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!

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?

Only what would be inconsistent the intent of the Framers, and their ethos. But as i have said, the government is by the people, as they elect, directly or indirectly, the interpreters of the constitution, and which is reflective of the ethos and judgment of the electorate, for good or for evil.

It is a work of the evangelical NT church to bring souls to be controlled from within so that they need not be controlled from without, and wisely elect those who do the needed controlling, and administration.

We can rightfully argue that the framers would not support such a abominable novelty as so-called "gay marriage," but which is a result of the electorate becoming increasingly post-Christian in reality.

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. (1 Peter 4:17-19)

Which higher authority? Zeus or Chronos? Odin? Allah? HaShem? Brahma?

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

Some of these have worked at least temporarily in escaping the trap of the 3 bases.

Strictly humanistic views, where mankind is the pinnacle of authority, cannot escape this trap.

Most atheists I converse with like Basis 2, since that is superficially how modern Western societies work. The problem with it is exactly what Brendan Eich encountered. Also, it slides into basis 3 entirely too easily.

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

To praise/blame a higher authority is democrat-like. They love being absolved of all responsibility for their own personal actions or lack thereof.

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

I’m guessing you mean “Democratic party” for “democrat”, and I assume the rest of your post quoted here refers to the Christian doctrine of salvation and forgiveness.

If anything, the Democrats have demonstrated an affinity for all 3 bases, and have no compunction with basis 1 unlike almost all Christians and practicing Jews.

As for absolution, Christians (if they have been educated in their own theology sufficiently) accept temporal punishment for wrongdoing. They also understand that they need forgiveness from God for their wrongdoing to receive any reward in the afterlife, no matter how good they think they are, because they all fall short of the perfection demanded by God.

This is the opposite of what you have stated. Christian morality does not absolve any follower of his or her duties here on Earth.

Now, why aren’t you concerned with any of the other “higher authorities” you mentioned?

Also, I noticed you registered just a few weeks ago. Did you do that just to argue about religion with us rightwingnuts?

First off, addressing your stereotypes of me:

I do not believe in some cartoon God with a beard and sitting on clouds. My belief or non-belief in such has nothing to do with morality.

I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transsubstantiation. My belief or non-belief in such has nothing to do with morality.

I realize that I am in the minority as an annihilationist, so I don’t believe in a burning hell, since that would be a form of everlasting existence, and Scripture is unclear on this.

John 3:16, which is the “mission statement” of Christianity, supports my view, while there are other passages that Christians have quoted to me that suggest otherwise. Given my simplistic view of fairness, I agree with you about the absurdity of eternal pain for a finite amount of wrongdoing.

My belief or non-belief in such has nothing to do with morality per se.

To shorten this up, nothing you wrote is relevant.

You arguments do not address the fact that if there is no higher authority than mankind, then morality is an invention of mankind’s and is subject to the 3 bases I mentioned in my first post on this thread. Basis 2 is the main one addressed by the OP.

Do you deny this?

Sorry, meant to copy you on this post to HWGruene.

First off, addressing your stereotypes of me:

I do not believe in some cartoon God with a beard and sitting on clouds. My belief or non-belief in such has nothing to do with morality.

I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transsubstantiation. My belief or non-belief in such has nothing to do with morality.

I realize that I am in the minority as an annihilationist, so I don’t believe in a burning hell, since that would be a form of everlasting existence, and Scripture is unclear on this.

My belief or non-belief in such has nothing to do with morality per se.

To shorten this up, nothing you wrote is relevant.

Do you deny this?

“Let’s say, in your example, you define “kindness” (erroneously IMHO) as inflicting pain and humiliation on a masochist.

Is it better to be kind, by your definition, or not? Why?”

Kindness is dependent between two parties. I used the masochist just as an extreme example.

Kindness implies good intention, helpfulness and love and concern towards another beings happiness,comfort and well being. In other words you treating somebody you don’t know as if you were them. That is the golden rule. BUT this causes conflict such as if you were not a masochist you would fail in you kindness towards one that was one if you refused to whip him when he begged you to.

I eliminate this conflict by interacting on a personal level with other people by just simply following cost vs. benefit.

I am now always kind to creatures that are non-human such as animals who by definition are the only true innocents in existence today. I love my 18 cats that I have even more than myself as they are innocent darlings, every one was a rescue that people dumped off as I live next to a creek in a city downtown in a parking lot next to my home. How I arrived here was an extreme. I had a rabbitry in my youth consisting of 150 new Zealand whites. I slaughtered 75% of them by my own hand for food for myself and to sell to others. Back then, there were always offers from laboratories offering to buy my pedigreed bunnies for experimentation. I never took them up on those offers as it meant torture for the animal.

Is it better to be kind to an innocent animal? Of course it is. Is it better to be kind to not innocent people? Depends on how much you are willing to whip a masochist that begs you to. The problem lies in guilty people EXPECTING you to treat them as THEY want to be treated.

>>> if you were not a masochist you would fail in you kindness towards one that was one if you refused to whip him when he begged you to.

No, you wouldn’t fail in kindness here. Not by your description of kindness: “Kindness implies good intention, helpfulness and love and concern towards another beings happiness,comfort and well being.”

>>>I eliminate this conflict by interacting on a personal level with other people by just simply following cost vs. benefit.

You’ve placed value on avoiding conflict. All other conditions being equal, I’d agree, it is better to avoid conflict. :)

>>>cost vs. benefit

Cost and benefit are calculated based on what we value, isn’t it? Does being honest have value to you, by itself, such that it would have to be outweighed by some condition in order for you to be dishonest?

If so, then honesty or truth has an unconditioned (inherent) value for you.

You comments indicate that you believe unconditioned/absolute values exist. I believe this is what distinguishes us as human,

thanks again.

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.