Expert answer:Critical Thinking Reflection Paper

Solved by verified expert:Unit VIII Reflection Paper Provide an example of a possible confusion between theological beliefs and ethical principles in a commonly-held religious belief system. Are there practices within this faith that might be critiqued as unethical? How should we apply the fundamentals of ethical reasoning in this case? Your response should be at least two pages in length and should be typed using 12-point Times New Roman font. You are required to use at least your textbook and one scholarly article from any database within the Online Library as source material for your response. All sources used, including the textbook, must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations in APA format. The title and reference page do not count towards the two page minimum.scholarly article attached belowNotes- From textbook “Critical thinking” by Paul and ElderThe three intellectual tasks we believe to be the most important to ethical reasoning are:1. Mastering the most basic concepts and the principles inherent in ethical issues.2. Learning to distinguish between ethics and other domains of thinking with which ethics is commonly confused.3. Learning to identify when native human egocentrism and sociocentrism are impeding one’s ethical judgmentsIf any of these three foundations are missing in a person’s ethical reasoning, that reasoning will likely be flawedCourse Textbook Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2012). Critical thinking
judeo_christian_thought__classical_liberals__and_modern_egalitarianism.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Judeo-Christian Thought,
Classical Liberals, and
Modern Egalitarianism
F
PETER J. HILL
C
lassical liberals bring much to the debate on modern egalitarianism, in particular
their understanding of the overriding importance of moral agency and universal
human dignity. Many classical liberals ground their understanding of human
equality in natural-rights theory, whereas others reach similar conclusions about equality
through consequentialist arguments, such as rule utilitarianism.1 Whatever the basis for
the concept of equal human dignity, it is important to understand that this understanding
of the person is, in a historical context, a recent event.
For most of the recorded history of humankind, both mores and legal structures
sanctioned differences in people. Not all humans were seen as moral agents capable of
self-directedness. Slavery was almost universally sanctioned. Legal distinctions based on
ethnicity, race, gender, and social class were justified as inevitable and appropriate. This
essay traces out the evolution of belief from fundamental human inequality to universal
equality.
The roots of human inequality lie deep in human history. Although a strong
advocate of the virtuous life, Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) believed that such virtue could
Peter J. Hill is professor emeritus at Wheaton College and senior fellow at the Property and Environment
Research Center.
1. Tibor Machan (1989, 1995), Robert Nozick (1974), and Douglas Rasmussen and Douglas Den Uyl
(1997) are prominent natural-rights philosophers. In Simple Rules for a Complex World (1995), Richard
Epstein uses rule utilitarianism to justify a set of rights that are remarkably similar to those espoused by the
natural-rights advocates.
The Independent Review, v. 22, n. 1, Summer 2017, ISSN 1086-1653, Copyright © 2017, pp. 49–58.
49
50
F
PETER J.HILL
be achieved only by certain members of society, certainly not by slaves and women:
“There are species in which a distinction is already marked, immediately at birth,
between those of its members who are being ruled and those who are intended to rule. . . .
Again, the relation of the male to the female is naturally that of the superior to the
inferior—of the ruling to the ruled. It is thus clear that, just as some are by nature free, so
others are by nature slaves” (1946, 1254a–55a).
Aristotle was not unique in his sanctioning of slavery. In early history, there were
almost no defenders of human dignity outside of the Jewish world,2 and in fact slavery
was so common that articulating a reason for slavery was not even considered important.
According to Thomas Sowell, “Aristotle had attempted to justify slavery, but many
other Western and non-Western philosophers alike took it so much for granted that
they felt no need to explain or justify it at all” (2005, 127). Other social differentiations
based on ethnicity, gender, race, or social background likewise required no moral
justification but were accepted as facts of life.
So if human equality and the rule of law have not been generally accepted until
recently, what has caused this dramatic change in our basic anthropology? As in biological evolution, survival of the fittest has been a strong influence in cultural evolution. Nevertheless, belief structures can have a dramatic impact on the course of
cultural evolution.3 The economist Dani Rodrik argues, “Much human behavior is
driven by abstract ideals, sacred values, or conceptions of loyalty that cannot be reduced
to human ends” (2014, 191).
