A Simple Question
AdminHere’s a simple question that arose during a conversation I was having with a friend of mine, to which I realized I had no satisfactory answer:
Are violent video games sinful?
For those not familiar with the medium of video games, it is a multi-billion dollar per year industry. The median age of video game players in in the late twenties. A large swath of these games involve, in some manner or another, the player performing acts of violence in the context of the game. For some games, like the popular “Hitman” series, committing contract murders is the whole point of the game. For others, the game’s objectives are not inherently violent, but the game world is lawless and dangerous, and the player is occassionally (or frequently) called upon to use force for self-preservation or to accomplish other goals.
In any event, millions of people play these games, and commit these acts of virtual violence. Nothing is harmed except fictional constructs. Putting aside the issues of time stewardship and addiction (which are often the primary, and more clear-cut, issues of sin for people who play video games), is there something inherently sinful in the act of video game violence? What, and why? And, if so, how is video game violence distinguishable from, for example, boys playing army, or any other simulation of violence?
February 7th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Pornography asks the viewer to imagine sex in one’s mind with the film’s “actors.” Therefore, it is wrong.
Exactly how is that different from Grand Theft Auto? Because GTA has digital people and porn has human ones? No. The sin is in the mental engagement. Both are guilty.
February 9th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Can you provide Biblical support for your theory that imaging having sex in one’s own mind is a “sin”? I buy that if the viewer is married (Matt. 5:28) but I’m not sure that’s an absolute rule. What if I am single, I watch porn, imagine that I’m married to one of the actresses, and ergo, imagine having sex with them? Does that “cleanse” the thought? Sex is not a sin, its the circumstances that make it a sin or not.
That being said, I do not believe the circumstances surrouding the violence or lawlessness in Grand Theft Auto constitute a sin. But that’s just me. (On a related note, obviously these gentlemen in their late twenties who are regularly playing video games are probably not committing sins, under any one’s defintion, with the fairer sex, or you would think that the video games would sit in a corner gathering dust. Thus, the video games are at least taking the place of (or perhaps precluding) another sin).
February 10th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I must have missed the part in that verse where Jesus explicitly added the condition that his statement only applied to married people. Maybe I’m reading the wrong version or something. The way I read it, it says that if any man ever looks at a woman with lust in his heart he sins. At least that’s the plain meaning of his words.
Sex absolutely is not sinful in itself. It’s a wonderful thing. But, as Chesterton said, there are many angles at which you fall and only one at which you stand upright. Sex must be done in the right circumstances, with the right person, and with the right motive. Otherwise, it’s sinful. Throughout history, and especially in the modern West, we’ve almost made an art out of taking sexual pleasure in circumstances, with people, or with motives that violate God’s will as expressed in holy scripture and in Church Tradition.
Think of it like eating food. Nearly all people eat food with their mouths. People who consume food through their anal walls are viewed as perverted because they refuse to take food naturally and properly, but willingly take it in a way that’s unnatural. Other people are unable to eat food with their mouths and instead consume it it through IV tubes, but they do so out of weakness and we pity them. They still aren’t viewed as normal. We have absolutely no problem eating all manner of food with our mouths. There are probably millions of different combinations of taste that we can take through our mouths. God’s prescribed use of sex (with only one person of the opposite sex whom you’re married to for life) is like eating food with our mouths: it’s right and proper and healthy. We as a culture have gotten used to shoving food into every possible orifice but our mouths, however, and view eating food with our mouths as old fashioned and limiting. We curse God for telling us to eat only through our mouths and praise those who tell us how healthy consuming food through our ears is. Think about how ridiculous and sad that analogy is, and you’ve got a little bit of an idea of how ridiculous and sad our sex-obsessed culture looks to God.
Pornography is wrong first because the actors involved are almost never married (thus it’s fornication), and second because — in the extremely unlikely event the actors involved are married — they’re actively seeking to inspire lust in others. Thus, it is sinful. People who use pornography do so to increase or give vent to the lust within themselves. Thus, for them, it’s sinful.
As for violence, I’d say that its proper use is even more circumscribed than that of sex: violence, after all, isn’t itself a good act. It’s the mirror image of sex. Sex is good but can become bad depending on how one does it; violence is bad but can become good depending on how one does it.
