Kind and Structure of Moral Dilemma in Rodrigues' Case
|
November 28, 2017 |
No Comments |
In his article Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, Philip Quinn argued for the possibility of genuine dilemmas internal to Christian ethics. He took an example from the life of Sebastian Rodrigues, who is the protagonist of Shusaku Endo's novel Silence. He argued for an interpretation of the story according to which Rodrigues confronts a real conflict between the obligation to love God with total devotion and the obligation to love one's neighbor as oneself. He concluded that the outcome of this conflict is not ultimately tragic because it serves providentially to move Rodrigues closer to Christ in suffering love.
What I shall work out in this paper is the ethical dilemma as interpreted by Quinn. I assert that Rodrigues' case is a genuine moral dilemma by showing the structure and the way it might be resolved.
Rodrigues' Dilemma
The story of Sebastian Rodrigues shows that the ideals and obligations involved in following Christ can give such conflicts. He is torn between the demand for loyalty to his priestly vows and to her church and the claim of the suffering of the Japanese Christians makes on his capacity for love of his neighbors.
For Rodrigues, trumpling on a fumie is not just an act of formality. It must signify the betrayal of Christ. His life has made Rodrigues a man who cannot step on the fumie and not have what he is doing be an act of betrayal. And this is an act of self-betrayal.
On the other hand the Christian there suffer because he will not trample on the fumie. Christian love of neighbor requires Rodrigues to act as he does to stop the torture of the Japanese Christian.
Quinn says that “When Rodrigues tramples on fumie, I think, is both to violate a demand of his religious vocation binding on him no matter what is consequences and to satisfy an equally pressing demand for an expression of love of neighbor.1 What happened to Rodrigues, then, is really an ethical dilemma.
He was facing the demands both coming from a single source: the commandment to love God with total devotion and love our neighbors as ourselves. Rodrigues cannot satisfy one of these demands without violating the other.
Of course, on the surface, the choices seem to be a little thing to do, that is to trample or not to trample on the fumie. But as one know the life of Rodrigues, as described in the case, the choices are becoming difficult. Whatever action that Rodrigues choose will end up in violating the other choice.
Objections
At least there are three way of interpreting this conflict not as a genuine moral dilemma.
One can say that Rodrigues can choose not to trample on the fumie and let the Japanese people suffer and die. This point of view comes from the notion that there is another Christian value of martyrdom. If the Japanese Christians die in their torments, they die for their faith, and so they die as martyr. Rodrigues can let the people suffer and die as the way of witnessing their faith to God. It is really a good way of Christianity life. He can easily preserve his loyalty to God and his Church and his integrity as a religious person. So, the choice is not to trample on the fumie.
But in this case, however, the Japanese Christians in the pit are merely pawns in Inoue's game. They do not seek or wish for martyrdom. If such people die under torture, they will not be dying for the Christian faith. They are not the stuff glorious martyrs are made of. So it is not best for them that their torture in the pit be prolonged, and Rodrigues does not go contrary to what is best for them when he acts to relieve their suffering.2
Another way of interpreting this dilemma is that Rodrigues can choose the way of trampling on the fumie as imitating the life of Christ. Christ has died for many people, then it is supposed that even in the case of Rodrigues, Christ would have been “apostated”. The matter here is that the value of life of the Japanese Christian, is in comparison with the fumie. One ought to safe lives rather than something that is merely an image. Rodrigues ought to immitate suffering of Christ for the sake of many people. Quinn's answer to this objection is that Christians are not obliged to imitate the life of Christ in all its concrete details. “What we are called to imitate is something more abstract, a pattern deriving from the life of Christ, and this pattern represents the life of Christ as it has been refracted through scriptural traditions and our culture's interpretations of those traditions. In short, it is a cultural construction.”3 This cultural construction, according to Quinn, can give rise to dilemmas when one tries to apply them in circumstances very different from those they were constructed to fit. Rodrigues' tragic situation is not the same as the scene of Getshemane.
The third way of approaching this dilemma is to blame Rodrigues that this dilemma is of course come from his own fault. There is an opinion that moral dilemmas can arise only when, as a result of violating one or more moral demands, a person would find that there is a moral demand he or she can obey only if he or she violates another. But this is not true in the story of Rodrigues.
