Can Society Determine Right and Wrong?

Catholic Answers ^ | March 15, 2016 | Karlo Broussard

[NYer]

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! 

[HWGruene]

‘Your response indicates you don’t understand the meaning of faith and the spiritual perception provided with it.

My original post was an observation premised upon spiritual perception. This isn’t to cast you off, rather to qualify the meanings I provided are in a different domain than the soulish.”

So in other words, you cannot offer any proof. I just have to take your word for it. Sort of like the pope but you aren’t the pope. Right?

[angryoldfatman]

Can you simplify that for my poor brain?

I think you’re saying that the Constitution and other founding documents were heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian morality, but I’m not sure. I’ll agree if that’s what you’re saying.

The constant acknowledgement of a higher authority is necessary for a society to avoid slipping into the 3 purely humanistic bases of morality I mentioned earlier. Once again, I’ll agree if that’s what you’re saying.

[Cvengr]

Nobody needs to prove God exists nor that He is true. There is nothing wrong in studying His existence, nor in apologetics, but more wisdom is gleaned by accepting His word, than wasting time assuming we are more knowledgeable than God.

Only the arrogant, i.e. those who place themselves ahead of God, mistakenly think they need to have His existence proven to them.

Re your rhetorical questions.

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

No. I'm saying no such thing, nor making such additional implications. God gave a command not to eat from a particular tree in the Garden of Eden. Since God does nothing that is good for nothingness, there is a reason why He communicated this to man.

The additional information you have added implies many things, none of which were implied by God in His original command.

Do you mean after he told those innocents what would happen,or before?The fruit taken was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to that consumption, they had not eaten that fruit, so they didn't have it in them. Obviously they gained the knowledge after they had eaten the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

"Are you saying that you have no proof of god? Proof always denies the need for faith like “checks in the mail.”"

Non sequitur. Proof or rationalism doesn't out-trump faith. 2 different systems of perception. Rationalism is possible though faith in Christ, but rationalism doesn't provide faith. Faith is more.

"What is the biblical definition of sin?"

Sin is missing the mark of God's Plan.

These are consequential from study of Bible Doctrine. You might find a study of Harmartiology to help in your understanding of these issues.

I am making a simple observation, which is frequently overlooked regarding original sin. It didn't exist in man prior to original sin. God communicated something to man when He gave the command not to eat the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He added, "lest you shall surely die".

This is an incredibly important observation. The beauty of God's Plan is that we were condemned before we are saved. It happened as a consequence of having the Knowledge of Good and Evil in us. It is now part of every homo sapien, which wasn't how God had created us.

We are condemned today because of this, and we are saved when we have saving faith (which He provides).

Too many believers confuse morality with "being good" and "Goodliness" as being one with God.

[HWGruene]

Which higher authority? Zeus or Chronos? Odin? Allah? HaShem? Brahma?
To praise/blame a higher authority is democrat-like. They love being absolved of all responsibility for their own personal actions or lack thereof.

[daniel1212]

ristian morality, but I’m not sure. I’ll agree if that’s what you’re saying. The constant acknowledgement of a higher authority is necessary for a society to avoid slipping into the 3 purely humanistic bases of morality I mentioned earlier. Once again, I’ll agree if that’s what you’re saying.

Indeed it is, and there is also abundant evidence that provides warrant for the existence of God, with confirmatory evidence once one is born again, realizing profound changes in heart and life which correspond to the promises of Scripture.

[little jeremiah]

Very poetically said, I like it.

[little jeremiah]

It is inherent in the hearts of every human being, but without learning from the outside, and societal standards that also agree, humans fail miserably as individuals, and society devolves to hellishness.

That is what we are witnessing right now.

The rejection of absolute truth means what was stated above: right and wrong are decided by the mob, the elites, or each chooses his own. But each choosing his own never lasts long, the big dogs take over right quick.

That is why those who posit that there is no absolute right and wrong and everyone is free to choose, invariably force those who don’t agree with them into compliance. They really do believe in absolutes, but their own. People with this view set themselves as the supreme arbiter. When they reject God, it is due to envy, and they try to take His place.

[Ransomed]

The constitution has stipulated provisions to change its nature, based on what majorities happen to believe at any one time. What is off limits to an amendment?

Freegards

[D-fendr]

>>>>would Hitler getting aborted been moral,would assassinating him been moral

Your question illustrates a common error in understanding absolutes or unconditioned values.

An absolute or unconditioned value is one which has value “all other conditions being equal.” It has inherent value, a thumb on the scale, a weight by itself, to be considered in any equation.

In your example all other conditions were not equal.

We can look at it this way: If there were no difference whether Hitler lived or died, would letting him live be better than killing him? If there are no absolute values, then the answer is: it makes no difference. So killing him is just as “good” as not killing him.

The same would hold true for killing anyone. Of itself it is not better or worse than not killing.

