Posted by Jason on: 09.29.2008 /
The phrase in the title is from Genesis, not that I need to tell Christians that.
4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?
4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.
It isn’t the biblical story of the first murder that I want to talk about but the phrase itself and what it means to me as an atheist. In the story Cain is denying anything to do with the location of his brother and victim but he still raises a valid question even beyond the fact that an omnipotent god shouldn’t need to ask in the first place. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a rhetorical device that denies responsibility for Abel’s location and actions.
I think that it raises a valid point. I am not my brother’s keeper, I am not responsible for anyone else but me. Many Christians, at least in my experience, believe that they are their brother’s keeper, that they have a responsibility for one another. There is no doubt that it is good to care for and help others. We are social animals with an evolved sense of compassion and empathy. We reciprocate actions that aid our welfare and form groups that promote our survival. Yet we remain individuals with the groups that we form. We are not responsible for the actions of other members of the group.
Why then should we be concerned with what someone else does? If I have no responsibility for what someone does then why do I feel embarrassed when my nation does something stupid or harmful? Why do I feel pride when one of my children learns a new skill or gains a greater understanding of something? Isn’t there more to it than a reflected status that I share with my group? Am I so selfish as to care only about myself and what benefits me?
To assume a lack of altruism is to miss the point that we are responsible only for our own actions. In understanding that I embrace the full meaning of personal responsibility. I try to understand how my actions can impact and influence others and what that influence’s net result will be, whether positive or negative for my group.
There is a kind of karma involved. When I act in a way that benefits someone else they are inclined (but may choose not to act) to act in a similar positive way, when I act badly the victim of my poor behaviour is inclined to act badly too. By taking responsibility for my actions and acting in such a way as to increase the net benefit to all I am perpetuating this positive attitude. It is true that I may never be the recipient of this net positive gain, indeed I may suffer while others benefit, but the group as a whole gains. That doesn’t make me responsible for the net gain, only my own actions.
As an example let’s suggest that I go shopping and allow someone with a few items to skip in front of me at the checkout. That is my good deed that I am responsible for and can gain the credit for. Let’s then suggest that, motivated by my passing kindness, the other shopper gives way at a junction while driving home. That driver, in turn, gets to work and buys a round of coffees for her fellow workers. As a result each person is slightly more patient with their customers, etc, etc. At no point did I cause any of this to happen. I’m not responsible for the coffee being bought (or spilt) or any of the number of ongoing positive actions that make the day better for others.
Using the same example let’s suggest that I dashed in front of my fellow shopper as they were approaching the checkout. Annoyed, they refuse to allow someone into their lane of traffic. Another driver who was considering a quick stop at Starbucks, decides to go straight to work rather than put up with the inconsiderate motorists for a moment longer. Thirsty the people at the office are short with their customers, everyone is annoyed and the amount of happiness is slightly lower. Again, I didn’t cause this to happen and am not responsible for it.
I may not be my brother’s keeper but my actions do have consequences, often unseen. I can act in a way that will consistently increase the general good or I can act in a way that will diminish it. If I act positively then their is a good chance that other social animals like me will use that instinct for reciprocating to act in a positive manner too. Maybe one such positive action will benefit me, maybe in a way that I won’t even notice.
I don’t have to consciously try to change people to conform to my idea of how they should act, as some Christians and some evangelicals feel compelled to do, all I have to do is treat them as I would wish to be treated. I am not my brother’s keeper, not do I wish to be.
Comment by: joe
1I think Karma is a dangerous and pretty offensive concept. To me it implies that all those who are scraping together a shitty life have been bad in a previous life and deserve no pity.
Regarding Cain and Abel, I think you might be missing part of the point of the story - Cain was attempting to gloss over the murder of his brother. ‘I am not my brother’s keeper’ might be a fair point, except that his brother was dead.
The truth is surely there are a range of human interactions. Some people we want to change - and might actively seek to change them. Some are momentary and our effect is more-or-less random. But I think there are interactions where we seek to take on the benefits of ‘being x’s keeper’ without the responsibility for their welfare.
Regarding evangelicals, they want you to change, you want them to change. I am not clear what is the difference. If you didn’t wish to see them change, you wouldn’t care nor notice what they thought of you.
Comment by: Jason
2Joe, I think we have different ideas of karma for a start. In western culture it is very much the idea that if you kick a dog a plant pot will fall out of a window and land on your head, a direct cause and effect of your actions. I think that this is about as close to magical thinking as you can get and reject it utterly. What I’m talking about is a net change in the attitude of people through their actions, positive and negative.
There is also the idea of karma as a retributive force that punishes those who act badly. Perhaps not now but at some undetermined future even into their next life. I reject this idea whcih is why I said that I may never see the direct benefit of my good actions. Unsurprisingly I also reject the idea of reincarnation or any form of afterlife. That said I do have some quite complex ideas on the passing on of bad and good actions that Christians might view as sins and blessings. Maybe I’ll discuss this at a later date.
For what it is worth I think that the treatment of people in poverty or suffering as deserving is abominable. That goes for whether it is through a belief in karmic retribution or divine providence. Not one of us is responsible for the position that our parents brought us into this world and to assume that someone is at fault for being born to poor parents is just adding insult to injury. If people believe that then they must think themselves blessed. That is just arrogant. It’s not a blessing to be lucky, it’s just lucky.