Quinn then continue to work on that Rodrigues' Dilemma is something providential. For a Christian view, the fall of Rodrigues bring something new. “He has come to love Christ in a new way. And, more important, everything he had been through had been necessary to bring him to this new love.”4
Structure of the Dilemma
The moral dilemma here happened, according to Alasdair McIntyre,5 as a situation concerns to alternative ideal character. Rodrigues is compelled by his realistic analysis of what is required for supreme excellence for him being a misionary priest. He is in torn between love of God and love of neighbour. This is for Quinn is a special Christian concern, and proposes thereafter, a theory of providence. It is for Rodrigues a providence of God to learn from his tragic dilemma on how to gain a new way of applying Christian ethic in some alternative way.
Let's consider the case from the consequentialist point of view. It is appear to me intuitively. It is better to choose for saving a big number of Japanese Christian than to sacrifice oneself's integrity. The problem could be resolved if Rodrigues just trample on the fumie because the consequence of this action is more valuable. Of course, then, he would have saved more lives. Trampling to the fumie for Rodrigues might be just an act of sacrificing his integrity as a religious person. One could also say that it is just a formal act of apostasy, not real apostasy. It is like a kind of self-sacrifice to gain more life saving.
But that is not true if we look closely at Rodrigues life. It is not just a fumie. It is not just an act of trampling to something. It is indeed a denial of the truth. And in the case of Rodrigues it is indeed a denial of absolute truth, that is God himself, represented in the fumie. Whatever he choose, he action still violate the other action.
Conclusion
Considering Quinn's way of describing the tragic dilemma of Rodrigues I should conclude, the case of Rodrigues maybe won't happened in our time now. But the point is, beside many arguments out there, a Genuine Moral Dilemma do happened. It is obvious from the Rodrigues case. Whenever moral dilemmas exist, they need to be describable. Once describable they should be resolvable.
Readings:
1. Philip Quinn, Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 151-183, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017784
2. Alasdair Macintyre, Moral Dilemmas, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. L, Supplement, Fall 1990
1 Philip Quinn, Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 170,
2Ibid. p. 173
3Ibid. p. 176
4Ibid. p.
5Alasdair Macintyre, Moral Dilemmas, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. L, Supplement, Fall 1990, pp. 367-368
What I shall work out in this paper is the ethical dilemma as interpreted by Quinn. I assert that Rodrigues' case is a genuine moral dilemma by showing the structure and the way it might be resolved.
Rodrigues' Dilemma
The story of Sebastian Rodrigues shows that the ideals and obligations involved in following Christ can give such conflicts. He is torn between the demand for loyalty to his priestly vows and to her church and the claim of the suffering of the Japanese Christians makes on his capacity for love of his neighbors.
For Rodrigues, trumpling on a fumie is not just an act of formality. It must signify the betrayal of Christ. His life has made Rodrigues a man who cannot step on the fumie and not have what he is doing be an act of betrayal. And this is an act of self-betrayal.
On the other hand the Christian there suffer because he will not trample on the fumie. Christian love of neighbor requires Rodrigues to act as he does to stop the torture of the Japanese Christian.
Quinn says that “When Rodrigues tramples on fumie, I think, is both to violate a demand of his religious vocation binding on him no matter what is consequences and to satisfy an equally pressing demand for an expression of love of neighbor.1 What happened to Rodrigues, then, is really an ethical dilemma.
He was facing the demands both coming from a single source: the commandment to love God with total devotion and love our neighbors as ourselves. Rodrigues cannot satisfy one of these demands without violating the other.
Of course, on the surface, the choices seem to be a little thing to do, that is to trample or not to trample on the fumie. But as one know the life of Rodrigues, as described in the case, the choices are becoming difficult. Whatever action that Rodrigues choose will end up in violating the other choice.
Objections
At least there are three way of interpreting this conflict not as a genuine moral dilemma.
