Response to Niebuhr - Christianity Doesn't Breed Morality

[andyklein]

He essentially says in “Man and Immoral Society” that man is perpetually self-interested and all of his pursuits are based on fulfilling his self-interests. He goes on to say that Christianity attempts to strip man of himself by submitting to God but contradicts itself because God adds meaning to man’s life and satisfies man’s want for meaning. This supposedly makes man use religion only to pursue his own interests by discouraging religious dissent as he states a universal proposition that his religion builds a moral world. Morality then allegedly becomes subjective, which cannot be moral.

What’s a good argument against this?

Niebuhr just seems like a fake philosopher and more of a political commentator that makes such strong assumptions without backing them up in any philosophical framework.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Well I can try…

He essentially says in “Man and Immoral Society” that man is perpetually self-interested and all of his pursuits are based on fulfilling his self-interests.

Well, for one man is perpetually self interested; how he could not be, we were made incomplete! That always has been the point of Christianity: we all have a hole in our hearts that we long to be filled, yet it could not be filled by anything in this world, for this hole is infinitely large and deep, which can only be filled by God.

If that is not self-interest, I don’t know what is.

And He goes on to say that Christianity attempts to strip man of himself by submitting to God

How can that happen if by going to God you complete man instead of stripping him of himself? I’m confused

but contradicts itself because God adds meaning to man’s life and satisfies man’s want for meaning.

Care to elaborate, please?

This supposedly makes man use religion only to pursue his own interests by discouraging religious dissent as he states a universal proposition that his religion builds a moral world.

Uhm not really, religion exists to make man happy.

Morality then allegedly becomes subjective, which cannot be moral.

What? Sorry I lost you there.

But anyways I hope I was able to help you

 

[sowinskija]

He essentially says in “Man and Immoral Society” that man is perpetually self-interested and all of his pursuits are based on fulfilling his self-interests. He goes on to say that Christianity attempts to strip man of himself by submitting to God but contradicts itself because God adds meaning to man’s life and satisfies man’s want for meaning. This supposedly makes man use religion only to pursue his own interests by discouraging religious dissent as he states a universal proposition that his religion builds a moral world. Morality then allegedly becomes subjective, which cannot be moral.

What’s a good argument against this?

Niebuhr just seems like a fake philosopher and more of a political commentator that makes such strong assumptions without backing them up in any philosophical framework.

Assuming that man is self interested and seeks his own selfish desires, he becomes Christian to obtain Eternal Life, not be stripped of himself. Being stripped of himself is something that may happen along the way, but it is not why he became Christian.

The author also assumes moral absolutes cannot exist, that the meaning gained from religion cannot lead to a more humble self, but will always result in pride threogh persuit of self interests. He assumes the the meaning achieved by religion will be used to persue self interest. This is incorrect. True, educated, and informed Christianity results in humility, love of neighbor, and self giving, not pride or persuit of own interests.

 

[sowinskija]

Are you sure that is his argument? Why would a protestant theologian attack Christianity in general?

 

[Linux]

He essentially says in “Man and Immoral Society” that man is perpetually self-interested and all of his pursuits are based on fulfilling his self-interests. He goes on to say that Christianity attempts to strip man of himself by submitting to God but contradicts itself because God adds meaning to man’s life and satisfies man’s want for meaning. This supposedly makes man use religion only to pursue his own interests by discouraging religious dissent as he states a universal proposition that his religion builds a moral world. Morality then allegedly becomes subjective, which cannot be moral.

What’s a good argument against this?

Niebuhr just seems like a fake philosopher and more of a political commentator that makes such strong assumptions without backing them up in any philosophical framework.

He assumes that all self interest is by definition selfish. It is good to seek and desire teleological fulfillment of you inherent nature. To act otherwise would be an act of selfishness towards your own nature. Seeking fulfillment only becomes selfish when love is not reciprocated. For example many people seek fulfillment at the expense of other human beings, reciprocating nothing. Love demands that you love yourself, but not at the expense of other peoples needs and desires.

Selfishness by definition is to oppose that which positively fulfills an inherent good. Seeking the fulfillment of God is to desire the positive fulfillment of an inherent good. Therefore its not a selfish act, so long as you reciprocate the love of God by spreading the good that God has given you. If you keep the love of God to yourself alone, then that is a selfish act. This is the principle bases of the talents parable.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

He essentially says in “Man and Immoral Society” that man is perpetually self-interested and all of his pursuits are based on fulfilling his self-interests.

No problems there - Man is perpetually self interested. I’m still pretty selfish in some wayhs, but since becoming Christian I’m far more inclined to do things for others.

He goes on to say that Christianity attempts to strip man of himself by submitting to God

True - partnership with Christ gradually strips away the ego, or it should.

but contradicts itself because God adds meaning to man’s life and satisfies man’s want for meaning. This supposedly makes man use religion only to pursue his own interests by discouraging religious dissent as he states a universal proposition that his religion builds a moral world.

Inquisition? Protestant intolerance of the Catholic Church (and vice versa?)? Moral Majority? Aparthied and the Dutch Reformed Church?

And non-Christian religions - Moslem intolerance of other faiths? Occasional extreme Hindu fundamentalism?

He’s correct in that organised religions tend to become a laws unto themselves (including hardline atheism, which demonstrates intolerance just as stubborn as that of any relgious bigot), and justifies its relation with God as its imprimatur.

Morality then allegedly becomes subjective, which cannot be moral.

Liberal Christianity in its extreme form is a good example of this - anything goes. So again he’s correct. I remember a priest with a keen interest in Ethics (he eventually headed a Catholic Ethics institution in Australia) commenting that he seemed to find left wing liberals strong on social justice and weak on sexual morality, and that conservatives were strong on sexual morality and weak on social justice. The morality on both sides was subjective.

What’s a good argument against this?

I don’t know if there’s an argument against his reasoning. I think it behooves both individual Christians and the Church to constantly reform and renew themselves.

One thing though - we may be part of an organised religion ie. the Church, but we answer individually to God. This means that while an organised religion may tend towards Niebuhr’s paradox as shown above, we won’t answer for that, but only for our own individual behaviour as Christians.

Niebuhr just seems like a fake philosopher and more of a political commentator that makes such strong assumptions without backing them up in any philosophical framework.

I’ve never read Niebuhr, so I don’t know enough about him to make a judgement. I’ve certainly heard his name from time to time.

I can’t fault his logic as shown in this particular post though.