The Subjectivity of Morality: Debating Matthew 5:27–28 and Deuteronomy 22:22

As an Agnostic recovering Theist in the United States, I often find myself questioning the applicability of laws written thousands of years ago, specifically those from the Bible. This article explores the subjectivity of morality through the lens of Matthew 5:27–28 and Deuteronomy 22:22, and debates the relevance of these verses in modern contexts.

Subjectivity of Morality in Matthew 5:27–28

Matthew 5:27–28 reads, 'You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery." But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' This scripture challenges the reader to consider not just the act of adultery, but the intention behind it. However, questions arise when we consider its interpretation and application.

One argument against the strict interpretation of this law is that it is subjective and cultural. Is it valid in Saudi Arabia or any country where laws are written based on religious texts? I argue that laws should be based on the wellbeing and rights of individuals, not dictated by historical religious mandates. If a law stipulates that looking lustfully at a woman can be punished, it raises questions about personal freedom and autonomy. While I believe in moral standards that protect individuals, I do not think such subjective and culturally bound laws should be enforced.

Objectivity and Interpretation in Deuteronomy 22:22

Deuteronomy 22:22 states, 'If a man is found lying with a married woman, both of them shall be put to death—the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. But you shall not be polluted by these things.' This verse is perhaps one of the most controversial in the Bible, often interpreted as a death penalty for adultery.

Many argue that such a law is extreme and outdated. If a husband's trust is broken by his wife, would divorce or compensation be a more proportional response? The Bible's view on adultery shows a patriarchal mindset that treats women as property, valuing their virginity and integrity. This perspective is not aligned with modern ethical standards that prioritize consent and individual autonomy.

Despite the perceived evil in these laws, it is important to consider the context in which they were written. They were meant to serve as a societal and moral guideline during a time very different from our contemporary world. However, they do not stand as objective moral standards that apply universally.

Morality and Personal Preference vs. Divine Command

Sometimes, the debate around these laws centers around whether morality is subjective or based on divine command. Are you using your personal loathe or are you adhering to a divine authority? In the Abrahamic tradition, morality is derived from the will of God, which can lead to conflicting and often contradictory commands. Even within the same text, different versions of ethical standards exist, making it difficult to adhere to a single, coherent set of rules.

Atheists, agnostics, and others often rely on secular ethics that value human wellbeing and agency. These moral systems are based on objective assessments of outcomes and can be tested and refined over time. Unlike divine command theory, secular ethics are adaptable and can evolve as our understanding of the world improves. This approach to morality is more inclusive and can lead to more just and compassionate societies.

The Importance of a Secular Ethical System

Secular ethics allow for rational discourse and progress. Unlike theistic moral systems, which often rely on ancient and culturally specific texts, secular ethics are based on a growing understanding of human nature, empathy, and rationality. They are capable of improvement and are more resilient in the face of societal change.

Some may argue that a secular ethical system is just a personal preference. To this, I would counter that it is a preference informed by a deep understanding of human nature and reality. It is not a blind adherence to a deity's whims but a reasoned approach to creating a better world for all. Such a system is not only more defensible but also more humane and just.

In conclusion, the morality embodied in verses like Matthew 5:27–28 and Deuteronomy 22:22 is subject to interpretation and cultural context. It does not stand as an objective moral standard for all time. A secular ethical system, grounded in rationality and empathy, provides a more robust and inclusive framework for guiding our moral choices.