“Jesus’ role was more than just a teacher of wisdom.” Discuss.
Jesus is not only believed by some to be the son of God, but also a great teacher of wisdom
and a political liberator. Jesus said and did things with such wisdom that many felt was vital
to pass down through generations. He had an enduring appeal on Christians and advocated
for repentance, forgiveness, and spiritual purity. As a political liberator, he sought the
liberation of the people of Israel from the Romans. Jesus is perhaps the most well-known
human being in history of faith which is why the likes of Hitchens, Dawkins, Brandon and
O’Collins put forward ideas about what exactly he was. Overall, it is evident that Jesus’ role
was more than just a teacher of wisdom.
Firstly, it could be argued that Jesus was a good teacher of wisdom. Jesus spent time
teaching in synagogues discussing moral issues such as love, justice, peace and honesty.
Even Dawkins, an anti-theist, noted that ‘Jesus was a great moral teacher’. Jesus continually
spoke of forgiveness and a lot of his work involved healing the sick and spending time with
groups of people who had been rejected by society, such as tax collectors, sinners and
women. Jesus’ wisdom in practice entailed overturning social norms, for example, by having
women as followers of him. The parable of the Good Samaritan illustrates how Jesus
prioritised teachings about helping others even if it goes against social conventions, as we
see when the Samaritan helps the unclean man. However, some prominent atheists are
critical of the argument that Jesus was a teacher of wisdom. Hitchens argued against several
of Jesus’ teachings, particularly the one concerning withholding judgement if one is not
perfect themselves. Hitchens argued ‘if only the non-sinners have the right to punish, then
how could an imperfect society ever determine how to how to prosecute offenders’.
Although Hitchens makes a valid point, this does not negate the fact that Jesus was still a
great teacher of wisdom. Jesus taught moral lessons which both Christians and nonbelievers
could abide by due to his general message of kindness and forgiveness being universal. Jesus
was extremely progressive for his time and set a standard of inclusivity amongst his
followers, making him a good teacher of wisdom. Therefore, it is clear that Jesus’ role was a
great teacher of wisdom and perhaps it could be argued that Jesus’ role goes beyond this.
It could be argued that Jesus was more than a teacher of wisdom as he involved himself in
some political affairs, thus calling into question whether he might be a political liberator.
Whilst there is some convincing evidence that supports this hypothesis, ultimately, Jesus
cannot be categorised wholly as a political Liberator. Some believe that the church tried to
hide Jesus’ revolutionary tendencies in an effort to avoid persecution by authorities.
Brandon supports this idea by stating that ‘the historical Jesus was a politically driven
freedom fighter, but later presentation of him in the gospels turned this down’. There were
also links between Jesus and the zealots as Jesus stated in the gospels ‘I did not come to
bring peace but a sword’ which raises questions over his political motivations. Simon, one of
his disciples, was named Simon the zealot, with some of Jesus’ other followers carrying
weapons, which again calls into question Jesus’ character and political leanings. However, it
can be seen in the Bible that Jesus stopped his disciples from defending him with violence
when threatened with death. Jesus was often ambivalent about accepting the traditional
messianic titles and did not confirm the ‘King of the Jews’ title that pilate accused him of.
Some also think that Judas handed Jesus over to pilate because he was simply not radical
enough, which undermines the idea that he is a political Liberator. Overall, although I would
,say the evidence provided is proof of Jesus being more than just a teacher of wisdom, the
arguments for him being a political liberator are not as convincing as him being a good
teacher of wisdom or a social liberator. It seems that Jesus actually avoided political titles
and focused on preaching and delivering the good news. If Jesus was actively stopping his
disciples from using violence, then evidently it is not something that he promoted. He had
plenty of opportunity to fight political opposition to save his life but he knew that his main
purpose was not survival, it was to serve God. Therefore, although it could be argued that
he is more than just a teacher of wisdom, you cannot wholly categorise him as a political
Liberator.
