Morality, step by step

The idea that morality from God is morality at all is rather absurd. Should one devote a moment of thought to the matter, it quickly becomes obvious that behaving a certain way because some entity said to do so is entirely devoid of any concern for humanity. That concern may be there as a supplement, but it is not the cause for any action. (In reality it is, but the Moral Majority likes to pretend they’re doing it all for God, not out of some more substantial source of morality.)

Before going on, however, there is one idea that needs to be done away with here. It’s this notion that morality must be objective in order to be morality. This entirely false. There is nothing which inherently demands that morality be ultimately objective in order to exist (well, except for that pesky Moral Majority – but their demands are subjective opinions, so scoff).

Morality derived from religion is merely morality as dictated by men (and only men) of the past. That’s it. But let’s suppose it actually means something. Let’s suppose that an all-powerful god really has told humanity what is right and wrong. What stops God from suddenly changing the rules? If God decrees that rape and murder are totally awesome things, then so it is. The characteristic of being all-powerful demands it. But how many people would readily accept such things? Far from being meaningful, this pernicious idea of ‘objective’ morality has no viscosity; it is allowed to flow and move. More importantly, it allows for no input from any human.

A subjective morality – the only tenable morality – is in the hands of humanity. The closest thing it can have to an objective basis is that of reality. Our morality may move and change with the facts and evidence, but we can go beyond such temporal constrictions and base it on universal principles. Most of mankind once believed that it was okay to enslave certain people because they demonstrated some characteristic or (more often) trait which made them inherently lesser. With the advance of science (and to the chagrin of religion), it has been empirically determined that there is no such inherent lessening property. People of different races are not fundamentally different. In fact, the Human Genome Project taught us that people of the same race can be more genetically diverse than people of different races. (Of course, there was good evidence long before that to help us determine the sameness between and among races and groups.)

The universal principle by which we live in regards to slavery is that it is wrong to make humans do work against their will without just compensation. (A child being forced to eat his peas, for instance, would be given just compensation in the form of health.) We derive this principle partially out of empathy. What if it was me who was enslaved?. Importantly, this is far from simply being a selfish desire. Instead, it is that if we allow some humans to be enslaved, we allow ourselves to be enslaved, and this undermines the goal of doing anything productive, something for which we all strive on some level.

This, of course, raises the issue of why it is good to be productive. (The term does not refer to a particular level of productivity, but rather taking in more energy than is released overall, i.e., living.) Again, the question regresses to yet another question because the answer is that most humans want to live. Why is it good to live?

The answer here is that it isn’t good or bad to live. Living is something which simply is. Our desire to do it (which, incidentally, we could call objective in at least one sense) is powerful. We want life, whether good or bad. That is universal to us as a species. This is ultimately our source of morality, and in several senses. First, our desire to live is borne of the very fact that we are alive: we are here because we are descended from a long line of ancestors who shared the exact same desires. Second, it is agreed upon by humanists, atheists, secularists, Buddhists, theists, and philosophers that in order to call something moral, it must have some sort of basis. “It is wrong to enslave” has its basis in the principle described above. “It is good to live” has its basis in our inherited desires. Every other normative claim can have its basis ultimately boiled down to that phrase (which itself, again, has a basis).

The most glaring flaw in the above paragraph (had I not a response to it) would be that we have desires to do a lot of things, but that doesn’t make anything right or wrong. Agreed. However, those desires are not universal to us as a species. The ones which are universal all come down to living (such as eating). Furthermore, it is necessarily true that the only ultimate desire we can ever maintain is the desire to live. By virtue of being alive we inherit this desire.

What, though, of the minority who doesn’t wish to be alive? What of the Alan Turing’s, Budd Dwyer’s, and Kurt Cobain’s of the world? These cases can always be boiled down to environmental factors, not inherent desires. Turing faced chemical castration and a heap of undue scorn for who he was; Dwyer had been criminally indicted and faced serious jail time and ruination of his career; Cobain was heavily depressed and a drug addict.

But rather than all this, perhaps a more salient point on this matter would be that humans inherently have moral systems. With what we fill those systems may be subjective, but this still goes to an earlier point: morality need not be objective to exist. It is with our familial and personal desires, universal principles and philosophies, experiences and empathy that we create our morality. Ultimately, the vast majority of humans come to a consensus on at least one basis: it is good to live. We need not go further to continue to find middle ground. If we agree on an underlying principle, and if all which follows in our discussions is based upon that agreement, then it is meaningless to then say that we disagree on some other principle.

Finally I turn my attention to an oft-ignored idea. What is the point of morality? It certainly isn’t to demonstrate that one can act according to some objective idea. This goes to the first point that acting without concern toward humanity is not morality at all. Indeed, instead of morality being inherently defined as something objective (which is a notion taken for granted by so many), it is rather defined as something which is a human concern. Go beyond humanity and you’ve gone beyond morality. This, fundamentally, is what morality is all about. Our systems of morality are inherent in all of us and the reason is their utter usefulness. We need and want them in better utilizing our role as individual members of humanity.

