Friday, August 29, 2008

The Validity of the Moral "Ought"

Are there moral absolutes? Or does morality change over time? I’ve been contemplating these questions and how best to articulate my thoughts concerning them. If morality changes over time and something becomes wrong that was not wrong in the past, then we give up the right to judge the past. For instance, when slavery was a normal part of society in Europe and the Americas for many years was it right then and now wrong because we have evolved to know it is inhumane? If it was not wrong then, but became wrong we diminish the injustice done to the African people by our philosophy. It either has always been wrong, or slavery is only wrong subjectively in the communities and individuals who believe it to be wrong. Hence one community has no right to impose it’s morality on another. Essentially in this line of reasoning our hands are tied when it comes to present day Sudanese slavery we have no voice to proclaim slavery in their community as wrong. Unless, of course, morality is the same for all people, places, and times.


I enjoy history and minored in history in college. I sat through many a discussion concerning Christopher Columbus. I have read documents where he called Native American’s “savage” and spoke derogatorily of this “uncivilized” people group so foreign to him and his culture. The cultural mindset he carried saw them as less than human and often took advantage of them as our history so sadly reports. Professors like to use Columbus as a good example of how he ought not to be declared a hero of American history, but ought to be despised for his contempt of the Indian people. However, if his ethics concerning them were culturally based and right in his day by all cultural standards, we have no reason to sit in judgment that he ought to have treated them as equal human beings. However, we do know that despite his ignorance of the truth, the Native Americans ought not to have been treated thusly and we have apologized to them as a nation and have rendered financial retribution for our horrific treatment of them. Therefore we see the past actions as not those of a changing morality, but of an injustice done to them in that day. We see it was wrong then as much as it is wrong today to mistreat a fellow human being.



Either we confine morality to each community and time period or even to each family or individual and have no right to tell anyone what “ought” to be, or there is an objective morality to which we appeal throughout the generations cross cultures. However, believing the latter creates a necessity for a giver of that objective morality. If morality is not a product of our own invention and is instead objective and true to all people, then we enter into the Christian worldview. Now, I know here is where people are beginning to object and say that I am inferring connections between objective morality and God that cannot exist and cannot be proven. Maybe I cannot scientifically prove God’s existence. However, if we want to continue to dispense with the idea of God we must dispense with the idea of an objective morality for all people irrespective of community, culture, and time. If it was wrong for the European colonies to participate in slavery and to mistreat the Native Americans even though most of them thought it acceptable and right behavior, then right and wrong exist objectively outside of human construct. If instead, one wants to believe that morality changes, and slavery became wrong then they can only say it is wrong for them or their culture, if their culture agrees, and not for those cultures of old or modern ones still practicing slavery. One cannot have it both ways. And if there is an objective moral standard not created by humanity then where would it have come from?


My answer from the Christian perspective is that God is the giver of this knowledge and the standard of goodness by which all things are measured. And with all things being equal, morality is absolute. If humans are to treat other humans with value simply because they are created as valuable then any action that demeans the value of a person whether it be slavery, murder, abuse, rape, etc. is wrong for all people in all times regardless of culture.


Something is less than good when it fails to keep with God’s good nature. Sin literally means “missing the mark” thus not lining up with the standard. The Bible says that all have sinned. We have all missed the mark, because none of us can be holy without God by His grace and mercy making us righteous through Jesus Christ. If we persist in moral relativity we ignore the standard and make ourselves the giver of morality and I think we all know that we are not good and we do things that break our own standards so how can we be a standard giver? The only one qualified to give a standard is one who doesn’t break it, one who is perfect in goodness. The only one who can sacrifice himself for those who break the standard is one who is perfect and without blemish being sinless himself. The only way we find mercy is through the cross of Christ because He breaks us free from the law of sin and death cleansing us from our unrighteousness and empowering us to live righteously.


