Snigdha Arora

Exploring Human Ethics through Genesis and Rubaiyat

Ethics – a term used to suggest what is seen as right and wrong - can be interpreted in a variety

of ways. The two texts discussed in this paper – Genesis and Rubaiyat by Ommar Khayyam look

at ethics in a completely different manner. This paper focuses on how a sense of right and wrong

is developed in Genesis when the rules of human behavior are prescribed to man by God. It

further, compares how in Rubaiyat human life is governed when there is an absence of an idea of

prescribed ethics. This paper goes on to establish that in Genesis, God is perceived as the prime

authority that governs human life whereas in Rubaiyat it is fate and time which determines the

actual course of human life.

In Genesis, God is the creator of man and the natural world. It is through His command that life

originated on Earth. God also determines the order/cycle of the natural world, as He commands,”

And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on

earth, everything that has breath of life, I have given every plant for food. And it was so.”

(Genesis 2:3). In Genesis, everything created by God is nature and in this sense human life is

also manifestation of nature. Similarly, ethics are also based on God’s prescription of good and

bad; and they too are seen as natural.

Such inferences can easily be derived from Genesis as in an unambiguous tone, it warns humans

not to trespass the forbidden zones, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the

tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for the day you eat of it you shall die.”

(Genesis 2: 3). Here, what man must do and must not do is already prescribed to him by God. It

is seen that before the fall, it is only God who knows what is good or bad. However, after the
Snigdha Arora

fall, both Adam and Eve, gain wisdom of the right and the wrong, this is explicitly mentioned in

the Genesis 3- which observes, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and

evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live

forever” (Genesis 3:22). However, even though it is seen that after the fall humans become aware

of good and evil still ultimately it is God whose dictates determine this distinction.

Objectively viewed, it seems that Genesis intends to keep human will subservient to the will of

God. By implying that acquiring forbidden knowledge is a sin and that the “wages of sin is

death,” (Old Testament 6:23), Genesis attempts to suggest that human beings are passive

instruments to carry out the wishes of God on earth. Seen critically, it can be inferred that

Genesis attempts to deprive humans of independent thoughts, actions and wills. Since it is

against man acquiring knowledge, it also divests him of the power of logic and independent

thinking. In a way, it disallows humans from experiencing life beyond the norms laid down by

the Almighty. Similarly, in terms of ethics, man doesn’t get to choose what is right or wrong for

him and is supposed to act according to God’s instructions.

In Rubaiyat, on the other hand, there are no prescribed rules for human behavior. The text sees

fate as the propelling force of natural and the human world. In human life, fate is predominant in

the form of death. It is by focusing on this fleeting nature of human life, that Rubaiyat endorses

the carpe diem philosophy which emphasizing on seizing the moment and advocates living in the

moment. Rubaiyat poetically projects how humans can act of their own volition without

worrying about the right and the wrong. In intellectually surcharged quatrains, Khayyam reveals
Snigdha Arora

how in the absence of any prescription of the right and the wrong, time becomes an agency for

governing human life.

As in both the texts the source of ethics is different, the nature of ethics is also different for them.

We see that the two texts view the action of acting in self- interest in a completely different

manner. For instance, Genesis establishes selfishness as a sin, as an unethical practice because it

is something that is not done in the interest of God. In Genesis 3 when ‘the woman’ is deciding

to eat the apple, it is said “So, when the woman saw the tree was good for the eyes, and that the

tree was desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her

husband.” (Genesis 3:4) Here it is evident that ‘the woman’ decided to eat the fruit in some self-

interest, this self-interest is seen contradictory to God’s wishes as he had instructed Adam and

Eve not to eat the fruit. Thus, Genesis basically establishes selfishness or acting according to

self-interest as bad or unethical. It outlines how this disobedience and selfish act by Adam and

Eve is met with adverse consequences which trigger the fall of man.

In Rubaiyat, however, the same act of acting in self- interest is seen as the ideal way of living

life. Rubaiyat explicitly vouchsafes a life of freedom and unrestrained expression “Better be

jocund with the fruitful grape” (Rubaiyat LIV:103). This text primarily advocates the philosophy

of doing what makes you happy, so it talks about acting in the interest of self rather than acting

out of fear of consequences, “of threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!” (Rubiayat LXII:105)

Thus, one text deems human freedom as unethical and liable to consequences while the other

regards it as an ideal way of living life.

Snigdha Arora

Further, it can be seen in Genesis, that man is the center of universe. Even though God dictates

his life, still everything revolves around man, thus, his actions are dealt with major

consequences, his actions in fact have the power to change the entire course of history. For

instance, eating of fruit by Adam and Eve led to the fall of humanity. However, in Rubaiyat, man

is delineated as an insignificant and transient being, whose actions have no effect on the universe

whatsoever. Therefore, Genesis, emphasizes on the idea of ‘sin’ and ‘curse’ as human actions

when carried out to challenge God’s precincts can have adverse actions. On the other hand, there

is an absence of anything like ‘sin’ in Rubaiyat, in fact, it refutes this idea in Quatrain LXXI:

Oh thou, who Man of Baser Earth didst make,

And ev’n with Paradise devise the Snake:
For all the Sin wherewith The Face of Man
Is blacken’d- Man’s forgiveness give- and take! (Rubaiyat,: LXXXI ).

Thus, both these texts observe the question of ‘choice’ in human life in distinctive ways.

Genesis provides us the opportunity to make choices but that choice is severely judged by God

while Rubaiyat assigns to human beings the power live life in their own ways without any fear of

consequences. Psychologically viewed, it seems that Genesis subtly induces in humans the guilt

about their own actions while Rubaiyat attempts to give humans the power to see their own

actions beyond the prescriptive confines of norms, morality and duty.

Viewed thus, it seems that both Genesis and Rubaiyat are of contrastive nature. Genesis focuses

on making all human actions fall in consonance with God’s dictates while Rubaiyat emphasizes

on leading life in all its spontaneity. Owing to such contrastive preoccupations of these texts, it

can be surmised that the thrust of the Genesis is formed by the socio-religious conventions while

the core of Rubaiyat is spiritual and transcendental.

Snigdha Arora

References

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam - Edward Fitzgerald: Teachers / Student Resource Guide
http://www.tmwmedia.com/newtmw/teachers_guides/L4828DVD.pdf accessed on 20 October
2017

Ultius, Essay on Genesis. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/essay-on-genesis.html

accessed on 21 October2017

Genesis 1-11 and Work, Bible Commentary. Produced by TOW Project.

https://www.theologyofwork.org/old-testament/genesis-1-11-and-work accessed on 21 October
2017

Ethics in Genesis. Constantly Reforming : Biblical Theology in Theology.

https://constantlyreforming.wordpress.com/ethics-in-genesis/ accessed on 21 October 2017