In one of my favorite bits of a well-regarded speech, Barack Obama said:
Since my own political philosophy falls somewhere between Swedish Socialism and John Rawls, this pleased me; like most folks, I enjoy hearing my own views fed back to me, but eloquently.
But Jason at Positive Liberty, who is (as best as I can make out) a small-l libertarian, wasn’t so pleased. And he makes a good point about the story of Cain and Abel: it’s a lousy story for illustrating a moral principle, because it papers over the rather large gray area that lies between “taking responsibility for my sibling’s well-being” and “beating my sibling to death and hiding the body.”
The problem with Cain isn’t that he lacks charity; it’s that he murders people whom God seemingly likes better. So, in context, “I am not my brother’s keeper” doesn’t seem to illustrate the moral problem with indifference so much as it illustrates the moral problem with beating people to death and hiding the bodies.
* * *
By the way, since I’m plugging Jason’s site, make sure to read his sensational series on attending GALA (the Gay and Lesbian Association of Choruses annual event). Jason thoughtfully discusses questions of religion, family, and “why do we need a gay chorus?,” among many other issues.
Jason’s site isn’t set up to let you read a series of individual posts. So the best way to read the GALA post seriess is to go to the July archive, and then scroll down to July 26 or search for “???” to find the first GALA post. Then just scroll upwards to read the more recent posts, as well. (Jason: maybe it’s time to add “next post – previous post” links to the individual post template?)
“Small-l libertarian” is exactly right–and thanks for the links!
No deep comment, just wanted to mention that your line
“I am not my brother’s keeper” doesn’t seem to illustrate the moral problem with indifference so much as it illustrates the moral problem with beating people to death and hiding the bodies.
had me laughing out loud and calling people in to read it.
—Myca
LOL. You are right. Very poor analogy.
I think what would better exemplify “brother’s keeper” is “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “If you see your enemy’s donkey lying down under its burden, you shall not ignore him, but help him release the animal,”
The idea is if our enemy’s animal is in danger and we are to help it, how much more would we do for our enemy (really someone we don’t like, not someone who is aiming a gun at you) if they were hurt, or for a friend?
What has always interested me the most about the Cain and Able story is the dichotomy between herders and agriculturalists and which one God finds most worthy.
Indeed, Matt. You’d think that God would be cosmopolitan enough to accept sacrifices from vegetarians. But no….
maybe joseph and his brothers would be a better example…except for the whole selling him into slavery. does that go past indifference?
Joseph and his brothers are a better example, yes.
I have sometimes heard theologians explain that Cain and Abel are a parable about predestination: No matter how good or bad you are by your actions, God still has the power to damn you through your own tainted humanity. You absolutely require His grace to be saved, but God does not give that grace to everyone. Thus God favored Abel over Cain, even though they were more or less equal at the start of the story. Then, because God gave his grace to Abel but not to Cain, Cain did evil.
Charming, eh?
>>God favored Abel over Cain
Yet, Abel died and untimely death….
The problem is that it shouldn’t be analyzed as a parable at all. Insofar as there is a lesson to the story, it is something along the lines of “Don’t eat the forbidden fruit or your kids will end up in a world of trouble.”
Take a closer look at the story of Cain and Abel.
Genesis 4:3-4
“Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock”
Note that it says that Abel brought one of the BEST firstlings of his flock, implying that Cain did not offer God his best.
And here I always thought the story only existed so that Neil Gaiman could take the characters and run with them.
I view the story as a reflection of the battle between hunters and farmers, probably, but if it’s one about being your brother’s keeper it seems to be because neither one actually carried out this role. If you are your brother’s keeper you cooperate with him; you don’t try to beat him.
Abel didn’t try and beat Abel Echinde; they both brought sacrifices to G-d; as Lukas said, Cain just brought his produce, Abel brought from the best.
The sacrifices come from what one owns.
I don’t think scholars agree on the meaning of the sacrifices–whether Abel’s was preferred because it was animal sacrifice, or whether Cain’s sacrifice was half-hearted, or whether there was something else going on.
You’re right, mythago, scholars don’t agree. It’s possible to take the text as implying both things – that Cain’s sacrifice was half-hearted, and that God preferred animal sacrifice… often Scripture can have multiple or layered meanings.
I was merely trying to question the assumption that God unjustly favored Abel.
Can’t argue with you there.
I agree with what you’re saying Rachel Ann, my comment was about the use of the saying ‘brother’s keeper’ more generally. I don’t think that the Cain and Abel story describes the same thing we mean when we talk about being your brother’s keeper.
I’ve often wondered if “my brother’s keeper” was used in the “jailer” or “owner” sense — one “keeps” an animal, for instance, so Cain’s remark is more a “my brother is a free man, not my dog” kind of thing. Subtle difference between that and “doing unto others,” if you see what I mean.
Wonder what it meant in the original?
Ed