The little I’ve seen of Grand Theft Auto strongly suggests that it actively encourages people who play it to view violence wrongly, and, over time, conditions their minds and hearts to view violence wrongly (much as frequent viewing of pornography conditions people’s minds and hearts to consider sex wrongly). Thus, I would say, it and other games like it are sinful.
February 10th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
I’m always open to being educated. However, the Bible I have says if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he commits adultery, not fornication. I suppose there could be another version out there but it is not one of the several versions that I own.
I don’t understand your analogy at all. I will grant you that it could very well be that I’m a little slow. I guess if people want to stuff food up their ass, not only do I not think its a sin, but I don’t care nor is it any of my business.
Anyway, that brings me back to the videogames. I don’t think sitting in your living room playing a violent videogame, hurting no one, is a sin. If you go out and do it, naturally that would be a sin, but it would be a sin unrelated to the videogame. My own personal theology is that there are a vast number of things that God leaves up to the individual. If you think playing violent videogames is sinful, and do it anyway, then you are sinning, because you believe you are committing a sin, even if God couldn’t care less. If you don’t think playing violent videogames is sinful, have at it. There is nothing in the Bible that expressly forbids it.
February 10th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Adultery is fornication, by definition. Fornication means having sex with someone you’re not married to. It’s a broader category that adultery falls into, much as “truck” falls into the broader category of “automobile”, or “humans” fall into the broader category of “primates”. And even if this linguistic point wasn’t a fact, Christ said that the person looking at a woman with lust commits adultery, which is clearly sinful.
As for the food analogy, the point wasn’t that it’s morally wrong to stick food in all kinds of orifices, it was that it was unnatural or perverse — like sexual activity outside of the limits prescribed by God. Sex, unlike eating, is an inherently normative activity. Perhaps I should have added a little bit about assuming eating to be a normative activity in my analogy. Oh well. The point is that people have no problem eating food through their mouths, the way they’re supposed to, yet they have a huge problem keeping their sexual activity limited to one person of the opposite sex to whom they’re committed for life through marriage, like they’re supposed to. The point of the analogy was to get people thinking along those lines.
As for your argument about violent video games, I have to disagree. First, the “they’re not hurting anyone” argument is a variation on utilitarian thought, and implicitly denies the legitimacy of divine judgments regarding human conduct. It allows someone to nullify divine commands if he isn’t directly interacting with people. (It also helps condition people to tolerate of all kinds of “victimless crimes” like prostitution.)
Second, the idea that if something isn’t proscribed in scripture it must not be bad is pretty limiting. Slavery isn’t proscribed in scripture, for example, but charging interest is. Are all banks sinful? Were abolitionists sinful for taking away slaveowners’ rightful property? (Slaveowners frequently used the “The Bible never condemns slavery!” argument, by the way. And it’s impossible to argue with them. The Bible never condemns slavery in the slightest: in some parts it tolerates it and in others it openly approves of it, but never does it condemn it.) Killing overly disobedient children is practically commanded. Do parents who don’t kill their children if they cuss them out sin by not being righteously angry enough?
These questions are more problematic for Protestants than for Catholics, of course, but all Christians must deal with matters of principles not explicitly dealt with in scripture or Church teaching. As has been discussed in other articles on this site, scripture doesn’t really advocate a utilitarian approach to personal moral actions. (One of the few characters in scripture to openly advocate for utilitarianism was Caiaphas, the high priest who condemned Christ to death.) I don’t see how that would give us the right to do so.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“If you think playing violent videogames is sinful, and do it anyway, then you are sinning, because you believe you are committing a sin, even if God couldn’t care less”
My moral-relativism-dar just went off.
February 10th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I did not know that fornication and adultery were synonymous. I know the dictionary draws a distinction, I think the Bible draws a distinction, and I certainly know that Mrs. Cumtwa draws a distinction.
February 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
for?ni?ca?tion
? ?/?f?rn??ke???n/ [fawr-ni-key-shuhn]
–noun
1. voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons or two persons not married to each other.
a?dul?ter?y
? ?/??d?lt?ri/ [uh-duhl-tuh-ree]
–noun, plural -ter?ies.
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.
(Both definitions courtesy of dictionary.com.)
Although the definitions are not exactly the same, the first word’s definition logically includes the second word’s. Scripture and the Church clearly condemn both (while acknowledging that they’re not exactly the same thing). I can’t speak to what Mrs. Cumtwa’s opinions on them are, though.
