Pontius Pilate: An Ethical Man?
by I am writing this piece not because the season of Lent for Catholics (and Christians, in general) is forthcoming. It is because my friend received serious questions on the ethics of Pontius Pilate.
First, let us make it clear that it is immaterial whether Pontius Pilate was indeed a historical figure — that is, he lived in particular place and time — or a mere product of hagiography. Indeed, the account on him by the evangelists is quite vivid that an ethical evaluation of his conduct is possible.
In compendium, this is what is said about Pontius Pilate and his role on the eventual — or predestined? — crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus was presented by an angry mob to Pontius Pilate, a Roman official and the procurator of Judea, to ask for Jesus’ condemnation and execution. He, then, asked Jesus some questions, hoping to convince himself that putting Jesus to death was justifiable. The answers of Jesus convince him otherwise. Pontius Pilate failed to see any reason why he must order the crucifixion of Jesus. He believed that Jesus was innocent and this he solemnly told the angry and unruly crowd. But, already blinded by fury, the mob answered, “No, crucify him!” Pontius Pilate knew that if he let Jesus go, there would be unrest and he risked losing his most coveted position. But if he allowed the crucifixion of Jesus, he would put to death an innocent man. He did not want to crucify an innocent man, but the interest of the many must be respected. And the “many” at that very moment were those who desired the crucifixion of an innocent man. Against his sense of justice, he made the decision to crucify Jesus. The mob cheered and Pontius Pilate literally washed his hands.
Because I first encountered the story in my catechesis class, I was given an ethical evaluation that is biased towards the interpretation of the Catholic Church in particular. Pontius Pilate permitted the crucifixion of Jesus; and, should he be considered as merely forced to permit the crucifixion of Jesus — well, his violation of ethics consists of this — it was precisely his turning his back from an ethical mandate of standing firm on his principle (more specifically on his belief that an innocent life must be saved), which became tantamount to giving in to his personal expediencies (e.g., his position must be preserved at all cost) — that he did an ethically abominable act. In fact, in the Philippines, his name — Pilate — is synonymous to being a tout.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post Commentrutherfranc
On February 10, 2009 at 10:14 am
very nice lecture about Utilitarin Ethics, I might have missed it but is Pontius Pialte an ethical man?
Moron Savant
On February 10, 2009 at 10:25 am
yes, he is! (from the perspective of utilitarian ethics)
in the same manner that robin hood is…
that is why i love this ethical perspective…
rutherfranc
On February 10, 2009 at 2:52 pm
thanks for the clarification.. I too view it in the same way.. can`t blame him to go with the majority for it was also that majority that put him in that power..
miss cornelia
On February 10, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Utilitarin ethics is basically mob rule then? That is not what I would call ethical at all. Do not base your actions on what the majority of people say or think on the matter but on what the consequenses of said action would be. Sacrificing the innocent just to satisfy the mob is unethical and immoral. It is these points of view which inspire racism, and other such attrocities. Sorry I’ll get off the soap box now.
Moron Savant
On February 10, 2009 at 7:25 pm
basing one’s action on what consequences of the said action would be is the essence of utilitarianism. the other developments in the story of Pontius Pilate are but peripheral.
thanks, miss cornelia.
macon
On February 10, 2009 at 8:25 pm
nice article. but i am having trouble in this situation to pair up “ethics” with “the right thing”. and being “grateful” and “ethical”?
anl
On February 11, 2009 at 11:34 pm
thank you very much “friend” for my learning
Alexei Zoubov
On March 21, 2009 at 5:24 pm
It is an interesting topic, but there are a lot of questions in regards to Utilitarian ethics (or any other ethics system). miss cornelia was correct in many aspects.
What the majority of people want (or think they want) could be not what they need for happiness. This immediately presents another problem: who is going to decide what will bring happiness to the majority of affected people? Or weight short term consequences from the long term?
Pilate’s actions created the chain of events that brought the world Christianity, and supposedly (I’m personally not sure) more happiness. It follows that Judas was also ethical in Utilitarian sense.
I’d say that there is way more to ethics and ethical behavior that Utilitarian ethics can bring.
Here is a plot of a Russian book about World War II I’ve read about 30 years ago.
Two Russian “partisans” are captured by Germans and both offered life in exchange of collaboration with invaders. One of them categorically refuses, the other convinces himself that staying alive he actually can covertly be useful to Russians while pretending to work for German. Utilitarian ethics, so to speak.
In the morning the one who agreed to work for Germans is given his first task – to hang the other one. And he does it. Ethical nightmare.
Moron Savant
On March 21, 2009 at 9:23 pm
You said it rightly, Alexei, …and convincingly.