5 Responses

  1. Morality derived from religion is merely morality as dictated by men (and only men) of the past..

    A subjective morality – the only tenable morality – is in the hands of humanity.

    Until fo course the current subjective morality of humanity becomes old, at hich point it is merely dictated by ‘men of the past’, and apparently loses validity, meaning all morality is suspect.

    What’s the current colloquialism for this sort of reasoning?

    Oh, that’s right – massive fail.

  2. The idea that morality is of God is the only reasonable position. There is no reason to suspect that obedience to God is bad for people. A person who only ever obeyed God would be justified in every aspect of his life.

    Morality must be based on a standard. To claim morality is objective is to say there is a standard by which every action can be called either right or wrong. It is also true that no two situations are the same and similar actions may be determined as right where they might elsewhere be called wrong depending on the circumstances.

    These two ideas are not contradictions. Morality is absolutely based on a standard and always must be, but judgement against that standard is subjective according to the circumstances.

    Let’s suppose that the God of the bible really has told humanity what is right and wrong. Nothing but God’s nature stops God from suddenly changing the rules. In fact He often has changed the rules. But there are certain things that He has not changed, for example the fact that murder is wrong.

    He has, however, changed His requirements of man upon their witness to murder. Originally God said that man should not be put to death for murder. Very early on He changed that rule to say that men must be put to death for their own crimes.

    But God has never said that murder is right. And if you choose you may trust that He will abide by His character.

    However if men were in charge of what is right and wrong we can easily determine what would happen with a simple perusal of the history books and a simple look through any newspaper.

    I would like to know how science has managed to determine that there is no difference between people. The science I know celebrates the fact that people are all different and all unique. And even if there is some way in which science shows that people are all the same, by what standard do you decide that morality applies on that factor? The truth is that scientific investigation cannot tell you right from wrong. Looking at a man’s DNA cannot tell you that it is wrong to treat him like an animal. Only a proper authority can do that.

    Science tells us what is, not what should be.

    You recognise a “universal principle”? Great! So do I. I just happen to have a logical source for that principle. You have your opinion.

    It is good to be productive because life is good. Life is good. It is not good only because we happen to be alive, but it is good with meaning and substance endowed to it by our creator God. You remove that truth and replace it with a lie. Your lie is that life is not good or bad. The only reason you promote this lie is because you know the alternative. And you have no good reason to reject your God.

    We have your assertion that life is not either good or bad versus my assertion that life is good. From there you can build anything you want. From my position I can only build according to what is true about God.

    What you build is a lie. You claim that life is neither good nor bad, but then you claim that life is good because of some universal, unspoken agreement between mankind. Your worldview then becomes subject to the very arguments you railed against God with. Why can men not suddenly come to decide that life is bad? Indeed you would freely admit that it is men who have decided that evil can be visited upon each other! Why should we trust your assertions?

    Yes, men wish to live. But that is no evidence for your claim that life “isn’t good or bad”. Living is not something which simply is. There is more to life than science.

    We agree that it is good to live. I say it is good to live because God made us alive and that He is good. You say it is good to live even though you believe life is neither good nor bad. You generate an opinion on the nature of life based on your opinion. I’m faced with choosing between your opinion and God’s. For me, it’s a no-brainer.

    You wind up by saying we need and want morality to better our role as individual members of humanity. Again we agree. But the means and opinions of men on what is better for humanity are all vastly divergent. You say that slavery is wrong, yet your opinion would have meant nothing in a society a few hundred years ago. You’re a moral crusader for the rights of homosexuals, yet you refuse to bow to science and overwhelming public opinion that homosexuality is not conducive to life.

    You ignore the fact that people are the agents that release evil into the world. And to counter this you will engage in the greatest hypocrisy of all. You will accuse God, the very being you seek to prove an imagination, you will accuse God of being the agent responsible for evil.

    Or perhaps you’re not that silly. So instead of accusing God you will accuse His followers. You will create a division in humanity (one you claim science does not support) and on one side you will leave the blame for historical and modern atrocities while claiming for yourself an enlightened moral high ground. All because you deny your risen saviour, Jesus Christ.

  3. Until fo course the current subjective morality of humanity becomes old, at hich point it is merely dictated by ‘men of the past’, and apparently loses validity, meaning all morality is suspect.

    What’s the current colloquialism for this sort of reasoning?

    Oh, that’s right – massive fail.

    You’re assuming that I would disagree that all morality is suspect. Your assumption is wrong.

    But more to the point, there’s a different between moral reasoning of the past and powerful (or just literate) men dictating morality.

  4. Also, thank you Grant for giving a substantial post for a change. I have an upcoming post that will generally address your position.

  5. Looking forward to it.

    Happy Christmas. :)

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: