But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully
has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
— Matthew 5:28 (TNIV)
In Attempted Murder, Steve Gimbel asks,
Why do we have a crime called attempted murder? Isn't the problem that you tried your best to kill someone — whether you succeeded or not?
The law, it seems, balances two things: intent and deed.
If you point a gun at someone and intend to shoot and kill them, and do shoot and kill them, then the punishment is higher than if you miss, or if you don't intend to kill them (just a "warning" shot?) but do, or you think it is really a blank loaded in the gun but there isn't, or you are just waving your gun around and shoot and kill your friend by pure "accident", or ...
(If one is in the film Minority Report [from a Philip K. Dick tale], then you could merely be lying in bed, thinking of getting your gun and shooting and killing someone, and the precogs would send the police over to arrest you. Your act of thinking is all that is needed for an arrest.)
Actual deed may be easy to assess, and actual intent is more difficult (by today's science), but to somehow remove the combination of the two (just deed, or just intent) from the law would just be too freaky to fathom.
This is the legal perspective. But what of the moral (which is what Jesus was getting at, perhaps). People all the time, it seems, want to make a distinction between what is legal and what is moral (although conceding some overlap of the two). This, in my view, is mistaken. I claim there is no distinction between what is moral and what is legal.
The law is the only reality, the only objective standard* there is: It is written down, in text, and can be found in books of law. Morality, based on any such objective standard, simply does not exist. There are also such things like laws of social etiquette, but they, like governmental laws, are generally written down. See Amy Vanderbilt and Emily Post, for example. (Even "the etiquette of the street" comes close to be a form of "written law".)
Legal is what is written into "law". Moral harkens to that higher, mystical Platonic realm of absolutes, atop Mount Olympus, Mount Sinai, and that mountain top from which Zarathustra down-went.
In short, in this case, Jesus was wrong.
________________
* an objective standard that, obviously, changes over time
I used to be an amoralist but then I thought perhaps morality evolved as part of a human survival strategy and that makes it easier to accept. It is morally wrong to kill someone because it is bad for the community. Keeping your promises is good because it creates an atmosphere of trust which is good for the community. I am a complete anarchist when it comes to the law though, I don't believe it has any weight or guidance in it and obey it only when it accords with my own desires or the threat of punishment forces me to. So are our positions the complete reverse?
ReplyDeleteMy problem is there is nothing I can materially point to that codifies morality if it isn't written "law".
ReplyDeleteFrom a deconstruction standpoint, what I am doing is to upend the false (in my view) idea that there is something called morality that is superior to the law, since there is no material basis for any such superiority.
(There are more here in comments to the original post.)
First, in some jurisdictions the attempt or the conspiracy to commit a crime is subject to the same potential penalty as the completed crime (for example, Pennsylvania).
ReplyDeleteSecond, Jesus did not say that committing adultery "in his heart" was equally serious to committing adultery in fact. He did say that they are of the same species, but most people infer incorrectly that they are of the same degree.
The full quote: "You have heard [Exodus 20:14] that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting if what "Jesus" meant is the above interpretation as you state it, but he didn't add to these verses: "But, granted, the former is more serious than the latter."
If those words were there, then that would make a difference.
Remember: There is nothing outside the text. :-)
(I would grant, of course, that Jesus is being hyperbolic in his sermon. I think. Who knows?)
ReplyDeleteFirst, in some jurisdictions the attempt or the conspiracy to commit a crime is subject to the same potential penalty as the completed crime (for example, Pennsylvania).
ReplyDeleteOne can be assured that if one attempts murder, and it is unsuccessful, then they cannot be subject to capital punishment (which still exists in many states), which could be a possibility if an actual murder succeeded. So says the U.S. Supreme Court.