February 12th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I can. She definitely draws a distinction between fornication and adultery, as I imagine Mrs. Goodell does. If you don’t draw a distinction between cheating on your wife, and a guy having monogamous sex with his girlfriend of 5 years, well then what can I say.
So, when Galatians 5:19-21 says “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, etc.” it really means “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, did I mention adultery……”
And yes, althogh all adultery is, by definition, fornication, not all fornication is adultery. That was simply the point I was trying to make. When you quote a verse that specifically references adultery, you can’t, ipso facto, extrapolate that verse to all fornication, the large majority of which does not include adultery.
February 13th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
This is true. All communism is socialism, but not all socialism is communism. Same with adultery and fornication. That was more my point. So apparently we just misunderstood one another and never really disagreed.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Lyons: ‘ “If you think playing violent videogames is sinful, and do it anyway, then you are sinning, because you believe you are committing a sin, even if God couldn’t care less” … My moral-relativism-dar just went off.’
Myself: Keith is right to say that the authority of conscience is binding. The phrase ‘even if God couldn’t care less’ is correctly taken as a suppressed clause, i.e. a clause which is beyond the knowledge of the agent of the action, but not necessarily ourselves, the third party moral philosophers who read the statement. Indeed, it is highly interesting that morality is quite relative, in one important sense: it is relative to moral knowledge, its primary perception (synderesis) and its applicative pursuit of the good, via practical reason.
February 15th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Regarding video games, no-one’s yet addressed this post’s original question about ‘boys playing army’ and whether this sort of simulation is equivalent… It seems to me that video game violence which serves some higher good (kill the Nazis at Normandy) isn’t wrong to fantasy about or simulate. When little boys play at robbers and cowboys and Indians, the idea is that they are simulating a battle for good over evil. To simulate auto theft is immoral. I would not allow my child to play that game, but would allow a boy to play certain first person shooter war games.
All the same rules of regular morality apply to simulation, just as both the moral species of an act, and its intent, are both absolute, rather than relative. (Out of the three causes of immoral acts, moral species, intent, and circumstance, only the last one is relative.) The moral species of an act (what its essence is, morally speaking) is ordinarily defined by its relation to matter and its proximate consequences. Whereas this is the objective component of moral action, the intent is the subjective component. Moral actions are integrative, they are both objectively and subjectively good. You can fail either way. To say that simulated auto-theft is not sin, is to err by ignoring the subjective good component of any morally good action. This is utilitarianism or consequentialism in disguise, saying that since there are no proximate consequences of the action (real theft), or because there are some psychological good ones (diversion of pent-up adolescent anger), then it does not meet criteria for a ‘bad’ action. But the action already fails, by perverted intent. We could always err the opposite way, too: instead of allowing grand theft auto because we think that consequentialist criteria are alone what justify moral action (whether real or simulated), we could condemn all ‘violence’ or war video-games because we think that the intent to kill virtual soldiers is an absolutely wrong intent. And that if the premise of the game is to ‘imagine’ a governmental authority sanctioning such violence, even the imagining of such circumstance, the mere fantasy of it, ruins the nature of the action. (Such a person would think that a real just war is OK because the government sanctioning it did not create the circumstances out of its own mind.)
By analogy, the mere imagining of what marital sex would be like is by itself an innocent thought, because I am not a legalist: I do not look to subjective criteria alone to justify a moral action. However, since I am not a consequentialist either, I think that subjective criteria and objective criteria are linked: thus if imagining what marital sex will be like leads one to objective involvement in the thought (comparing the attributes of your fantasy with the specific attributes of your fiance’s breasts) then the fantasy becomes immoral. Since this happens easily, it is important to be pure prior to marriage and not err on the side of the consequentialist: thinking that objective criteria are the only ones that matter. Thus prior to marriage, it’s better to err on the side of legalism.
Only an ethics which seeks to integrate the objective (consequences) and subjective (intent) criteria or moral action will apply equally as well to both the real and the simulated realms, both to the mind of God, and to the world of man.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Although we may disagree on video games, I think we can all agree that calling somebody late at night and making him get out of bed after he just fell asleep, is a grevious sin.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
We can, Keith. And I’m sure whomever you called will forgive you if you apologize. And try not to do it again. Especially, for example, if you visit a good friend who lives in a time zone an hour ahead of the one you live in and tell him that it’s okay to call somebody because your watch says that it’s an hour earlier than it really is.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 pm
It’s interesting that the word “sin” is also being thrown around without anyone defining it. This is especially important when determining whether something is or isn’t sin. I believe Scripture explains that sin is rejection of God.