One can say that Rodrigues can choose not to trample on the fumie and let the Japanese people suffer and die. This point of view comes from the notion that there is another Christian value of martyrdom. If the Japanese Christians die in their torments, they die for their faith, and so they die as martyr. Rodrigues can let the people suffer and die as the way of witnessing their faith to God. It is really a good way of Christianity life. He can easily preserve his loyalty to God and his Church and his integrity as a religious person. So, the choice is not to trample on the fumie.
But in this case, however, the Japanese Christians in the pit are merely pawns in Inoue's game. They do not seek or wish for martyrdom. If such people die under torture, they will not be dying for the Christian faith. They are not the stuff glorious martyrs are made of. So it is not best for them that their torture in the pit be prolonged, and Rodrigues does not go contrary to what is best for them when he acts to relieve their suffering.2
Another way of interpreting this dilemma is that Rodrigues can choose the way of trampling on the fumie as imitating the life of Christ. Christ has died for many people, then it is supposed that even in the case of Rodrigues, Christ would have been “apostated”. The matter here is that the value of life of the Japanese Christian, is in comparison with the fumie. One ought to safe lives rather than something that is merely an image. Rodrigues ought to immitate suffering of Christ for the sake of many people. Quinn's answer to this objection is that Christians are not obliged to imitate the life of Christ in all its concrete details. “What we are called to imitate is something more abstract, a pattern deriving from the life of Christ, and this pattern represents the life of Christ as it has been refracted through scriptural traditions and our culture's interpretations of those traditions. In short, it is a cultural construction.”3 This cultural construction, according to Quinn, can give rise to dilemmas when one tries to apply them in circumstances very different from those they were constructed to fit. Rodrigues' tragic situation is not the same as the scene of Getshemane.
The third way of approaching this dilemma is to blame Rodrigues that this dilemma is of course come from his own fault. There is an opinion that moral dilemmas can arise only when, as a result of violating one or more moral demands, a person would find that there is a moral demand he or she can obey only if he or she violates another. But this is not true in the story of Rodrigues.
Quinn then continue to work on that Rodrigues' Dilemma is something providential. For a Christian view, the fall of Rodrigues bring something new. “He has come to love Christ in a new way. And, more important, everything he had been through had been necessary to bring him to this new love.”4
Structure of the Dilemma
The moral dilemma here happened, according to Alasdair McIntyre,5 as a situation concerns to alternative ideal character. Rodrigues is compelled by his realistic analysis of what is required for supreme excellence for him being a misionary priest. He is in torn between love of God and love of neighbour. This is for Quinn is a special Christian concern, and proposes thereafter, a theory of providence. It is for Rodrigues a providence of God to learn from his tragic dilemma on how to gain a new way of applying Christian ethic in some alternative way.
Let's consider the case from the consequentialist point of view. It is appear to me intuitively. It is better to choose for saving a big number of Japanese Christian than to sacrifice oneself's integrity. The problem could be resolved if Rodrigues just trample on the fumie because the consequence of this action is more valuable. Of course, then, he would have saved more lives. Trampling to the fumie for Rodrigues might be just an act of sacrificing his integrity as a religious person. One could also say that it is just a formal act of apostasy, not real apostasy. It is like a kind of self-sacrifice to gain more life saving.
But that is not true if we look closely at Rodrigues life. It is not just a fumie. It is not just an act of trampling to something. It is indeed a denial of the truth. And in the case of Rodrigues it is indeed a denial of absolute truth, that is God himself, represented in the fumie. Whatever he choose, he action still violate the other action.
Conclusion
Considering Quinn's way of describing the tragic dilemma of Rodrigues I should conclude, the case of Rodrigues maybe won't happened in our time now. But the point is, beside many arguments out there, a Genuine Moral Dilemma do happened. It is obvious from the Rodrigues case. Whenever moral dilemmas exist, they need to be describable. Once describable they should be resolvable.
Readings:
1. Philip Quinn, Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 151-183, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40017784
2. Alasdair Macintyre, Moral Dilemmas, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. L, Supplement, Fall 1990
1 Philip Quinn, Tragic Dilemmas, Suffering Love, and Christian Life, The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 170,
2Ibid. p. 173
3Ibid. p. 176
4Ibid. p.
5Alasdair Macintyre, Moral Dilemmas, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. L, Supplement, Fall 1990, pp. 367-368
