Posted on 02/26/2003 7:19:40 AM PST by Nix 2
|
If there is an absolute standard of morality, then there must be a God. Disagree? Consider the alternative. |
God's existence has direct bearing on how we view morality. As Dostoyevsky so famously put it, "Without God, everything is permitted."
At first glance, this statement may not make sense. Everything is permitted? Can't there be a morality without an infinite God?
Perhaps some of the confusion is due to a murky definition of morality we owe to moral relativism. Moral relativism maintains that there is no objective standard of right and wrong existing separate and independent from humanity. The creation of moral principles stems only from within a person, not as a distinct, detached reality. Each person is the source and definer of his or her subjective ethical code, and each has equal power and authority to define morality the way he or she sees fit.
 |
|
| Random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea, but who says your standards are for everyone? | |
|
|
The consequences of moral relativism are far-reaching. Since all moral issues are subjective, right and wrong are reduced to matters of opinion and personal taste. Without a binding, objective standard of morality that sticks whether one likes it or not, a person can do whatever he feels like by choosing to label any behavior he personally enjoys as "good." Adultery, embezzlement, and random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea -- but why should that stop someone from taking pleasure in them if that is what they enjoy.
Is having an intimate relationship with a 12-year-old objectively wrong just because you don't like it?
Perhaps murder makes a serial killer feel powerful and alive. A moral relativist can say he finds murder disgusting, but that does not make it wrong -- only distasteful. Hannibal, the Cannibal, is entitled to his own preferences even if they are unusual and repugnant to most.
Popularity has nothing to do with determining absolute morality; it just makes it commonplace, like the color navy.
"But this killer is hurting others!" True. But in a world where everything is subjective, hurting an innocent person is merely distasteful to some, like eating chocolate ice cream with lasagna. Just because we may not like it doesn't make it evil. Evil? By whose standard? No one's subjective opinion is more authoritative than another's. INCONSISTENT VALUES
Although many people may profess to subscribe to moral relativism, it is very rare to find a consistent moral relativist. Just about everyone believes in some absolute truths. That absolute truth may only be that it is wrong to hurt others, or that there are no absolutes. The point is that just about everyone is convinced that there is some form of absolute truth, whatever that truth may be. Most of us, it seems, are not moral relativists.
Bertrand Russell wrote:
I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it.
Not too many of us believe that killing an innocent person is just a matter of taste that can change according to whim. Most of us think it is an act that is intrinsically wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks. According to this view, the standard of morality is an unchangeable reality that transcends humanity, not subject to our approval. THE INFINITE SOURCE
An absolute standard of morality can only stem from an infinite source. Why is that?
When we describe murder as being immoral, we do not mean it is wrong just for now, with the possibility of it becoming "right" some time in the future. Absolute means unchangeable, not unchanging.
What's the difference?
My dislike for olives is unchanging. I'll never start liking them. That doesn't mean it is impossible for my taste to change, even though it's highly unlikely. Since it could change, it is not absolute. It is changeable.
The term "absolute" means without the ability to change. It is utterly permanent, unchangeable.
Think of something absolute. Take for example an icon of permanence and stability -- the Rock of Gibraltar. "Get a piece of the rock" -- it lasts forever!
But does it really? Is it absolute?
No. It is undergoing change every second. It is getting older, it is eroding.
The nature of absolute is a bit tricky to grasp because we find ourselves running into the same problem of our finite selves attempting to perceive the infinite, a topic we have discussed in a previous article in this series. Everything that exists within time undergoes change. That's what time is -- a measurement of change. In Hebrew, shanah means "year," sharing the same root shinah, "change."
|
|
| If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change, where can we find the quality of absolute? | |
|
|
If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change -- since it exists within time -- where can we find the quality of absolute?
Its source cannot be in time, which is constantly undergoing change. It must be beyond time, in the infinite dimension. Only God, the infinite being that exists beyond time, is absolute and unchangeable.
'I am God, I do not change.' (Malachi 3:6)
Therefore an absolute standard of morality can exist only if it stems from an infinite dimension -- a realm that is eternal, beyond time, with no beginning and no end. THE DEATH OF EDUCATION
In addition to the demise of morality, moral relativism inevitably leads to the death of education and genuine open-mindedness. The thirst for real learning comes from the recognition that the truth is out there waiting to be discovered -- and I am all the more impoverished with its absence.
Professor Alan Bloom writes in his book "The Closing of the American Mind,"
It is the rarest of occurrences to find a youngster who has been infused by this [liberal arts] education with a longing to know all about China or the Romans or the Jews.
All to the contrary. There is an indifference to such things, for relativism has extinguished the real motive of education, the search for the good life...
...out there in the rest of the world is a drab diversity that teaches only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all the life-styles we want. Our openness means we do not need others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal the truth about life...
If everything is relative, then it makes no difference what anyone thinks. Ideas no longer matter. With no absolute standard of right and wrong or truth and falsehood, the pursuit of wisdom becomes nonsensical. What are we searching for? If no idea is more valid than another, there is no purpose in re-evaluating one's belief system and being open to exploring new concepts -- since there is no possibility of ever being wrong.
A common argument often heard for supporting relativism is that in the world at large we see a plethora of differing positions on a wide range of moral issues. Try to find one issue all cultures universally agree to!
Professor Bloom addresses this contention:
History and the study of cultures do not teach or prove that values or cultures are relative ... the fact that there have been different opinions about good and bad in different times and places in no way proves that none is true or superior to others. To say that it does so prove is as absurd as to say that the diversity of points of view expressed in a college bull session proves there is no truth ... the natural reaction is to try to resolve the difference, to examine the claims and reasons for each opinion.
Only the unhistorical and inhuman belief that opinions are held for no reason would prevent the undertaking of such an exciting activity. THE NATURE OF DEBATE
The plethora of disagreements demonstrates exactly the opposite point. If everything is relative, what on earth are we arguing about?
Imagine walking down the street and you hear a ferocious argument taking place behind a door. People are yelling at each other in a fit of rage. You ask a bystander what the commotion is all about. He tells you this is a Ben & Jerry's ice cream store and they're fighting over what is the best flavor of ice cream.
Impossible.
|
|
| Heated debates occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions. | |
|
|
Real debates and disagreements occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions, not mere preferences of flavors. Think of a time you experienced moral outrage. The force behind that anger is the conviction that your position is the correct one. Matters of preference, like music and interior design, do not provoke moral outrage.
What provokes our moral outrage? Injustice? Cruelty? Oppression? There is the sense that an absolute standard of morality is being violated, an objective standard that transcends humanity, that stems from an infinite and absolute Being.
Why did Joshua put innocent women and children to the sword?
Or why God "commanded" it according to the Old Testament?
OR why you don't consider it murder?
I've found this interesting concept that once you state your belief, no matter what you do, with the Grace you have received, it is forgiven. Commit adultry, forgiven. Commit murder, forgiven. Rob a bank, forgiven. Fornicate....forgiven. Covet.....forgiven.
I don't think that was the intention of receiving Grace. I belive it covers the unintentional sins, the sins that are human failings.......not a get out of jail free card. Yet many demonimations believe and profess that.
Think different said that "Everything is permitted under any religion as long as you convince yourself you're acting in the name of God." I was simply expanding on that comment.....even though it may not be an act in the name of God, depending on the view of Grace, it still may be permissible to act within the scope of religious free will and action.
A mass killer values killing other people. You cannot object, since each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values.
Hence each man’s values may only be advanced by evaluating the world, forming rational conclusions, and acting for himself.
The mass killer rationally assess the situation, picks the weapons, methods, times, and victims that will maximize the number of killings he commits, thus acting for himself and achieving his values.
The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”.
The mass killer is happy pursuing killing.
In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values, a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills.