Sin is also transgressing the law, but the law must be understood accordingly, i.e., what is the point of the law. Does the law protect “holiness” or is its purpose to protect loving relationship between God and creation? Again, I believe Scripture shows the law’s purpose as the latter (Romans says it was supposed to expose sin and then Christ came to defeat sin (expiate) to free creation from its bondage in order to have life to the fullest in relationship with the Trinity).
As such, when we ask whether something is sin or not and Scripture doesn’t make it explicit, we must ask if it destroys community with God and each other.
In this context I would suggest that lust does destroy community. It takes sex (because sex, I would suggest, is more than physical) out of its prescribed context. Relations with the opposite sex (assuming it is lust of this sort) become more strained as the lustful person becomes views others in a degrading way. I suggest this is this case as lust allows one to imagine sexual relations with others who are not participating (one may argue depending on who is the object and subject of lust).
However, given the definitions of fornication and adultery and the verse speaking on it, I think we’ve missed the point above. Even if Jesus was only speaking to married men (because he uses adulterer, rather than fornicator), he is still suggesting that lust was the same as having sex with that person in their heart. For a man to commit adultery he must be married and then have sexual intercourse with someone besides his spouse. Therefore, Jesus is equating lust with sexual intercourse in the case of the married man; thus, constituting an adulterer. As such, it would follow that an unmarried man commits sexual intercourse in his heart with someone out of wedlock. Albeit, in this instance the man is guilty of fornication then. This interpretation, however, suggests that Jesus’ intended audience was married men then.
Even if Jesus didn’t intend to only speak to married men, lust would be a sin when done out of wedlock. This is the case as he claims that lusting is adultery of the heart. Therefore, the ‘other’ of the lust is not the spouse. This interpretation is much harsher: either Jesus is claiming that lust out of wedlock constitutes a man as married and, therefore, guilty of adultery; or, Jesus views all men as married. I think this interpretation actually falls apart, but it still stands that lust out of wedlock is wrong, nevertheless.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 pm
“It seems to me that video game violence which serves some higher good (kill the Nazis at Normandy) isn’t wrong to fantasy about or simulate. When little boys play at robbers and cowboys and Indians, the idea is that they are simulating a battle for good over evil.”
I think this may be missing the point. Some video games may fall into what you (from what I understand) are suggesting is alright to simulate. For example, rescue games in which the player must save a hostage, slave-trade victim, or, perhaps, holocaust victims may be good.
However, I believe we must ask what the motivation to simulate war or violence is. I venture to say that war is a very sad actuality of this world because of sin. As (I believe it was) Paul Goodell explained, violence is a bad thing in and of itself, but sometimes is used as a good thing to protect others. We must be very careful to understand the purpose of “good” violence: protecting someone from harm (violence). One might be able to argue it could be helpful in putting all violence to an end; however, I think this would be an indirect result, not direct.
Attacking violence (when violence is the intended object, i.e., the person being violent) with violence almost always, if not always, continues the process. It works indirectly through protecting others, because it is not retributive. This may be very particular to our culture as the “eye for an eye” motif of ancient, classical, and medieval eras actually put an end to the chain of violence (it didn’t spur people to “pay back” like feuds go on today).
As such, we can ask the motivation in playing such games (and it is questionable if there is any justifiable motivation). Perhaps the only “violent” games that should be played, insofar as motivation is concerned, are more sporty ones that would be similar paintball.
Again, it is important to take the effects of playing violent games into consideration. For instance, does it build community or disdain for injustice. If it does the latter, how does it motivate the player to address injustice? Does it drive him to be violent against violence or does it create a desire to be capable of protecting the afflicted? The reason I find this so crucial is, because it is incredibly influential in whether one understands justice as ultimately restorative or retributive. That is, if the object of violence is the other violent person, then one could care less if the “guilty” person is reconciled to the “harmed.”
I believe this kind of “justice” (and I wouldn’t venture to call this true justice) only continues violence in the world. The purpose of promoting justice is to maintain loving and free society. If injustice is an issue then the goal ought to be to reconcile the two parties together. It’s an incredibly difficult task, but it’s the only way healing is truly possible.
