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.
" Tobacco is a dirty weed,
I like it ...."
The rest of it was about how it stains the teeth, befouls the breath, causes one to die ... all ending with " I LIKE IT ". It was written in the late 17th century; if memory serves me right and at this hour, it may not. You want more of it ? Go Goggle. You know that I don't EVER link or CCP. I know that I read the bit of doggeral ( and that IS what this type of thing IS; not a " poem " !), in a book, close to 40 years ago. It may be in a new book ( though I don't know )that I bought, but have yet to read. If that is the case, I'll give you that source. If not, don't doubt me; you do so at your own peril.
As to the rest of your reply ... Y-A-W-N ... same old same old boring, hubris filled post. You never change. :-)
Hardly. 2+2=4. With or without God. False premises yield garbage results.
Uh huh. So says "Roscoe", that great Theologian of the Anti-Christians.
Thirty yards from where I type these words, it is entirely possible that my neighbor is smoking a marijuana cigarette.
If this be the case, then as a Christian I have one of two Moral Options:
And so I must ask...
What Would Jesus Do?
"What Would Jesus Do?" Never mind, Roscoe...
As you are one who expressly denies the Factual Inerrancy of Christian Ethics... you wouldn't even know.
I respectfully request of the "Administrative Moderator" a Private "FreepMail" Explanation of WHY this post was removed.
It was NOT judgmental on my part to affirm that "Roscoe" is not a Christian, he does not even CLAIM to be a Christian!! If a Man EXPRESSLY DENIED that he was a Constitutionalist, would you remove a post which examined the political implications of the fact that he EXPRESSLY DENIED that he was a Constitutionalist?
This is not "rabble-rousing" on my part, nor do I care for any such thing. I simply and respectfully request a Private "FreepMail" explanation of why this Post was removed.
Thanks, OP
Gosh, I don't doubt you for a moment.
It is pretty much as I expected. (Which is why I deliberately drew you out)
You quote from a private moralist 17th-Century argument against Tobacco, which was adopted by Franklin Adams into a Christian Libertarian 20th-Century argument against Murderous Prohibition.
I have no problem with it.
Frankly, I ADORE it.
The 17th-Century Source makes the 20th-Century Poem all the more trenchant, poignant, and funnier.
The Christian argument against "tobacco" is little better than Christians arguing against Fatty Foods... it's Pharisaical.
But the fact that 17th-Century Pharisaical Poetry was adopted into a 20th-Century critique against Murderous Prohibition... that is rich, and lively, and tempestously ironic.
It is full-orbed humor, of the delicious sort. A credit to Mr. Adams.
As to the rest of your reply ... Y-A-W-N ... same old same old boring, hubris filled post. You never change. :-)
No, but I do appreciate a rich literary snack, of the finest Irony.
Thanks for indulging me.
Oh, no it's not. Your argument danced around the problem, but can't solve it. That's why your argument is the pluperfect definition of silly. Obviously your libertarianism is far more important to you than your Christianity.
Please, go get yourself a dictionary of philosophy and look up the ought-is problem, also known as the fact-value problem. Take a look at it.
Now, answer me this. If abortion is murder, then you have an obligation to stop it. But if my personal belief is that an embryo is not a human being, and yours is that it is, who is right?
If you believe abortion is murder, and you try to stop a woman from going to an abortion clinic to kill her baby, then you are initiating force against her. If you refuse on the grounds that you personally find abortion wrong, then you are condoning murder.
It's your choice: Ayn Rand or Jesus. And before you call my argument silly again, think through what I just posted. You simply cannot get around this.
The Fact-Value problem has never been solved, and never will. Repeat: the Fact-Value problem has never been solved.
QED.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Facts are not values. Is the fact 2+2=4 an "evil" fact? Use your head, laredo.
Why wouldn't you? You're a functional atheist, my friend.
Agree and I can't for the life of me equate killing a baby that is innocent beyond any reasonable doubt with the punishment of one who IS guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as in capital punishment. Abortion and capital punishment are not equilivent. In fact they are extreme opposites.
I just read your bullet points about establishing "objective facts" and a social contract. Man, I want to demolish that right now, but I'll wait until you reply to my first demolition of your points.
I'm going to convert you back to Christianity yet, OP. You don't need that old bat Ayn Rand in your life, believe me...
Well put.
What you've described is a utilitarian system whereby anything is permitted, so long as it serves the purpose of "continuation of the species." However, even that apparently immutable standard is in fact highly subjective, as you'll quickly discover once you try to define "continuation."
Beyond that, the idea of "continuation of the species" pretty much does away with the idea of individual morality.
First, as members of "the species", we're rather like skin cells -- to live or die at the convenience of the group. But more to the point, the time scale for my choices extends generations into the future -- I can never even know the ultimate denoument of my choices. What seems like my right decision today may (1000 years from now) result in the extinction of my species.
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.