I was aware of the context of the story. Perhaps I should have made more effort to point out that the phrase has left its biblical origins and entered common usage. Having said that I do think that the fact that he had just murdered his brother still doesn’t make him responsible for what his brother might be doing if he were alive.
We might seek to educate or otherwise enlighten someone in ignorance. We might seek to share a new idea or a better practice. Real change though must come from the other person, we can only show them options. I’m reminded of the old Christian evangelical statement that they “do not convert people, only Jesus converts people” they only show people the way.
I dislike attempts to convert me. I find it irritating and presumptuous and, ultimately, counter productive. An attempt to convert pushes me further from the path that the evangelical wants to pull me to. I have said many times that the very best way to preach to me is through action. Show me how your way of living is better than mine. I may wish to explore it and, if I do, you can then tell me what makes it better. Instead of evangelising at someone it is better to share with someone. X works for me, what works for you?
What are the benefits of being someone else’s keeper? How can we be responsible for their positive actions without also being responsible for their negative ones? How can we be responsible for anything that someone else does at all? I see examples of this in some Christian anecdotes. Someone was suffering terrible hardship but is “saved” by the good grace of God. If that is the case then surely it is God who placed the hardship on them in the first place. Perhaps I’m looking at it too simplistically but that’s how I see it.
Comment by: Mike O
3That would be interesting … I only know the Christain/Judeo-Christian view of this.
One of the things I find so intriguing about this blog is that it turns the tables on me. In this community, *I* am the unbeliever. *I* am the one who rejects evolution. *I* am the one holding the dissenting view. And now that I’m the “unbeliever” (in atheism), I see what it feels like when people treat me and my opinions in different ways. 99% of the time, I am treated with respect here - more than I could expect. But in the cases where I feel bullied, talked down to, or am disrespected, I find that that person’s arguments hold VERY little wieght with me. I don’t particularly care what they think. But when people care what I think (even though you think I’m wrong, that’s OK), it makes me more willing to care what you think (even though I think you’re wrong). And that makes me more willing to listen to, if not accept, what you have to offer.
WHen I’m talking to Christians, I tell them that there’s nothing I can say to a non-Christian to convince them of what I believe. All I can do is be who I believe I am supposed to be, and let God, if he exists (I wouldn’t put that qualifier in there when talking to Christians - I’m sure you understand), do the convincing. I think that is a fair approach for a Christian to take. If the God I believe in is real, and I’m doing what he wants me to do, then I’ve done my part.
Comment by: Mike O
4I’m not sure why you think Christians think they are responsible for the actions of others. Everything you described seems to jive with what I think of as “Christian” responsibility for one another. We should be charitable, we should do good rather than bad, we should help when we can, etc. But we are not responsible for their actions. But like you said, we do have the ability to potentially affect another’s actions.
I’ve done things that caused people to react in certain ways. Did I “cause” it? No, but I certainly influenced it. At that level, I think the “brother’s keeper” question is fair. And I think sometimes the answer is yes. But in a charitable way, not a “responsible for their actions” way. I could have influenced the outcome, but the outcome is ultimately their responsibility.
Comment by: danielg
5>> I am not my brother’s keeper, I am not responsible for anyone else but me.
Actually, I think that is a half truth. If you are married, you have responsibility for others. If you are a public servant, you have duty to others.
In some sense, you also have an ethical responsibility to those who have cared for you, like your parents.
But as an atheist, you are probably correct, you have no duty to anyone. You are not required by any empirical law to love, except perhaps the laws of karma.
But xians are held to a higher law - that of love. We are debtors to God for the work of Christ, and biblically speaking, owe love to others, even our enemies, and God as a result.
Comment by: Mike O
6True statement, danielg. BTW, if you’re new here, I’m a Christian, too. Anyway, I think the point Jason was making was more to the idea that if someone else does something, good or bad, that is not his fault or to his credit, regardless of the influence he may or may not have had on that person. Is that correct, Jason - I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
On a related note, I am working through a commentary on Genesis, and it contains a table that speaks to this, comparing the ancient near-east (Israelite) mindset versus our present thinking. I thought it rang true.
Comment by: Seren
7Ok, i’m going to hit you with a barrage of questions here!
Daniel:
Do you think that having love as a higher law is a good thing?
Do you feel happy that you have been called to that higher standard?
What is it about love that makes it a higher standard?
Do you think it is a higher standard because (your) God says it is? Or is it this higher standard that attracts you to (your) God?
Some of you may recognise the Socratic questions here - are good things good because the gods love them, or do the gods love them because they are good?
I’m not sure that it is necessary to have a belief in a god/dess in order to recognise the higher law of love, as you call it.
Or perhaps you need to believe in a god/dess in order to know what the higher standard is? If so, what extra knowledge or understanding does that belief expose you to that those of us without a belief in any god/dess don’t have?
Perhaps you only hold to the higher law of love because your god told you to. In that case, is it really higher than any other standard?
(hope that’s not too many…)
xx s.