Two prominent thinkers, intellectual historian Larry Siedentop (2014) and French
philosopher Luc Ferry (2011), argue that it took a metaphysical concept, seeing individuals as created in the image of God, to overcome the almost universal belief that
people are fundamentally unequal. Despite its origins in early Jewish history and then in
Christian anthropology, the concept of human equality took a long period of time to
work its way into philosophical and political thinking before finally becoming fully
ingrained in modern thought. Today almost everyone starts the discussion about
egalitarianism with the assumption that all people should be free moral agents and that
equality before the law is one of the most basic ways of expressing and defending that
moral equality.
Luc Ferry argues that Christianity represented a dramatically different worldview
than Greek philosophy because it contested the Greek aristocratic idea of differential
human endowments and hence potentialities. “In direct contradiction [to Greek
philosophy], Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally
identical, that men were equal in dignity—an unprecedented idea at that time and one
to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance. But this notion of equality
did not come from nowhere” (2011, 72). “But with Christianity,” Ferry explains,
2. Judaism allowed some forms of slavery but put far more restrictions on its practice than other religious or
social groups.
3. Joel Mokyr (2017) presents a summary of the varied influences on the process of cultural evolution.
THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, LIBERALS, EGALITARIANISM
F
51
the idea of a common humanity acquired a new strength. Based on the equal
dignity of all human beings, it was to take on an ethical aspect. As soon as free
will becomes the foundation of moral action and virtue is located not in
natural, “unequal gifts,” but in the use to which they are put, then it goes
without saying that all men are of equal merit. Humanity would never again
be able to divide itself (philosophically) according to a natural and aristocratic hierarchy of beings: between superior and inferior, gifted and less
gifted, masters and slaves. From then on, according to Christians, we are all
“brothers” on the same level as creatures of God and endowed with the
same capacity to choose whether to act well or badly. Rich or poor, intelligent or simple: it no longer holds any importance. And this idea of
equality leads to a primarily ethical conception of humanity. The Greek
concept of barbarians—synonymous with a “stranger” (anyone not Greek)—
soon disappeared to be replaced by the conviction that humanity is ONE. To
conclude we could say that Christianity is the first universalist ethos; universalism meaning the doctrine or belief in universal salvation. (2011, 76–77,
capitalization and italics in the original)
Although Ferry recognizes the historical influence of Christianity on philosophical
thought, he is an atheist and hence does not spend much time discussing the actual
theological doctrines that produced this radical departure from conventional thought.
In reality, it was Judaism that provided the original foundation for dignity for all because
of the concept of the imago Dei, a concept that is also crucial to Christian theology and
anthropology. If all humans are bearers of the image of the omniscient, omnipotent
God of the universe, then social and political equality are logical necessities of that
concept.
If Jewish and Christian thought is responsible for the modern concept of human
equality, why the long lag between the time this idea originated and the time it and
institutions changed? Intellectual historian Larry Siedentop, like Ferry, sees the spread
of Christian thinking as disruptive to the Greek and Roman idea that some are born to
command and others to obey. Siedentop recognizes, however, that changes in fundamental concepts, such as the revolution in moral equality, require a long period of
time to realize their full impact: “Centuries would be required for the implications of
Christian moral beliefs to be drawn out and clarified—and even more time would pass
before long established social practices or institutions were reshaped by these implications” (2014, 114).
The Jewish belief in human agency and moral equality manifested itself in many forms.
That God chose to reveal his plan for humankind through a particular people, the Israelites,
makes the universal claims of human dignity somewhat less obvious, but the creation
account provides the metaphysical grounding for human dignity for all. The fundamental
concept is in Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he
created him; male and female he created them” (English Standard Version).
VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1, SUMMER 2017
52
F
PETER J.HILL
According to Joshua Berman (2008), the Pentateuch, which is the first five books
of Hebrew scripture, describes a social order that recognizes human dignity and that
was much different from the order prevailing throughout the ancient Near East.