But, if life has an absolute or unconditioned value, then the answer is it is better not to kill.

Without absolute, better described as unconditioned, values, then *everything* has only the value of conditions. There is no thumb on the scale to measure along with conditions.

One last example. If all other conditions are equal, do you think it is better to be kind than cruel?

[redleghunter]

Thanks for posting this.

[HWGruene]

“One last example. If all other conditions are equal, do you think it is better to be kind than cruel?”

Which would be cruel, whipping a masochist or telling him you won’t if he begs you to? All conditions being equal.

[HWGruene]

“God communicated something to man when He gave the command not to eat the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He added, “lest you shall surely die”.”

So god tells innocent people not to eat it in their state of innocence and ignorance, they disobey unknowingly in ignorance then in fury god drives them from the garden. And it was god himself that created them. what, did he get blind-sided and didn’t KNOW they would disobey,and if so why did he drive them out and sentence them to death if he KNEW they would do it?
There are many gods less bi-polar and are much better judges than him that horrible story.

[HWGruene]

“It is now part of every homo sapien, which wasn’t how God had created us.”
Poor god, can be defeated by his own creations.Who were innocent and ignorant to top it off.
god:’ NO! I DIDN”T MEAN IT TO TURN OUT LIKE THAT!!”CURSE THEE smitest thou and hear ye! :)

[Cvengr]

You may find it much easier to understand His Word, if one avoids trying to put words into His mouth and instead simply seek to find what He has to say about it.

[Cvengr]

And it was god himself that created them. what, did he get blind-sided and didn’t KNOW they would disobey,and if so why did he drive them out and sentence them to death if he KNEW they would do it?

He kept His Integrity by not violating their volition. He let them know the danger, commanded them not to eat that Fruit, and even explained why they weren't to eat the fruit.

Their death was a consequence of their thinking, decision, and action by their volition. By not respecting the legitimate authority of the institution of volition, established by God for man as a blessing, man brought cursing upon himself.

Furthermore, not only did man bring cursing upon himself, He also separated himself from the love of God and His fellowship, which was unjust to God. The volitional responsibility for original sin is upon Adam and just as his one sin spread to many, the grace of God in providing one sacrifice for all sin, allows all men to return to Him simply through faith in Christ (what He provided on the Cross).

[HWGruene]

I can’t buy that argument.
To knowingly give temptation to the innocent and ignorant and then blaming them is nothing short of satanic.

If you had a toddler age 2 or 3 and you loaded a gun and put it in easy reach and said “You can play with all the other toys in the house but this gun is different, it’s no toy and if you pick it up and put it to your head and squeeze that trigger,you’ll kill yourself, i’ll be watching you constantly too! I am the adult here and know what is best for you.” and you just sit there in your lazy boy chair within reach at all times and the baby picks the gun up and blows parts of his brain out, then you forcefully eject that bleeding toddler from your house screaming at him to get out, who do you think the DA would press charges of criminal negligence, abandonment and injury to a child on when a patrolman finds the poor thing?

I do not think a defense would fly if you told the DA that you WARNED him that if he did that,that he was going to surely die.

[jpsb]

“Si Dieu n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer” (”If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him”) Voltaire 1768

[Cvengr]

"To knowingly give temptation to the innocent and ignorant and then blaming them is nothing short of satanic."

Such is the argument of the Adversary in his appeals trial. Since God doesn't tempt, but the Adversary does, human history is spotted with his deception from the beginning.

Great evidence to reinforce God's original condemnation of the fallen angels to the Lake of Fire.

[HWGruene]

The fruit taken was from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Prior to that consumption, they had not eaten that fruit, so they didn’t have it in them. Obviously they gained the knowledge after they had eaten the Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

WHY don’t people see how senseless that creation story actually is? I see no possible way that god could rightly judge them on an action he warned them about BEFORE they knew the difference, after the fact.

Now IF they knew that it would be evil to disobey BEFORE, then that would be inexcusable but that’s not how it went supposedly down.

I am not an anthropomorphic god believer nor am I a believer even in a higher power. An all powerful deity may exist or not but if it did exist it could only be a pale shadow of a shadow in concept to the mind.

To claim any knowledge of a god would be disrespectful to it and is very irreverent forcing it down to our level of comprehension, much like the ancient superstitious goat herders that thought the world was flat and the stars are holes in the tent of night and that the earth was the center of the universe that wrote Genesis and the rest of the books did.

[HWGruene]

“To knowingly give temptation to the innocent and ignorant and then blaming them is nothing short of satanic.”

Such is the argument of the Adversary in his appeals trial. Since God doesn’t tempt, but the Adversary does, human history is spotted with his deception from the beginning.

Great evidence to reinforce God’s original condemnation of the fallen angels to the Lake of Fire.”

you aren’t making any sense. there is no appeal needed unless the jurors are autistic and mentally retarded. even the devil himself could not be as evil as your jealous deity.