600 word discussion
lucky1000
garden.docxI. THE GARDEN OF EDEN
Twenty-five years ago I studied the texts of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition pretty intensively. I like those parts of the Bible best that attempt to deal with basic philosophical problems: particularly ethical problems, or problems related to good and evil. That is why I like the Garden of Eden story so much. I see it as a wonderful story attempting to explain a very difficult philosophical concept: responsibility.
If you don't see it that way, that's fine. I'm not interested in making you see it the way I do. I'm interested only in helping you learn about the concept responsibility. And I think you can learn about responsibility from the Garden of Eden story, however you prefer to read it.
Recall that Adam and Even lived an idyllic life in Eden: no rent, no credit or utility bills, no grocery shopping. They had hardly a care in the world. There was just this one thing: they were not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Because the fruit of that tree was forbidden, this can only mean Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, or of values. "Values" just did not mean anything to them. So Adam and Eve must have been completely INNOCENT or, NON-RESPONSIBLE.But things changed completely after they ate the forbidden fruit. They were cast out of the garden and had to live in what we call "the real world." Following their loss of innocence, they suddenly had real RESPONSIBILITIES. And note what caused this radical change. They had acquired ethical knowledge, by eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.In seeing this story as a folk tale, I imagine it emerging in ancient times as a culture's answer to the question: Where did morality come from? I see it as an attempt to explain the orgin of ethical knowledge, of the difference between right and wrong, and of responsibility for actions.
I enjoy the story very much, despite what I see as its central paradox. The question that won't go away is, why didn't Adam's and Eve's prior knowledge that they were not to eat the forbidden fruit count as ethical knowledge?
Either they had ethical knowledge prior to eating the forbidden fruit, or they did not. If they did, then it doesn't make sense why it would be called the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and the story fails to explain the orign of RESPONSIBILITY.
If they did not have prior ethical knowledge, then the name of the tree makes sense, and the origin of responsibility is explained. But it doesn't make sense that Adam and Eve should be punished. They didn't know right from wrong until after the fact, so they were not RESPONSIBLE.
II. RESPONSE-ABILITY
It is very easy to see the concept of "response" in our term, "responsibility." (If I recall correctly, the German term is Beantwartung, related to the term for answering a question: antworten.)
When we ask, Who's responsible?, we want to know who will respond to questions or complaints. We can also ask, Who's accountable?, that is, who will give an account, an explanation? The person responsible or accountable is expected to be capable of giving a satisfactory reason or explanation.
If Adam was responsible or accountable for his actions, it was appropriate to expect him to give an answer or a reason for why he ate the forbidden fruit.
You'll recall the answer he gave: "It was the woman...She gave me the fruit and I ate it." Adam tried to shirk responsibility for his sin, by claiming that he was acting under Eve's diabolical influence.
He gave an answer, of sorts. Note that he did not say, "Hunh? Why are you asking me?" He thought of himself as responsible, or accountable. Having just acquired ethical knowledge from the forbidden fruit, he knew that he did not have a good response. Adam knew that although he was now responsible, he had acted IRRESPONSIBLY.
Here is the difference between the two "tiers" of responsibility mentioned in the text. In the "global" sense, Adam is RESPONSIBLE. It is appropriate to ask him to give an account of his conduct. But in the "local" sense, that is, in regard to this specific action, Adam was IRRESPONSIBLE. No adequate response or moral reason can be given for his action.
Being Responsible (global) means that you can be expected to give a reason for your conduct?it's best if you can give a good reason. If you are not capable of giving reasons at all, or if it is inapprporiate to expect you to give reasons, then you are UNresponsible.