Political and social hierarchy had strong metaphysical legitimation in the non-Israelite
world, but the theology of the covenant in the Pentateuch rejects this hierarchy. In one
of the most radical texts in ancient political economy, God asks for a commitment from
all the Israelites, not just from their leaders. Even though Moses was the spokesperson
for the people, the actual covenant was between God and all of the people, including the
women and children (Deut. 29:10–15). Berman argues that “it is in the covenant,
properly conceived, that we may discern a radically new understanding of the cosmic
role of the common man within the thought systems of the ancient Near East, one that
constituted the basis of an egalitarian social order” (2008, 29). The request of
a commitment by all members of the society implies a strong sense of universal human
agency, the ability of all to decide when asked to decide yea or nay to a moral
proposition.
For Siedentop, “Christian moral intuitions played a pivotal role in shaping the
discourse that gave rise to modern liberalism and secularism” (2014, 359). He sees the
Apostle Paul (5–67) as the primary intellectual force in the development and spread of
the concept of moral equality and moral agency of all people because Paul provided an
ontological foundation for the concept of the individual. His Damascus Road encounter
with Christ gave him clear instructions that the gospel message was relevant to all
humanity because Christ’s death and resurrection were atonement for all sinners everywhere. Through his travels throughout the Mediterranean world and his numerous
letters to the various churches, Paul built upon the Jewish concept of universal dignity.
The argument that the Christian faith was open to everyone also meant that all humans
are moral agents, capable of choice and responsible for those choices. “Faith in Christ
requires seeing oneself in others and others in oneself, the point of view which truly
moralizes humans as agents” (Siedentop 2014, 65).
Among many New Testament texts that articulate the idea of human dignity for
all, one of the most explicit is Paul’s declaration, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
(Galatians 3:28). Jesus himself made the claim that his atoning sacrifice was for all of
humanity: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes
in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16, italics added).
Although Christians’ moral practices often did not reflect the concept of universal
human dignity, various spokespersons and numerous church documents would reiterate that theme again and again. Augustine, the great theologian who followed Paul,
strongly articulated the concept of universal human dignity through his emphasis on the
universal fallenness of humankind and the absolute necessity of God’s grace for all
(Madigan 2015, 107). Once again, this argument represented a sharp break from Greek
and Roman thought, which denied human equality and drew sharp distinctions between classes, races, and sexes.
THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, LIBERALS, EGALITARIANISM
F
53
As Christianity spread throughout the Mediterranean world, new forms of human
association arose. Monastic orders, quite prevalent by the fourth century, were
a uniquely egalitarian social order, open to all believers no matter what their class or
status. They also gave new meaning to the concept of work, changing it from an activity
of servile status to an exercise of human dignity and worth (Siedentop 2014, 95, 160).
Women also formed cloisters, sometimes as separate communities and sometimes
as “double monasteries,” where female and male monks lived in the same monastic
premises (Madigan 2015, 22, 43). Women’s choices to join such orders meant recognition of their own moral agency, something not possessed by most women
throughout ancient history. For instance, Aristotle saw women as incomplete or deformed men and hence not truly human in the sense of having the ability to make moral
choices (Madigan 2015, 275).
The Roman Catholic Church’s concern for the poor and disenfranchised was an
important step in the recognition of universal human dignity. Hospitals for the care of
the needy were an important part of monastic life. The laity were taught that charity was
one of the highest of virtues: “certain ways of life, and entire social classes of people,
could no longer simply be dismissed as incorrigible or irredeemable” (Madigan 2015,
311). Hildebrand of Sovana (1028–85), who became Pope Gregory VII, declared that
rulers would be judged according to what they had done for “all souls” (Siedentop
2014, 206). Knights were also expected to respect property rights, especially those of
the powerless (Siedentop 2014, 186). According to Kevin Madigan, a “prodigious
volume of spiritual and secular charity [was] received by the poor and anguished in the
high and late Middle Ages” (2015, 314).
The fact that the Christian worldview was responsible for the concept of equal
human dignity does not mean that the believers always acted in a manner consistent
with an egalitarian belief structure. There was a continual tension between the revolutionary doctrine of the imago Dei and actual social practices. For instance, it was
a remarkable statement of human agency that slaves were accepted into the community
of faith from the beginning of Christianity, but Christians nevertheless still held slaves
for more than a millennium. Gregory (335–95), bishop of Nyssa, made a strong plea for
the immorality of slavery, but it took another fourteen hundred years for his arguments
to gain substantial traction in the Christian world.
