will need to create and experiment with fresh approaches to identifying the right course of action."
Here is a peek at Gardner's plan:

"tenable views of 'good' and 'bad' that arose in the last few centuries are being radically challenged, most notably by the societal shifts spurred by digital media. If we are to have actions and solutions adequate to our era, we will need to create and experiment with fresh approaches to identifying the right course of action. Let's start with the Ten Commandments..."

Gardner's premise is flawed, so therefore is his conclusion.  Evolutionary biologists have had to admit that those archaic ancestors of East Africa were fully human, sharing the same essence as modern humans.

The etymology of the word horotely suggests the very opposite of how it is used by evolutionary biologists today. The term relates to Horus and fixed limits or boundaries between "kinds" (an essentialist view). This is not a popular concept among those who believe that chimps and humans have a common ancestor because they have similar anatomical and genetic structure, or that nurse sharks and camels have a common ancestor because they have a similar antigen receptor protein structure.

For purposes of classification, the essentialist is willing to group similar species such as apes and humans in the same genus, but this does not mean they are of the same essence. Clearly they have different essences since they reproduce different kinds. Humans only reproduce humans and have done for the past 3 to 4 million years. There are fixed boundaries within the DNA code. While the similarity of humans to primates may suggest a common origin, a common ancestor(s) is not known to have existed in real time.

Three to four million year fossils recovered in Ethiopia and Cameroon have been studied to reconstruct a picture of Lucy and her archaic people. These 3.2 million year old remains were found in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1973. For about 20 years Australopithecus afarensis was described as the earliest known “human ancestor species.” Australopithecus means “Ape of the South” and afarensis refers to the Afar Triangle of Ethiopia where the fossils were found. The first discovered skeleton of this population was named "Lucy" and she was described as an ape rather than a human.

Australopithecus afarensis is the term coined by South African anatomist Donald C. Johanson for Lucy and her community. Johanson has since concluded that these were Homo, not apes, although the artists’ drawings in biology books still show them as hairy and apelike.

Ward, Kimbel, and Johanson reported in Feb. 2011 the recovery of a complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis at Hadar that shows the deep, flat base and tarsal facets that “imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans.”

What are we to make of the phrase “functionally like” – does it mean similar or identical? The evolutionary biologist will read this and stress similar structure as evidence of common ancestry. On the basis of similar anatomy humans and chimps are classified in the same genus. So why not admit, on the basis of similarity, that A. afarensis is human? Here we find a serious flaw in logic.

When paleoanthropologist Jeremy DeSilva compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus of fossil "hominins" between 4.12 million to 1.53 million years old, he discovered that all of the hominin ankle joints resemble those of modern humans rather than those of apes. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle bones are quite distinct from those of apes. Using DeSilva's evidence no argument can be made that the fossils are similar to apes. They are not. Lucy and her community are not evidence of common ancestry of apes and humans. They are evidence that humans have had the same essence for millions of years.

Related reading: Theories of Change and Constancy; What Makes a Good Society?

Moral Obligation

Alice C. Linsley


A difficult aspect of ethical thinking is obtaining critical distance from our own beliefs and recognizing the possibility of error. When we take for granted the reasonableness of the beliefs upon which we act, we fail to question our "givens" and are easily moved to accept things that we should probably question and even resist.

Since our ideas of morality are mostly shaped by the influence of parents, friends, spouses and our culture, our confidence in the correctness of our moral views is strongly reinforced. The moral authority of our actions is determined by the consensus of these influences. We feel obliged to go with the dominant views, rarely questioning whether these might be based more on convenience than truth, or promoted by vested interests rather than by prophetic voices.

Law codes are a measure of a culture's moral compass. Consider the Code of Hammurapi. It was engraved on a dark stone stele more than 7 feet high. At the top of this stele appears an image of King Hammurapi standing reverently before the seated Shamash, the god of justice. Shamash is dictating the law to his earthly representative. The Code of Hammurapi closes with this statement: “The righteous laws which Hammurapi, the wise king, has established...” Similarly, Leviticus closes with this: “These are the commandments which YHWH commanded Moses for the children of Israel.” These ancient moral codes appealed to the deity for the authority.

These ancient moral codes did not spring suddenly into existence. They represent centuries of social development and ethical thinking. Similarly, the laws of the United States represent centuries of development and are still developing. One wonders what moral authority the U.S. Supreme Court appeals to when makign decisions? Is the Court's authority constituted on general principles of law, the citation of precedent, and some general idea of fairness? If so, that's not a very secure tether. That boat is sure to drift.