Except when this restrictive boundary interfers with the pursuit of happiness. Recognizing a boundary that one should not kill other people prevents a mass killer from advancing his values, and you cannot object to his values, for each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values. It is irrational for someone who values killing others to impose a restrictive boundary like respecting the right to life of others. He need not construct such a right to obtain what he values.
The only means which men have at their disposal to infringe upon the rights of others are initiated force, threat of initiated force, and fraud.
Your whole arguement of rights is based on men achieving their values. But as demonstrated above, rights are not logically necessary to achieve all values (like killing other people, and remember, each individual is uniquely qualified to determine his values, and his alone.). You may say the killer then cannot expect to go through life without other people trying to kill him. So what? He can also value the thrill of evading and outwitting his pursuers.
Rights can conflict with values. Since, in your system, rights are derived from values, when the two conflict, values logically prevail, and rights are rationally disposed of in the pursuit of happiness (The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”).
Good to see you as well.
As I stated... the ONLY moral system which allows EACH individual to act in accordance with his own will, is one which prohibits the initiation of force or fraud.
Read first, comprehend, then comment.
Ah, so god murders in different terms. Got it. Righto.
My bad... I dropped a word.
God obviously doesn't define murder in those terms.
Funny, you seem to enjoy purposefully missing the point, or voting by turning off your brain.
Tibet is under military dictatorship by those who do not recognize the validity and/or tenets of either the four noble truths or the eightfold path, and actively seek to suppress it. I should think that would be obvious to any observer.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
What terms DOES he define murder in?
Help me understand...
Good!!
There are many who follow their conscience alone and who in turn do not believe in any God...Many of these people are not evil monsters and have done much good in this world.
JPII states in Fides et Ratio:
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."
Faith and reason are not incompatible: in fact, reason confirms faith. What the Randians believe is that they can derive ethics explicitly from the natural world. Note what the Catechism states:
"..."Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith."
That's the point I was trying to make. Morals come from other places, and are confirmed by reason.
An excellent book on the superiority of Judeo-Christian ethics and their complete compatibility with reason is A Clash of Orthodoxies by Robert George (2001).
Ships crossing in the night. Humanae Vitae said that you can not be a moral absoulutist. See? Re-read his post.
Being that you're an atheist, and deny the existence of the metaphysical soul, you obviously can't be a moral absoulutist.
However, that apparently hasn't stopped you from being a moral absolutist.
And it's not really that hard (for me) to see how you got there -- after all, Christians do not believe that the Mind of Man died in the Fall of Eden (his capacity for rightly comprehending his relations to other men), but rather his Spirit died in the Fall of Eden (his capacity for rightly comprehending his relations to God). Which is to say, if Christians really believe that the Moral Law of Neighborly Love is absolute, not subject to change or exception, then we should expect that some atheists would be able to figure it out by the Observation and Experimentation of Enlightened Self-Interest ("Hmmm.... I deduce that it will be useful for me to not murder or steal from or defraud other men; so that they will consent to agree to extend the same respect towards me... yes, that makes sense...") just as men discover the Physical Laws through Observation and Experimentation.
An Atheist Man is spiritually dead, not mentally dead. He may be Spiritually pre-disposed and tempted to violate the Moral Law (as are all men); but I don't believe he is Mentally incapable of comprehending it, and by Observation and Experimentation comprehending the Moral Law to be absolute (i.e., deducing that any breach is always attended by Consequences).
Can you post anything that doesn't resemble the output from a random character generation program, or am I talking to a robot?
Did he take an extended vacation? Maybe you just don't know where to look for him.
Lets take a look at your post, it's very interesting.
We're in hock for trillions,
If God had been around he would have opted for a budget surplus? Oh, I forgot, we had one during much of that time.
our industrial base is in China,
God would have erected trade barriers?
there are no real jobs left,
95% of the people have jobs and the standard of living is the highest in history not to mention the history of the world, but they must not be "real" jobs if you aren't sewing t-shirts together.
the Chinese and North Koreans are in position to fire missiles up our collective ass!
I guess God would have had us "smote" them in the last ten years.
Odd conception of God you have, IMO.
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.