For the Christian, doing “good” is not means to earn favor with God. It is because of the favor of God that we love to do what is right. Even Christians forget this and sometimes get into a pattern of trying to earn favor with God and to impose this idea on others that their actions gain them favor or take away God’s favor. In actuality, our actions do not merit us salvation for we cannot save ourselves. We strive in Christ to live lives pleasing to God because we love God and not because we are working for something from God.


16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why am I not surprised that you are trotting out the same, tired lines that I've already disputed and debunked? Have you no sense of honesty or shame?

"Essentially in this line of reasoning our hands are tied when it comes to present day Sudanese slavery we have no voice to proclaim slavery in their community as wrong."

Even if morality is relative, that's still no reason why I can't criticize someone for holding slaves, but that's really a small point compared to what's to come.

"Either we confine morality to each community and time period or even to each family or individual and have no right to tell anyone what “ought” to be, or there is an objective morality to which we appeal throughout the generations cross cultures. However, believing the latter creates a necessity for a giver of that objective morality."

Sigh...I've already proven that this is wrong by the existence of objective moral systems created by humans that are not based on god, and you still don't understand the terms you are using. Objective != absolute.

"Maybe I cannot scientifically prove God’s existence. However, if we want to continue to dispense with the idea of God we must dispense with the idea of an objective morality for all people irrespective of community, culture, and time."

Again, I've already shown that this is incorrect. We can also see the morality of man evolving through our ancestors and other animals. But, hey, who cares about being accurate and truthful when you're plugging for Jesus.

"My answer from the Christian perspective is that God is the giver of this knowledge and the standard of goodness by which all things are measured."

How does god give us value or worth - you still haven't answered that. You also still have the problem with Euthyphro.

"Something is less than good when it fails to keep with God’s good nature."

Another question you can't answer: how do you know god is good?

"We have all missed the mark, because none of us can be holy without God by His grace and mercy making us righteous through Jesus Christ."

If we have all missed the mark, is it because the mark is impossible to achieve? If that is the case, then why is god comparing us to impossible standards, and how is that moral or just?

"The only one qualified to give a standard is one who doesn’t break it, one who is perfect in goodness."

Wrong again. Regardless of whether I follow my own moral precepts, I can still determine what is and is not moral and I can still use objective measures to come up with those precepts.

"The only one who can sacrifice himself for those who break the standard is one who is perfect and without blemish being sinless himself."

So, was Jesus sinless when you fashioned a whip and threatened people with it? I call that assault with a weapon.

"For the Christian, doing “good” is not means to earn favor with God. It is because of the favor of God that we love to do what is right."

You may see it that way, but in the end it's really about god saying, "Do what I say or end up in hell." There's no twisting out of that, even if he does appeal to love, it's all just dressing it up to make it look more palatable.

"In actuality, our actions do not merit us salvation for we cannot save ourselves."

If we can not save ourselves, then it takes an act of god for us to gain salvation. Therefore, anyone who goes to hell does so because god (at best) fails to act on their behalf and in effect sends them to hell. You can't simultaneously argue that we are powerless to get ourselves to heaven but that we have the power and do choose hell.

david santos said...

Great!!!
Have a nice weekend.

Karla said...

Anonymous, you have not debunked anything. You can keep claiming that we create objectivity, but a humanly created standard is not objective and cannot be applied to people who do not agree to it unless it is a uncreated standard.

Terrie said...

Hey Karla, I think anonymous thinks too much with his mind and not at all with his heart.

Karla said...

I think we need to make sense with our mind of what we believe in our heart. I'm not sure we can think too much, but we have to remember our thinking is finite. If we use it to disprove it's supernatural source then we have muddled things up.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"Anonymous, you have not debunked anything."

Oh really? How about free will vs. an omni-max god? How about the justice of god? Etc. etc. etc. Maybe they aren't "debunked" but in light of the fact that you've presented no answers to those problems, I find it a bit unsavory of you to continue to make your assertions that you can't back up and which have had serious rebuttal arguments directed at them. An intellectually honest person would retract or at least discontinue their usage until such time as they were able to actually defend their arguments. I see that you are not willing to do that, but instead will simply parrot out the same tired old assertions regardless of the evidence or arguments against them so that your cheerleaders can make snide comments about how I should stop thinking and just be a sheep.