When applying this to “Kill the Nazi” games, I believe we find that the motivation is probably wrong and also promotes a “revenge/vengeance justice.” What the Nazi’s did to the Jews was incredibly evil, but that doesn’t mean we should kill Nazi’s to make things “even” (or as “even” as they can be). Nazi’s who are killed in the process of trying to rescue the oppressed is a sad reality. It is more important to protect the oppressed then leaving the oppressor alive. However, it is all for the purpose of healing and reconciling the brokenness and harm that has occurred.
As you can probably guess this is a huge issue I take with most American justice system. It promotes a “balance out the law and transgressions” justice instead of trying to reconcile criminals to the community. I think amazing examples of true justice are Desmond Tutu’s Reconciliation Camps and the results from the Amish School Shooting. In the latter example, the Amish community not only forgave the shooter and his family, but shared gifts to (and money) and sought to comfort the family of the shooter.
I suggest that any violent video games is “sinful” to play, insofar as it promote the opposite justice or nurture the negative motivation.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
A historical bit:
What the Reformation did for the history of ethics, was to divorce the Hellenistic tendency (virtue in theory: virtue is taught, sin results from ignorance) from the Hebraic tendency (virtue in practice: the will, the heart, deeper motivations, etc.).
The two tendencies were separate prior to Christ, and were synthesized together in the middle ages. What St. Thomas did was combine the analysis of Aristotle with the subtler insights into the human heart which came from scripture. The Renaissance was actually (ironically) a regression to the Hellenistic tendency as it existed prior to being christianized. Similarly, the Reformation was in a profound sense a reaction to the hellenism of the Renaissance, bringing ethics back to the Hebraic emphasis. The Hebraic emphasis was an emphasis on the subjective, psychological factors of ethical actions.
In the video-game debate, the way this pans out is for the Protestant ethic to err on the side of legalism, that is to say, to be concerned more than anything else on the subjective, motivational criteria for legal action. E.g. we don’t even know when we’re sinning, our heart is so profoundly deceptive and depraved, it could be deceiving us all the time, even when we think we’re avoiding sin, we’re really just as filthy as menstrual rags, etc. etc. Similarly, as long as the intent is okay, certain actions are considered ethical in the evolving Protestant tradition, such as birth control.
This focus on the motivational aspect is of course quite Jewish, and scriptural, but it’s not exactly philosophical. It doesn’t allow us to consider more complex cases in which we are talking about ethics in fantasy realms, i.e. fantasy literature, video-games, etc. Because it is so hung up on motive, it ignores certain instances in which to imagine something is not sinful, whereas to do it, is. We should not call that which is good evil, just as we should not call that which is evil good. Thus, we should be able to freely evaluate motive inasmuch as we freely evaluate the consequences of an action, both of which contribute to an action’s moral standing. (If either one fails, the action fails.) If the motive or subjective component or intent are your only criteria, you are in danger of over-emphasizing it. (becoming a legalist.) It’s hard to evaluate motive objectively, when your ethical tradition trains you not to think objectively, but mystically and subjectively! (Martin Luther does think mystically and subjectively, I would argue, when he consigns all religiousness to rags, and makes the starting point for his whole theological system, the psychological problem of un-resolvable guilt.)
…
Geoff,
Your idea of justice seems to overemphasize subjective criteria. (I’m not saying you’re a protestant, or intentionally linking this with the above.) I fully agree that revenge ought not be inculcated by art, literature (Monte Christo is sooo good though!), or video-games, but there are so many other motives encouraged by just-war video-games, such as courage, fidelity to authority, to the mission, to fellow soldiers. You also pay attention to objective criteria, arguing that retributive justice has bad consequences, whereas restorative justice has good ones.
Whether what you mean by restorative justice means the same thing as ‘rehabilitative’ justice, I’m not sure, but I think your concept might lead down a slippery slope to the rehabilitive form. One important point I learned from reading C.S. Lewis and understanding the Thomistic tradition that he represents, is that retributive justice actually honors a person’s soul, when performed through the role of government. It speaks to that criminal’s soul, telling it that punishment is connected with Desert. Other views of justice connect punishment to justice by some other means, such as rehabilitation, or other means. These other ways necessarily do damage to a criminal’s dignity as an agent with free will, who knew the consequences prior to acting on them.
April 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Tom,
Very good point on the motivation. However, I probably wasn’t very clear on what I meant. I don’t think we should solely focus on the motivation, but would agree with you on the two criteria. Rather, I focused on the motivational aspect to demonstrate that even seemingly good things done with evil intentions is wrong. For example, playing a violent video game because you enjoy to hurt people (or in real life, participating in a war because you enjoy violence) makes something wrong.
I focused on motivation to show that if someone’s motivations are wrong, then their actions are wrong. That does not mean the action brought bad results necessarily. “For what you meant for harm, I used for good (to use the story of Joseph).” That does not mean the brothers weren’t at fault, despite the good result of their actions. I believe that we can do things with horrible intentions and God can work good out of it, nevertheless (this definitely means that God didn’t desire the bad to happen, because it worked against him, but wasn’t more powerful than him). Therefore, I would agree with you that some things, even if done with good intentions, can be the wrong thing to do.
I’m interested to know more about what you meant by subjective criteria when I spoke about justice. (One reason I probably emphasize subjectiveness is that I line up closely with philosophers like Derrida and Lyotard when it comes to true Postmodernism. I don’t buy Modernity’s claim to “outside the text” “unadulterated truth.” I not only think it’s impossible to experience apart from interpretation, but interpretation is a beautiful aspect of life and being human. Trust is a beautiful necessity (faith)). And I completely agree that Monte Cristo is a fantastic story.
Even though “just-war video games” can promote good things like “courage, fidelity to authority, to the mission, and to fellow soldiers,” I don’t know that it necessarily justifies “replaying” or “simulating” unfortunate things like war. I believe that you can find loyalty even in evil things. While loyalty is a good thing, it is for the wrong purpose. Again, though there are people demonstrating good things in the midst of war (very respectable and reward-able things), that does not mean we ought to relive that war. Those things are just as easily recognizable in other aspects of life. Therefore, I believe we ought to retell things (narratives) of those things (e.g., the Cross, martyrs, Boenhoffer, etc.) to honor the goodness and remember that which is our history, but perhaps simulating war goes too far.
I find it rather difficult, because I do enjoy those movies and games, but this “simple question” is very difficult as I argued before.
Could you also explain what you mean by ‘rehabilitative’ justice, because I may have meant that, or at least to an extent. When I was speaking of restorative justice, I was mainly speaking against the “makes things even” justice. That is, “he deserves to die, because he killed someone, so the government should execute him.” I believe true justice is ultimately reconciliatory and redemptive. That means the goal ought to be rehabilitative rather than “equilibrium” (that is to say, making things balanced and even). I do believe honoring and valuing the oppressed is crucial, but reconciliation and restoration does this as well. As a matter of fact, it brings about or forces the person who dishonored or devalued the ‘other’ to change to opposite (valuing). This justice is much more difficult and humbling and involved, but is the kind that truly solves things I believe. It’s very closely tied to forgiveness (in a sort of perichoretic/interpenetrating way). Forgiveness is the key to making reconciliation, restoration, and rehabilitation occur. I suggest that when this has been achieved the person (both the wronged and the wrong-er) is valued in the greatest way possible.
Making someone honor and value that which they previously hadn’t, is not only incredibly humbling but values the oppressed even more. It calls the guilty person to “penance” for what they’ve done in a way that we don’t often consider penance (because it wasn’t equilibrium). This is the case as it requires the person to love (self-sacrifice) someone they have previously been unloving/hateful towards.
I suggest that rehabilitative/restorative/reconciling justice very often requires a “punishment/discipline.” However, what that punishment or discipline is (what form) should be for the goal of the three R’s. I believe God’s justice works as such. He ultimately works to reconcile, rehabilitate (perhaps other words that go along with this are redeem and heal), and restore without losing that which he’s trying to do so.
I think this kind of justice is the kind Jesus called for (and was the message of his kingdom proclamation). “Unless you forgive, you shall not be forgiven,” is a very stark warning, but absolutely necessary to a society that stands for reconciliation and restoration. Furthermore, I think this the kind of justice we find on the cross. I find propitiatory atonement to be not only very unscriptural (although you find it is certain translations, I side with translators and theologians who claim it is misunderstood by others), but also lacking historical weight among the majority of Church Fathers (Tertullian or Augustine would be the first one might find hints of such atonement, but this wasn’t brought to a doctrine until Calvin with his Penal Substitution).
The reason the law required the death of the sinner, wasn’t to make God’s anger evened out or satisfied. Death was the only way to kill sin, to put an end to it. Therefore, God is not satisfied by the law being put to rights (as if his wrath needed to be satisfied, to make trespasses even). Rather, he is “satisfied” because sin is defeated; it no longer holds his creation captive. In other words, the thing that separated his creation from him has been overcome so reconciliation can occur.
Propitiation makes God have a problem that needs to be fixed before reconciliation can occur, while in expiatory atonement, the problem lies with man. Thus, man’s problem must be dealt with before restoration and reconciliation can take place. Anyways, that is a very short explanation of atonement. I would be very interested to know what you meant by rehabilitative justice, what’s wrong with it, and in what ways it doesn’t work. Great Talking…
Geoff
April 24th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I think part of what Tom was referring to, Geoff, was the argument put forth by C.S. Lewis in his article, “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. Lewis’s argument was that punishment, when divorced from the concept of Dessert, becomes fundamentally unjust. The only morally good reason to punish someone, according to Lewis, is because he deserves it. Rehabilitating him can only ever be a secondary, incidental effect.
If rehabilitation is a main goal of punishment, goes the argument, the subject is no longer a criminal but a patient. And a patient isn’t necessarily guilty or innocent: he’s just sick. In his day (and increasingly in our own — http://www.theonlyorthodoxy.com/2009/03/02/deranged-conservatives/) religious belief and traditionalism were seen as a kind of neurosis. Were that conviction to gain enough sway, said Lewis, then in a world of rehabilitative punishment he would need to be cured as much as a murderer or a thief. That’s one reason he opposed rehabilitative, “humanitarian” theories of punishment.
His basic argument against it, though, was “What point is there in punishing me unless I deserve it? And if I don’t deserve it, how can punishing me be just?” (I’m paraphrasing. My anthology with the article is among the many still-packed boxes we brought back from Korea, which won’t be unpacked for at least another week or so.) No other motivation, to Lewis, could be just.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Geoff,
Welcome. Thanks for your outstanding insights. It pleases me immensely to see the depth of this discussion. I hope you continue to participate here.
April 27th, 2009 at 2:45 am
Thanks Jeremy and Paul!
I’ll definitely have to look into that article; however, I think I could make my point clearer. I don’t think the retributive justice honors a person’s soul quite as well as a “reconciliative”/”restorative”/”rehabilitative” justice. I may be defining what rehabilitative justice differently from Lewis, but I see it closely linked to the other two R’s as the guilty party relates to the oppressed. In other words, the goal isn’t simply to rehabilitate the criminal on his own or back into the community, but true rehabilitation comes with reconciliation and restoration with the one he wronged. Therefore, the relationship is mended as you see in Desmond Tutu’s reconciliation movement and the reconciliation camps in (I believe it is) Rwanda.
I suggest that this type of justice honors the wronged person’s “soul” more because it requires amends. To illustrate: retributive justice takes away from the criminal what he took away from the innocent (a life for a life, if you will). However, restorative justice requires the criminal to “pay back” in a sense. That is, he doesn’t just get off the hook by not having to come into contact with those he wronged. Rather, he must reconcile the relationship and make amends/give back to the family in some way (whether that be some sort of help + friendship). In this sense retributive justice is like making things “even,” while restorative justice tries to mend what was broken. Retributive justice breaks/takes away the same thing that was broken/taken away by the criminal (against the oppressed), while restorative justice seeks to mend/heal/give back what was broken/taken away.
This seems to honor the wronged person even more as it shows how valuable they are. The criminal must deny himself or herself in order to love the one he or she had previously wronged. I feel that retributive justice, on the other hand, suggests that things are “fixed” or “as if it never happened” when “justice” has been carried through. However, the problem still remains–what was broken is still broken.
If someone murders your brother, retributive justice requires that person’s life to be taken as well. If this is done, your brother’s life is avenged, but hardly honored. Instead, the loss of his life has been balanced out by the execution of his killer (or equated in a sense). In this scenario you are left with the problem hardly addressed, your brother is still gone. In restorative justice, though, the killer must amend for his crime and reconcile with you and restore what has been broken. Obviously, your brother is still gone (this cannot be undone), but the remorse and reconciliation (with forgiveness) restores community and gives you something back and honors your brother’s life.
I’m curious for others’ insights, but rehabilitation is only accomplished through reconciliation and restoration. I’m sure I was also very long winded (sorry about that), but I’m interested in other thoughts.