Having given some thought to the issue of morality over the time I have read the Vox Popoli blog, I believe that a valid moral system can be constructed outside a religious system and without reliance on theistic grounds. This system could not possibly be a universal system of moral truth as it would be acceptable and perhaps desirable to change it over time. In effect this creates what I believe to be the truth: that there exists a universal system of moral truth that is based on absolute defined mandates of God and a series of complimentary, competing or supporting systems based on practical applications at a given point of time. To demonstrate how these systems look let us take an example of the universal moral truth of ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’. A complimentary moral system would be one in which it is moral to show respect for that which is classified as the spiritual or divine. A competing moral system would be openly hostile (that of the general atheist commentator) or at best indifferent to this concept at all. A supporting system would be the beliefs, traditions and human created rules that dictate in what way you show obedience with this moral command.
This of course begs the question as to why certain morality systems arise. I believe the answer falls into one of several options: it was a series of choices made by people who chose or came to live in a similar vicinity with the goal of easing or defining social interactions; it reflected the preferences or desires of a dominant figure that galvanized the culture or mindset of a particular group; it is an amalgam of traits from successful human endeavors that survive to be duplicated.
The problem with both positions of the morality debate as commonly framed at Vox Popoli is the reliance on the concept of rationality. Morality and moral systems need not be rationally based because humans are not rational creatures. At best, rationality is one of several competing forces that humans use to approach the world and make choices. It is not even in all cases the best source for approaching the world and making decisions. It also seeks to limit morality to a static matter rather than a dynamic force.
Morality need not also be eternally true to be valid. It can be true in practical terms for a period of time. That is why what is true and acceptable in one era is not in another. The morality changes as the focus of a people or culture changes. In past ages obedience and respect for the king was right as it served the moral notion of loyalty to king and country and the establishment of the nation state. In present times, even respect for a president is considered a potentially unreasonable expectation as prior morality has given way to the morality of limited expression rights. Slavery and colonialism were considered either morally good or neutral as they supported the economic systems of the time. Currently, they are more generally considered morally bad as the newer passion for the masses is a form of self-determination.
Morality need not be established by a creator God to be proven valuable. Economic theories are not credited to God and yet they exist. Economics come forth in the same way as other cultural expressions. They arise through formal and informal decisions agreed upon by enough of a culture to give the power of preponderance to the system. I find it interesting that those who believe in the nearly inerrant invisible hand of the market cannot give credence to a similar construct for the system of morality. I posit a system whereby thousands to millions of individual choices shape a whole moral system that an individual works in without understanding how every point was arrived at. While someone may choose to operate outside of this system, if they deviate significantly from the norm then they risk social sanction. It is only when whole groups migrate to a different moral sphere that the moral system is observably changed.
Relativism is also not a downfall of a transitory practical moral system. Human interactions are based on relativism: she is better looking than her; that car is cooler; this milk is worth more to me that these Federal Reserve Notes… These transitory practical moral systems frequently are expressed through political manifestations. A libertarian may accept the death of an elderly person who cannot afford his medication because the compulsion of another to pay for that medicine violates a moral prohibition against theft. A liberal will take the nearly exact opposite approach to this issue. The liberal will feel that preventing that death is a greater moral good. As it currently stands, this particular society is giving more credence to the second line of moral thinking.
How do you measure a relative moral system? It is obvious that you do not measure a universal moral system. We are told that under that system (assuming that of a saved Christian) that we are at best laying up treasures in heaven and that we can expect to be ill treated in this world. However, a relativistic transitory practical morality system is an indirectly measurable thing. Granted, this measurement might possibly only be made through the study of history. One can evaluate a moral systems contribution to a sustainable culture, unifying forces in a defined community, economic outcomes and in other general categories. In effect, what serves the best interest of the most people for the longest period of time.
Relativistic transitory practical morality is a system quite similar to economics but with more extended social implications. Established or modified by humans, it serves functions unique to a specific period of time or culture. In that type of system, success is the only judge necessary. While an atheist cannot argue universal morality, a Christian or member of another faith should realize that most atheists will not accept their arguments of universal morality as the Christian faith will be viewed as simply a competing relativistic transitory practical morality. Further most Christians should realize that many things they hold to are not universal tenants, but supporting morality tenants developed over time. For your average Christian, morality is based in terms of a) the Bible b) their church and c) what they personally believe. When arguing from point’s b and c you are engaging other moral sets from a relativistic approach.
This piece in no way implies that a libertine existence is acceptable or idea. It also does not put forth the erroneous belief that all moral systems are equal. Some ideas and beliefs bear out to be superior over others, just as certain economic theories so demonstrate. What we are likely to see is a continuous cycle of moral systems that rise and fall (sometimes aiding the rise and fall of their cultures) until the Author of universal morality has His final say.
1 comment:
you bit off a big topic. i read it several times and struggled some.
i believe in "first cause". something was given to man at the beginning. certainly "God consciousness". other instincts were given such as not destroying your young though in some cultures that is the norm for deformed children. very few cultures did not destroy the unfit, mainly the Jews.
the major question for me is how did all of this innate stuff transmit after the flood vis-a-vis 8 souls? i believe technology was much further along before the flood than most believe. i believe that Noah constructed the vessel more easily than we might believe and had human records with him in the ark. but no one can know.
there is much in common from ancient times insofar as common wisdom goes to include some belief in the divine. some of the philosophy that Christ spoke was said by Greek philosophers centuries before. that doesn't make it less wise but conveys the fact of a universal wisdom/ethics/morality.
much of our "modern" morality comes from the Victorian age and the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformation et al. and yes, it does change but due to entropy of man, not his improvement. what does it say about the advancement of humankind when he develops diseases, weapons that can destroy his world?
morality might have been a lot simpler without women. they screwed it all up.
Post a Comment