"You can keep claiming that we create objectivity, but a humanly created standard is not objective and cannot be applied to people who do not agree to it unless it is a uncreated standard."

And you can continue to misapply the actual definitions of the words, even after Aaron and I both corrected you just so you can sleep well at night, safe in your world of wishful thinking that is impervious to all intellectual challenge (because you won't let any challenge penetrate your sham facade). How do you live with yourself when you keep saying obvious falsehoods like how you are actually thinking about my arguments and answering them, when you clearly are not based on the fact that all you do is continue to parrot out the same tired old assertions? Is it OK as long as you think you are doing this in service to Jesus?

And, yes, I have proven that we can create objective standards (remember the standard of the light waves?) so what are you going to do now? If we can do it for light then we can (and have) do it for morality, but you'd rather stick your head in the sand and say, "I'm not listening," and continue to spout out that god gives us our value and our morals, all the while completely unable to answer the fundamental questions posed to you, like how this happens or how you know it to be true. You also can't answer Euthyphro's dilemma, nor do you even try anymore after you failed to answer it before. Shame on you.

Karla said...

Anonymous, I have repeatedly given answers. You don't like my answers. But I have given them. You don't have to accept them. You don't even have to keep talking to me about it if it irritates you. I wish you the best.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
You have not given answers. When I ask you questions, such as how do you know that god is good, and you simply say, "God is good," then you have NOT answered the question, you have simply repeated your assertion. When I ask you how god can be just given X and Y, and you simply say, "God is just" you have NOT answered the question. When I ask you how god gives us value and you say, "..." then you have not answered the question. And, those are just three examples I thought of off the top of my head in about 5 seconds. I could give many more examples.

So, let's add this to your list of intellectual dishonesty, shall we?

Anonymous said...

BTW Karla, if you are asking me to leave, I will.

Karla said...

I'm not asking you to leave. You are welcome here.

Karla said...

I believe my position has been that if God isn't just or good we wouldn't know what justice is or have an idea of good versus evil. If God will something becuase it's good then He is adhering to a higher standard than himself and would thus not be God. If good is arbitrarily based on His whim's and it becomes good simply because He wills it then He is again not a standard for goodness. My answer is that we can only have knowledge of good and evil because of His nature having to be good and all things that are different from His nature being at various levels of not good. Evil comes not from Him, but from our separateness from Him, which I know you blame on Him. But if He is all good then even in this He is good or else there is no real good and it's all an illusion as some believe. You disagree with all this, I know. But it is my answer. And it is truth. (I probably won't be able to comment further until Monday--lots going on this weekend)

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"I believe my position has been that if God isn't just or good we wouldn't know what justice is or have an idea of good versus evil."

So you continually assert. The problem is that you have no basis for making this assertion and the evidence is against you. Once again I point out that you have no evidence for any of this. How do you know that god is just or good? There is no logical necessity for god to be just or good in order for us to recognize justice or goodness. In fact, I've already pointed out to you that humans have come up with our own justice systems and our own objective moral systems quite apart from god, so your assertion is false. Further, god could set the rules, but it doesn't follow logically that he would need to follow them himself in order for there to be rules, so god need not be just or good even if your false assertion were correct that justice and goodness need to be given to us. So, your assertion has failed on many different levels and simply continuing to assert it is not going to rescue it. You are also conveniently forgetting that non-homo sapien animals also display morality and cultural systems.

"If God will something becuase it's good then He is adhering to a higher standard than himself and would thus not be God. If good is arbitrarily based on His whim's and it becomes good simply because He wills it then He is again not a standard for goodness. My answer is that we can only have knowledge of good and evil because of His nature having to be good and all things that are different from His nature being at various levels of not good."

