• Journal of the Daesoon Academy of Sciences
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.39-76
• /
• 2022

The two religious ethics, Christianity's 'love your enemies' and Daesoon Jinrihoe's 'grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence', can be misunderstood as similar. The misunderstanding arises from these religious ethics having something in common that specifically points to a particular object, called an enemy, and contains instructions to treat that object altruistically. However, from the perspective of Religious Ethics, the two teachings are not the same. The beliefs they are based upon are different, the religious character they pursue is different, and their processes of obtaining legitimacy, logic, and implementation are different. The most distinct difference between these ethics is that the Christian ethic focuses on a victim's role whereas Daesoon Jinrihoe ethic emphasizes the roles of both victims and perpetrators. In case of 'love your enemies,' if a perpetrator turns away from a victim and believes that they would be forgiven for their sin, the victim is unlikely to practice the teaching 'love your enemies.' Accordingly, to avoid criticism over cases wherein love of an enemy is nothing but a shallow grace, the roles of the two sides should be more highlighted than that of the absolute being. As for grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence, this teaching encourages victims to resolve their grievance with a goal of mutual beneficence. The perpetrator should likewise resolve the grievances and grudges of their victim with the aim of mutual beneficence. Jeungsan especially stressed that perpetrators have to resolve 'Cheok (慼: the resentment and grievances that someone holds against the one who victimized them)' through the ethic of grievance-resolution in order for living well. In other words, 'the ethic of Cheok-resolution' is an ethic wherein the perpetrator also plays an important role in the implementation of grievance-resolution for mutual beneficence.