MORALITY: WHENCE COMETH IT?

One of the greatest struggles in the history of ideas is how to understand the origins of morality. Western civilization (I don’t know enough about others) has always attempted this issue and certainly, our recent election was fraught with moral concerns.

There are, happily, only two sides to the matter. There are those who believe there are moral standards in the universe that are kindly provided by a deity. The Ten Commandments, whichever version you espouse, were reputedly given by God to Moses. But, with three versions, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant which one is God’s? Whichever of them might be your choice, there remains the problem of the other two. Because morality is a godly imperative, the non-godly, by definition are unmoral and deserving of whatever punishments practicable. We no longer burn them at the stake but there is not much point in their running for office. (Elizabeth Dole attacked her competitor for not believing, i.e. he was an atheist.) In this perspective, sinning is essentially the breaking of one of God’s rules.

The other position argues that morality, all of it, is manmade. It is true that some genetic research suggests there is something innate about our tendency to create rules of conduct, but the rules themselves are clearly a function of human experience. Such rules are not discovered embedded in the universe or the heavens; humans found it necessary to create their own. Note that the commandments made sense in small communities. Aside from those commandments, which establish a relationship with God, the others make social and community sense. Murder, theft, coveting, etc., would tear a society apart. That such behavior must have been a problem is evidenced by the reality that the rules were written down. There is no commandment to take care of children or pets; such behavior is understood. The commandments express concerns about a society spinning of control; and to make sure the commandments were followed, God would smite you or send you to hell.

Still, God-as-enforcer did not work particularly well. Obviously, members of the social group noticed that killing, stealing and coveting continued unabated so, voila, man-made consequences appeared. They were a bit bloody; even now in some Islamic countries a thief has his hand chopped off but no longer are eyes plucked out. Surely, we need rules to live by. No speed limits or traffic control would lead to chaos. We don’t need a deity to command us to regulate ourselves and society, but notice that the big social battles, i.e. the “culture wars” have to do with religious morality versus realistic social structures.

The struggle over abortion is a religious one though not all versions of religion oppose it. On one side is the notion that the soul enters at the moment of conception. The other side argues that human choice should determine if a woman aborts the fetus. Embedded in this issue is the difference between received wisdom and human values. The problem is that moral rules shift. It once was received wisdom that God approved of slavery. Now, God disapproves of it. Slavery is blight on economic progress; that understanding makes sense along with empathy for the suffering.

We all try to be good and that is reasonable but absent a deity how can a person know what is good? Is it bad to kill? Of course, unless we kill our enemies in war; that expunges the guilt.(At one time, Christians refused to join the army. The consternation that caused led to the creation of the concept of a “just war.” If a war is just, of course is swell.) But more mundanely, we struggle with moral issues every day. Imagine driving in heavy traffic. Everyone is rushing to get to work and someone wants to get into the tight flow of cars. One could stop and make unhappy the people behind the driver or continue and keep the driver who wants to get into the flow of cars unhappy. Whichever the choice, there will be unhappiness. Alas, being good is amazingly complicated.

Rather than struggle with trying to adhere to good behavior, it is wiser to try to act sensibly in terms of self, loved ones, friends and society at large. What is the sensible course of action if your family is starving and you have no resources? Would you steal food? From one point of view good behavior, from another point of view, bad. Where are your loyalties, to society at large or to self and family preservation? Your choice.