And I pointed out that all you've done is move the "standard" to a different aspect of god without answering the challenge. If it is part of god's nature, then he is not in control of it, so the concepts really exist outside of god. Plus, this creates a robotic god that has less free will than you claim that we have.

"Evil comes not from Him, but from our separateness from Him, which I know you blame on Him."

Because if we are separated from him, whose fault is that? Plus, we have the problem of free will being logically impossible with an omni-max god, meaning that none of us chose this path. We also have the problem of god punishing us for things we had no control over (you never did answer how it is just for god to punish the descendants of Adam and Eve). Etc. etc. etc. I've brought up tons of objections to this which you have failed to answer, and I could bring up more, like the inherent unfairness (injustice) of us living different length lives or of newborn babies dying, etc.

"But if He is all good then even in this He is good or else there is no real good and it's all an illusion as some believe."

Numerous problems here. You are assuming your conclusion and making the facts fit around it. You assume that god is good and then shoehorn everything into that assumption. So, you reject all the evil that god commits and committed and toss out all of that simply so that you can hold onto your failed hypothesis. Yet, there's no logical reason why god has to be good in order to exist! Your god could be an evil god that has the power to create universes. Simply because you want your god to be good doesn't mean that god is good. Simply because we know of concepts of good and evil (whether given to us or invented by us or evolved) doesn't mean that god has to be just or good.

So, once again, how do you know that god is good? WIll you fall back on your failed assertion that is a non sequitor or will you actually answer the question?

"But it is my answer."

And as I continue to point out it's not really an answer nor does it answer the questions and objections that I'm bringing up. You assert that god is good, and I ask a whole bunch of questions and raise all kinds of objections only to have you re-assert that god is good based on some faulty logic that I've already pointed out is faulty and you conclude that that is your answer? Is this the best you can do? Is this what 10 years of thinking has led you to? Faulty logic, begging the question, circular reasoning, non sequitors, etc? Why do apologists inevitably fall back on logical fallacy? Why can't anyone logically defend god?

"And it is truth."

How do you know that? What evidence do you have? What you mean to say here is that you believe it is truth and you've been acting on that belief. Now, it is incumbent upon you to consider whether you are willing to question that belief and actually search for logic and reason and truth or whether you don't really care about truth but would rather continue in faith, now knowing or caring what is really true. Perhaps you are right, and perhaps god is real, etc. but I rather doubt that your perceptions of god could be real considering that they are logically contradictory. At some point you've got to decide whether you will face those contradictions.

Anonymous said...

Oh, BTW, I should mention something that you seem to be wholly unaware of and that is that even if you disprove my worldview, that doesn't mean that your's is necessarily right. You still need to provide evidence FOR your worldview, not just evidence against another worldview. I mention this because you seem to expend a lot of energy trying to fight against the atheist worldview while simply assuming that this is an either/or system. That's called a false dichotomy. Now, you obviously haven't even gotten close to disproving anything about the atheist worldview, but you could try and prove your worldview.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and one more BTW: How do you know that there is only one god and not many or that the one god doesn't have some sort of multiple-personality disorder? Some of your fellow Xians (and maybe you too) have basically come to this idea by invoking Satan. (Although I suppose the Jews started it in the book of Job.)

Karla said...

I see your responses, I'll respond soon as I can.

Karla said...

Okay, I made a new post to my blog. The thoughts expressed in it are more detailed than I have been before, but are the first time I have put them to words so please bear with me as I am still hashing it all out in my head and trying to communicate it adequately. It's long so no need to requote the whole thing in the comment. I'm sure I'll be writing more in a more focused way later on the same thing as I am still thinking a lot about it all. I understand I have not made a clear defense of what I am positing thus far and I am trying to remedy that. I am trying to fill in the gaps. Just because I haven't explained it well doesn't mean it can't be explained it just means I am still learning. Anyway I don't know if my last post will help or be more confusing. Like I said I'm still trying to get it all straight in my mind as I am continually contemplating this topic of discussion.