Can Society Determine Right and Wrong?

A person with whom I was corresponding recently asserted that skeptics are free to hold that objective morality is derived from the society in which we live. In this view, he claimed, moral principles exist beyond the individual and thus are objective.

This correspondent is in good company with Richard Dawkins. To the question “How do we decide what is right and what is wrong?”, Professor Dawkins answers, "There is a consensus about what we do as a matter of fact consider right and wrong: a consensus that prevails surprisingly widely” (The God Delusion, 298).

But such morality is not objective in the true sense, because the moral principles are relative to cultural acceptance. As the late American philosopher Louis Pojman describes it, "There are no objective moral principles, but rather all valid moral principles are justified by virtue of their cultural acceptance" (Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong, 23).

Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, in their book Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, call this view “Society Says Relativism.”

Is such a method of determining morality reasonable? Can we ground morality in what society says? Beckwith and Koukl give five reasons why the answer is no.

1. Impossible to criticize another society’s practices.

If society determines what is right and wrong, then it would be impossible to criticize another society’s moral norms, no matter how bizarre. There would be no moral standard outside society’s decrees against which we could measure a society’s practices. Consequently, no judgment could be made on society. According to this view, we could not judge Nazis Germany’s behaviors as wrong. But this is absurd. We must be able to judge certain societal practices as wrong. Therefore, society cannot be the final arbiter for right and wrong.

2. Impossible to have immoral law.

If “Society Says Relativism” were true, then the talk of immoral laws would be nonsense. Under such a view, society is the measure of morality, and thus every law is moral simply because it's a law. Since there is no measure of morality beyond society, there is no way to judge its laws as moral or immoral. But we know societies have instituted immoral laws. All we need do is think back to our own country’s segregation laws. Therefore, we must conclude there exists a standard beyond society that determines right and wrong.

3. Moral reformers would be criminals.

If it were true society is the measure of morality, then anyone who attempts to change the societal codes would be deemed immoral. How could a social reformer be moral if he or she is going against what society views as moral? The answer is he or she couldn't! According to this view, Martin Luther King Jr. would have to be considered a criminal, since he fought against what society deemed a moral norm. But no reasonable person would come to that conclusion. Therefore, a moral standard outside society must exist.

4. The concept of moral progress as a society is incoherent.

If right and wrong are determined by what society says, then it’s impossible for society to ever improve in the moral sphere. In order to achieve moral progress, a society would first have to be wrong and then change for the better. But in Society Says Relativism, a society cannot be wrong, since it is the measure of morality. Whatever it says is moral. Therefore, social moral progress is impossible. But we know social moral progress is possible. Anyone in his right mind acknowledges that our society has progressed morally by banning racial segregation laws. Therefore, there must exist some standard of morality beyond society.

5. It reduces morality to might makes right.

If morality is determined by society, then morality is reduced to might makes right. Consider the fact that laws are made by those who have the most power—either the power of government or of the majority. So, if Society Says Relativism is true, then the one with the most power will always determine morality. But this is the same mentality as the tyrannical forms of government every rational person rejects. Therefore, there must exist a standard of morality that exists beyond the most powerful human governments and societies.

So where does that standard lie? One option is the individual’s judgments; but this is subject to many of the same critiques mentioned above plus more—critiques that must be saved for another discussion. Without getting into great detail, the standard must lie in that which is common to all humans: namely, human nature.

When discerning appropriate human behavior, we must ask, “What is good for man?” The answer to that question is found in human nature. Human nature is inherently directed to certain ends or goals and the achievement of those goals is what constitutes human flourishing (e.g., self-preservation, knowledge of the truth, propagation and education of the species, and social existence). Therefore, correct human behavior—that which is good for man as such—is behavior that allows and helps human nature to achieve those ends.

It is this standard of human nature from which morality must be derived in order for it to be rational and truly objective.

Of course, for such a law to be morally obligatory, there must be a transcendent being from which human nature derives it dignity, i.e., God. But that’s for another time!