According to Socrates, we have a moral obligation to be good citizens. For Socrates good citizenship requires philosophical contemplation whereby one achieves happiness through virtue. Socrates was very popular in anient Athens. When faced with the choice of being executed or taking his own life, Socrates chose the latter. Everyone knew that Socrates was being set up. His friends had offered to help him escape to safety, but he refused. How could he teach good citizenship and disregard the auhroity of the State? Yet if he allowed the State to take his life, when everyone knew he was innocent of the charges, he would undermine the citizens' confidence in their political system.

According to Plato (427-347 B.C.), evil arises from ignorance, and virtue can be imparted through instruction. For Plato, the highest good consists in the perfect imitation of the Absolute Good, which cannot be fully realized in this life. Virtue enables man to order his conduct according to the dictates of reason, and acting according to reason, he approaches the Absolute Good (which in theological language is God).

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) addressed most of the ethical questions that continue to fret the Western mind. With characteristic keenness he solved, in his ethical and political writings, most of the problems with which ethics concerns itself. Unlike Plato, who began with ideas as the basis of his observation, Aristotle began with experience analysed and traced to ultimate causes.

He asserts that all men tend to happiness as the ultimate object of all their endeavors, and to which all other goods merely serve as means.  The highest pleasure is found in eudaimonism as an activity.  The concept of eudaimonic well-being (from daimon - true nature) stresses that not all desires are worth pursuing as, even though some of them may yield pleasure. Only desires which produce wellness can be considered virtuous, so moral obligation involves right desires. Aristotle's treatment of moral obligation remains a lasting contribution to ethics.

The study of the history of ethics counteracts this problem of perspective. By virtually traveling into other cultures and time periods, we will encounter an endless variety of contrasting, often contradictory, beliefs about morality. We will discover, first and foremost, that many of the most brilliant minds in human history have disagreed about morality and that no philosopher, no matter how confident and talented, has ever expressed an ethical view without encountering opposition, disagreement, and possible error.

Our own moral beliefs which seem obvious, and often receive the agreement of the immediate world around us, are a minority view when placed into the larger history of moral philosophy. They cannot be taken for granted and must be carefully considered and critically examined.



A Good Reason to Study the History of Ethics

Study of the history of ethics counteracts the problem of too-close perspective. By visiting other cultures and time periods, we discover a variety of contrasting and often contradictory moral beliefs that register different moral obligations. We discover that brilliant minds have disagreed about morality and that no philosopher has ever expressed an ethical view without encountering opposition and disagreement.

We have choices as to how we will conduct our lives.  We may decide that traditional authorities are not binding on us and attempt to live as Nietzsche who called himself an “immoralist” and criticized almost all the moral philosophers. He wrote:

“Whether it be hedonism or pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism: all these modes of thought which assess the value of things according to pleasure and suffering, that is to say according to attendant and secondary phenomena, are foreground modes of thought and naïvetés which anyone conscious of creative powers and an artist’s conscience will look down on with derision” (Peoples and Fatherlands, 7:225).

We may decide that Immaneul Kant's deontological ethics is a better path. Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in fulfilling his duty.” According to Kant the nature of morality is to do one’s duty even when we are not inclined to do it, and not because we are afraid of the consequences of not doing it. The moral person performs his moral obligation regardless of the consequences.

In Kant's view the person who does his duty to appear virtuous, is not moral. The person who does his duty to get it over and done with, is not moral. The person who does his duty to avoid negative consequences, is not moral. Only the person who does his duty because it is his duty, is moral. Kant’s philosophy is an absolutist moral system, that is to say that he regarded some acts always to be wrong, regardless of the situation.

Jeremy Bentham presented another approach to moral obligation. Utilitarianism states that the right action or policy is that which brings “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Bentham never actually used this phrase and later dropped the second qualification, embracing what he called "the greatest happiness principle." Bentham's “happiness principle” refers to the extent to which actions promote the general happiness. What is morally obligatory is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, and creates the least amount of pain. He writes, “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.”

Utilitarian ethics is very popular today. It appeals to those who believe that moral obligation can be boiled down to not hurting others by my actions.  However, this over simplifies Bentham's philosophy. Bentham believed that the primary motivators in human beings are pleasure and pain. He argued that, if pleasure is the good, it is good regardless of whose pleasure it is. This being the case, the pursuit of maximum pleasure has moral force independent of the interests of the individual acting. As with Adam Smith, Bentham held that individuals should seek the general happiness because the interests of others are inextricably bound up with their own.

Bentham was a lawyer and he proposed that the identification of interests and the bringing together of diverse interests is the responsibility of lawmakers. This is a popular idea among supporters of big government.  The irony of having the government determine the individual's moral obligation appears not to have dawned on the fans of Utilitarianism.

Related reading:  Aristotle's Understanding of the Chief Good; Ancient Moral Codes; Ethics and Binary Oppositions; Scott B. Rae's Moral Choices