|
> Religious edicts are inherently an expressions of morality That seems to misconstrue the nature of law, and we're talking about religious law here (though the distinction between religious and secular law is made first by Christ in Matthew 22:21). There is nothing inherently wrong about eating a cheeseburger per se. The combination of meat and cheese isn't intrinsically evil. So you have to ask what the purpose of these various restrictions are. Naturally, all law has a moral good in mind. That's what law does: it determines the moral or natural law within the given circumstances for a certain end, so a prudential element is involved (and still further in its application). One answer is that these dietary and clothing restrictions exist as a discipline that perfects its practitioners spiritually. For example, Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays not because it is intrinsically immoral to eat meat on Fridays, but because canon law includes this restriction as an act of penance that is binding on all Catholics. Same with fasting required by canonical law. The discipline of self-denial, of the care shown to meet the law's requirements, its sacrificial nature, point to a higher end for which something is sacrificed. I mentioned penance, which is very important here, but the development of temperance is another, where temperance is the virtue of moderation and spiritual order, which is to say true freedom from the irrational, destructive, and slavish indulgence of the appetites that human beings easily fall into. There is also the cultivation of right obedience that conforming oneself to such practices facilitates. Willfulness is opposed to reason and reasonable faith and trust in divine providence, and human beings are well-versed in acting willfully and even against what they know is right (which is the definition of sin). Another function of, e.g., Jewish dietary law was to set the Jews apart from other people in preparation for some divinely chosen end. In any case, the point is that these prohibitions and restrictions are not necessarily condemnations of some behavior or practice as such, considered in itself. They can involve restricting practices that in themselves are morally good as an instrument for some other end. Sacrifice works that way. We sacrifice lower goods for higher goods. |
>One answer is that these dietary and clothing restrictions exist as a discipline that perfects its practitioners spiritually.
And what is the need to perfect oneself spiritually?
>Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays not because it is intrinsically immoral to eat meat on Fridays, but because canon law includes this restriction as an act of penance that is binding on all Catholics.
Penance is described by catholics as 'good', which is a moral judgement.
>We sacrifice lower goods for higher goods.
Right, but trading a lower good for a higher good is still an expression of morality, you're just preferring the greater good of the two.