So what you are saying is god left a loaded .45 on the table in reach of people that knew no sin, therefore innocent.

(Jumping in here) you might say so, with explicit instructions not to pull the trigger, while proving no restrictions on the other guns, as such would have only positive effects.

Do you mean after he told those innocents what would happen,or before?

The ability to discern good and evil was present from the beginning. A+E were innocent but not unable to make moral choices, though they never knew guilt, and were given vast freedom, with only one solitary prohibition. For the freedom to choose is meaningless unless there is something to choose btwn. Yet were there no subversive temptation, it is unlikely they would have sinned.

But as the original leftist Liberal, the devil seduced Eve with the Victim-Entitlement Mentality, asserting that God was treating her unjustly with His prohibition, as He had no right to keep this certain knowledge of Good and Evil from her.

Meaning this was a demand for God to Share the Wealth, which was the premise of the Devil in the first Occupy Movement, that of the devil presuming to sit in the position of God (the administration building to the Presidency), climbing up "some other way" than that which is lawful. (Is. 14:14; Jn. 10:1; cf. 2Tim. 2:5; Rv. 3:21).

Even then saw the fruit was good to eat, and attractive to the eyes, and to make her wise, and so she ate, and enlisted Adam in sin, who was not deceived but simply went along with his wife. And as they were given stewardship of the earth, by getting their "vote" the devil gained power as the god of this world" system.

That discourse is certainly not what you expected, but there was more to this event than meets the eye. And as the devil yet craves the worship only God is worthy of, then he mainly seeks to obtain it by proxy servants, who likewise employ the seductive (because of man's strong sense of justice) Victim-Entitlement Mentality to obtain power, yet in the end only they reign in power and wealth, perhaps with a few avid supporters.

I will leave the rest of your post to the OP whom presented statements you addressed.

“consensus” is just another way of saying “mob rule”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exactly.

There are only 3 possible moral bases once you evict a higher authority than mankind.

Basis 1 – The individual.
Each person their own set of morals. This destroys the idea of a moral standard and demotes morality to a matter of personal preference.

Basis 2 – The majority.
Morals are decided by consensus. This works well until the consensus changes in a short time period. Then those individuals who do not change quickly enough are subject to perfectly reasonable persecution. And if the point of contention is susceptible to pendulum-like acceptance/rejection, it is perfectly reasonable to persecute certain individuals because of their disagreement, then welcome those same individuals back into the fold once consensus swings back, ad infinitum.

AN EASY TO UNDERSTAND EXAMPLE OF BASIS 2: Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, was publicly harassed until he quit his job, simply because his stance on same sex marriage did not shift at the same time that others with whom he formerly agreed (Obama and Hillary) did.

Basis 3 – The elite.
A minority (or individual) dictates the moral code. This is subject to the capriciousness of Basis 2, dangerously combined with the lack of inhibition. This is essentially tyranny, which calls for extreme measures of violence to retain control of the disagreeing majority.

Why not both?

Americans are unusual in that they divide the ideas of morality and ethics. And this goes all the way back to the founding of America. At the time, the kings and princes of Europe claimed that they were anointed by God, which gave them the legitimacy to rule. Even worse, they claimed that because of this, *their* laws were written in heaven; so to oppose them was not just to break the law, but acts of defiance against God.

Ptui!, said the founding fathers. While giving full faith and credit to the morality of heaven, they were quite clear that our constitution and laws are written by men, so they could be changed by men without offending God.

But this caused a divide in the law. And while there is considerable overlap, Americans equate morality with the laws of heaven. But they are less trustful of it, because it varies from faith to faith, and even from church to church. And they get downright distrustful of politicians who frequently proclaim their morality.

Ethics, on the other hand, Americans see as conforming to the secular law. They see it as far more objective, so if a politician touts his ethics, they can get a clear view as to whether he is ethical or a liar.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.