Jeffrey Grynaviski and Michael Munger (forthcoming) give a detailed account of
how Christians in the nineteenth-century American South were able to provide
a rationalization for slaveholding. That ideology was eventually defeated militarily by
the Union armies and intellectually by the tenets of modern liberalism. The abolitionist
argument that a Christian could not in good conscience favor slavery was also an
important influence. Today it is impossible to find Christian arguments for slaveholding.
In the sixteenth century, Spain’s colonization of South America clearly violated the
rights of the indigenous people (Acemoglu and Robinson 2012, 9–19). During the
religious wars of Europe from 1524 to 1648, Protestants and Catholics had little
compunction about killing each other.
VOLUME 22, NUMBER 1, SUMMER 2017
54
F
PETER J.HILL
Despite the fact that the social order did not fully reflect the idea of human dignity,
numerous voices articulated the concept and were responsible for its eventually becoming a part of standard political thought. In 316, Constantine (306–337) banned the
branding of criminals on the face, for “man is made in God’s image” (qtd. in Siedentop
2014, 117). Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) was one of the most influential women
of her age. She was an articulate defender of orthodox Christian belief but protested
vehemently against the burning of heretics because the heretic was also made in the
image of God.
The authority of law and especially the concept of natural law, a law distinct from
the state’s legal apparatus, were strengthened by the ongoing development of canon
law. Moral equality before the law was a basic presupposition of canon law, and its
elaboration from 1050 to 1300 made it the first modern legal system (Siedentop 2014,
226). According to Brian Tierney, “By 1200 the canonists had created a language in
which natural rights theories could readily be expressed” (1997, 69).
Scholasticism, a system of thought that used reason to articulate and formalize
principles of human ordering, also advanced the concept of human dignity, largely
through the development of the natural law (Forster 2008). There were differences
among the Scholastics, especially ones such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) and William
of Ockham (1287–1347), regarding the exact content of God’s law, but they all
affirmed humans as agents of free will with the ability to discover truth.
The church’s natural-law and natural-rights doctrines were an important part of
political thought long before the modern era, but they were more forcefully articulated
and more successfully applied to cultural structures with the coming of the Protestant
Reformation. One of Martin Luther’s primary claims was the dignity of all humans as
expressed in his tract “The Freedom of the Christian” (1520) (Witte 2006, 5051).
Because we all stand equal before God, human equality is divinely constructed, not
humanly constructed. Luther (1483–1546) did not develop a strong case for political
freedom; in fact, after the Peasant’s Revolt of 1525, he emphasized strong political
authority as necessary for an orderly society. Nevertheless, his argument for freedom of
conscience was an important first step in the development of more general human rights.
John Calvin (1509–64) wrote eloquently about the importance of protecting other
domains in life—including church, family, and commerce—from potentially selfish use of
power in the hands of political rulers. This was another important step toward recognizing
that people have political and economic rights. Theodore Beza (1519–1605), a reformer
in the mold of Calvin, developed a more complete articulation of an appropriate political
order that protected religious and economic liberty. Although Beza’s writings represented new developments in political and religious thought, he drew upon centuries of
Christian thinking. In the words of John Witte, Beza “called on five decades of Protestant
and five centuries of Catholic teachings on law, politics, and society as well as the whole
arsenal of classical and patristic sources” (2007, 89).
Although much of the early debate over religious liberty and individual rights
occurred in France and Germany, the Netherlands fairly quickly became a hotbed for
THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, LIBERALS, EGALITARIANISM
F
55
discussion about the importance of the image of God in formulating rules for the
political order. Johannes Althusius (1557–1638) was probably the most important
contributor to this debate. Althusius was an active pamphleteer, authoring numerous
pieces on natural law and the liberties of individuals and groups.
Althusius started his theory of society and politics with an account of the state of
nature—which he equated with human nature and more particularly with the nature of
persons as creatures and bearers of the image of God. God created humans as moral
creatures, Althusius argued, with natural law written on their hearts and consciences as
well as “an innate inclination,” “hidden impulse,” and “natural instinct” to be “just and
law abiding.” God created persons as rights holders, vested with natural sovereignty,
rooted in the supernatural sovereignty of God, whose image each person bears upon
birth (Witte 2007, 182).
Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, religious to …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades