I was recently told that it is impossible to define right and wrong without God. When I decided that God probably didn't exist, I began thinking about this very possibility. The first thing that leaps to mind is the old "might makes right" option (which is also God's option if you think about it). This option didn't appeal to me for obvious reasons. I'm not all that mighty and I don't want anyone applying their "might" to me or mine. What then can serve as the basis for morality?
I think that, if you asked everyone on Earth whether they wanted to live, the vast majority of them would say "yes". It is not logical to seek to deny someone else the right to live if we also desire that right. We cannot kill without the likelihood that someone will try to kill us. If you asked everyone whether they wanted to have their property stolen from them, most people would say "no". I cannot steal other people's property and expect them not to retaliate. I could go on but I think you get the idea. I cannot live as a law unto myself and expect to make it very far. Anyone who has been keeping up with the class can see that the Golden Rule is what I'm driving at here. The Golden Rule really does have a basis in logic and fairness. I think the Golden Rule and the principles I just derived it from are a very good basis for morality. The existence of a supreme being is also not needed to arrive at it. Even someone who has never heard of God would probably say that the Golden Rule is a sensible and powerful tool for living a moral life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree a 100% the golden rule is a perfect basis for morality. I'm sure that you are aware of the irony of using the Sermon on the Mount as your basis for morality. I’m guessing the “vexus” part of the post is your statement that God operates under a “might makes right” system- kind of inconsistent to on one hand claim heavy handiness by God, then take his word as an explanation for morality. Vexus you did :)...
ReplyDeleteWhat you are espousing is the “social contract” theory. Its the idea that at some point an agreement was made to uphold certain moral principles for mutual benefit. There are some well known problems with this. The biggest one is that the “social contract” is in no way fundamentally real. It does not answer an important question, where did morality come from? We have no evidence of any sort of contract being established, in fact if you were to look at the human race as a whole there would be very little evidence that a moral law even exist.
You are holding society itself as the basis for morality, therefore you are saying that society can never be wrong, it is the fundamental on which morality stands. It would be inconsistent for you to say that the Nazis were wrong to commit the Holocaust. They were operating within their society, within their morality. Martin Luther King was immoral for his work during the civil rights movement, he was defying the laws of the society at the time. I would say that to claim the “social contract” as a basis for your morality you would have to abandon a large part of what you think of as “moral”. You cannot name a true fundamental on which to base your idea of right and wrong.
The Golden Rule is a perfect basis for morality because it assumes a fundamental behind it. If you take that fundamental (a good God) out then you are left with man. In the passage of scripture Jesus talks about the golden rule he espouses perhaps the greatest plenitude of moral ideas ever recorded. He talks about being humble, peaceful, chaste, and not being angry, greedy, and many many more. He follows it up with the golden rule. The scripture actually clarifies the rule as being that which sums up the “Law”. Why do I belabor this point? Because taking the simple form of the golden rule “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” would allow you to only judge others based on what they are willing to have done to themselves. You cannot call a suicide bomber wrong, they are doing unto others and themselves. The kids at Columbine, they committed suicide after killing, are they not living consistently within the golden rule?
I know what you would say is that in those circumstances the kids were not thinking of the other kids parents, that if they were parents, etc... I agree, but that is the very problem with a system built without a fundamental. Who are we to judge?
“The Columbine tragedy is fine, because those kids felt it was their right to kill their fellow classmates and teachers since they were picked on and as long as they felt it was right, who am I to judge?”
“That statement doesn't make any sense! Why? Because there IS an absolute standard. The faulty concept of "Whatever I think is right is right for me" is a means to anarchy. All humans must succumb to reality that there is a moral standard that all humans have, but our quest to find the author of this standard must reach beyond ourselves. It is our nature to crave other people's property, to desire another's lifestyle, have what another has - but we don't steal it, or kill for it because we know that is wrong.” -
That is from a book A Survey of Bible Doctrine, by Charles C. Ryrie.
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe -- no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or a staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that is just what we do find inside ourselves.” CS Lewis Mere Christianity
The Nazis were obviously not following the Golden Rule and therefore their actions were obviously immoral.
ReplyDeleteYou do make an interesting point about the Columbine kid and others like him. I will reflect on it further and let you know.
In the mean time, note that just because everyone would like there to be an absolute moral standard doesn't mean that there automatically is one. There are many things that I would like to be true but that doesn't mean I am right to go making up fairies to grant my wishes.
By the way, the CS Lewis quote is pure garbage given your Columbine example.
"The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way."
People listen to inner voices all the time and wind up in similar situations. Inner voices often encourage people to do right. However, there are just as many inner voices encouraging mayhem.
I recommend to you the "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
"Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it."