Despite this, I think it is valid to note Jesus as both a teacher of wisdom and to some degree
as a social or religious liberator, as the two do not have to contradict each other. What Jesus
says about hand washing, tithing, the Sabbath amongst other things actually went against
the religious purity demanded by the Pharisees at the time. However, he challenged this
political authority for the sake of preaching renewed wisdom and doing God’s work. Even
Gerald O'Collins noted that in general, ‘there was much in Jesus’ activities to provoke the
religious authorities, however at the heart of Jesus’ conflict with religious authorities was a
message that sought to reconnect with God those people who the authorities had
excluded.’ Contrastingly, Jesus did not reject or replace the Jewish law. He sometimes
disagreed with its application but did not seriously undermine or break it. Jesus rejected
becoming the Messiah and the disciples attempt to help him resist arrest. Overall, it can be
seen that Jesus did challenge political authority, but it was always for a greater purpose of
being a wise moral teacher. Thus, it could be argued that Jesus is role was definitely more
than just the teacher of wisdom, however, his action which have earnt him a reputation as a
‘liberator’ was performed in an effort to highlight the teachings that God wanted him to
deliver.
Overall, Jesus’ role was more than just a teacher of wisdom because it can be seen in many
passages that he challenged political authority when it did not match God’s message. His
main responsibility was to teach wisdom, and there is not too much evidence of Jesus
getting himself involved in many political affairs. Therefore, I would argue that he is more
than just a teacher of wisdom, but is perhaps a political Liberator to a lesser degree because
what is most memorable and important about Jesus is the great messages that he taught, as
opposed to him being submerged in political affairs.
, ‘The only concern of business should be to make a profit.’ Discuss
In business, making profit is often at the forefront of the business’s agenda, otherwise the
business could not realistically survive. However, in recent years it can be seen that stores
like The Body Shop are leading the way for good ethics being a defining factor of their
business, which still maintaining a successful one. Kant’s Kantian ethics and Bentham and
Mill’s utilitarianism have been moral ethical theories often applied when evaluating
business decisions, especially concerning the balance of producing profit whilst maintaining
good ethics. Overall, it is a weak argument to suggest that businesses should only be
concerned with making profit, as issues such as fair wages, good working conditions are far
too personal and impactful for the majority.
Milton Friedman would agree with this statement and often advocates for a profit centric
business model, which is intrinsically selfish and inhumane. Friedman notes that it is a
business’ ‘social responsibility’ to make the most money possible. Though there is some
truth to this statement, in regards to maintaining the trickle down effort so that businesses
can pay their workers, the stronger argument is actually that a company’s social
responsibility extends much further than producing profits. Companies might find that if
they actively take steps to become more ethical, they will have a better image which will
naturally generate more profit, more ethical investors, less public disasters, and the ability
to hire highly qualified professionals. Utilitarianism would agree that this ethical route is the
best one to take even if the company’s efforts to be ethical are disingenuous, as it benefits
the majority because employees are the people in the business who are most numerous.
Similarly, Kant would favour this approach because you are able to universalise things such
as good wages, safe working conditions, legal trade unions etc. Therefore, the assertion that
there is no such thing as business ethics can be said to be false as for larger companies,
ethical practices benefit them in the long run, however the upkeep of ethical practices in
smaller businesses is an ambitious expectation. Regardless, Anita Roddick of The Body Shop
led by example by having The Body Shop support animal rights and fair trade, therefore
proving that a business can attempt to be ethical and lucrative.
The belief that the only concern of business should be to make profit is entirely nonsensical
when we evaluate the damage that can be done when you make this a reality, with the Rana
Plaza disaster being a prime example of this. The Rana Plaza disaster took place in 2013 in
Bangladesh. This disaster entailed a multi Storey building collapsing over 2000 people, killing
at least 1,134 people in the process. This happened even though workers had discovered
cracks in the ceiling the day before, however, they were threatened with dismissal if they
refused to show up to work, despite the owners saying the building will be safe for at least
another 100 years. Profit being the concern of the factory owners, the government and the
transnational companies meant that over 1000 people lost their lives. Utilitarianism would
strongly condemn this event as it can be seen that the highest good for the highest number
of people was completely abandoned, and as a result, employees’ rights were
compromised. The factory owners did not accept the laws of the land under rule
utilitarianism by building more illegal stories in the building. Kant would also strongly
condemn this as the factory owners and transnational companies did not fulfil their duty to
their workers by making their working conditions safe. Therefore, the assertion that the only
