This past weekend I had the opportunity to engage some ‘secular’ (by this I don’t mean non-Christian) friends around a variety of social and moral issues. As we dialogued it became increasingly aware to me that our presuppositions regarding morality were dichotomous. The result: we agreed to disagree.
Subsequent to that conversation I find myself reflecting on one of my own presuppositions viz. objective morality. In my thinking it seems impossible to make any moral judgements without some kind of objective morality. Moreover, I find myself exploring ideas and methods by which to articulate the need for an objective morality.
Do you think it is possible for human society to function without a framework of morality? On what foundation can/does one build a moral framework?
7 comments:
Do you think it is possible for human society to function without a framework of morality? No,
There is morality everywhere, example,
People know that Adultery is wrong, there is no way you can justify cheating, same with murder and stealing. People know what is right and wrong ... most judicial systems prosecute people for stealing and murdering. So now we ask, Can human society function without the justification of a moral framework?
I agree that morality would appear self evident. How would you answer your own question?
Can human society function without the justification of a moral framework? No.
it's about justice, people want Justice, Dr Graham Catto always says Law without consequence is just good advice. People have "a Law" witten on their hearts, when you see someone breaking the law, you feel angry, a person cutting you off in traffic, someone running a red light. Why, is it the same things, the same injustice's ? Conclusion : People want others to be responsible for their actions.
I'm not a Philosophy person and I'm not an expert.
This whole topic is one that bugs me perennially. I don't really know the answers, but just have a few scraps of thought ...
I don't think it is possible for human society to function without some framework of morality (whatever that framework may be). Everyone uses certain criteria when making decisions. Some decisions don't call for value-based criteria (for e.g. what would I like on my toast - cheese or jam?) Other decisions do call for the use of value-based criteria, and where values are involved, morality plays a role. Even if the main criterion is convenience - I do what is convenient for me - it is based on a morality that says 'wanting what is best for me is the right thing to do'.
As for your second question ... good question. On what foundation can one build a moral framework? Perhaps any foundation you choose. In tribal cultures, the right thing to do may well be what the chieftain says is right. If you are a scientist, you may see it as immoral not to explore all applications of scientific discovery right up to the very limits that science can go (therefore cloning is, naturally, the moral choice). On what foundation do you build? I think we are mistaken if we think that we are completely aware of all the factors that influence our decisions, including the decision about our moral framework. I'm not saying that we are out of control of those factors, or that we have no idea what those factors are. I'm saying that there are some unknown factors that play a role in our criteria selection process. For e.g. you may not know completely and objectively how things like your culture, upbringing, the difference between the male and female brains, etc. play a role in your criteria selection process.
Now, taking all this into consideration, one last question that emerges in my mind ... On what foundation should one build a moral framework? A question inherently moral.
Although I do think that members of human society do subscribe to some form of morality framework, the foundation for this framework is where the problem comes in.
Rightly so the pursuit of an objective morality is both noble and crucial.
The problem is that humanism, relavitism and existentialistism permeating our society has eroded the belief in absolute truth; substituting it for one's own version of the truth - allowing the individual to selectively accept the "truths" which are convenient and discarding those which do not promote self-interest and are seen as dangers to the status quo. Therefore some of these moral frameworks reflect a gross hypocrisy which is reflective of a moral framework where the moral authority resides with the individual.
Regrettably in this world, and especially in view of the violence with which certain crimes are committed in this country - one cannot appeal to an 'inherent' morality you would expect to find in people. It would be naive to believe that all people have a moral imperative to act in other's best interest. It would be more realistic to rather expect people to act in their own self-interest. Compromised value systems and desperate circumstances open the way for individuals take all means they deems necessary to achieve their aims. Morality will not get in their way. As quoting Alfred in the movie: Dark Knight: "Some men just want to watch the world burn".
Even though you can legislate law, you cannot legislate morality. Although an action might be lawful or considered permissable by societal norms, it may also not be moral or ethical.
Who decides what is moral or immoral? Existential society more or less want the individual to make up his/her own mind. But both the argument and the individual is flawed.If the sinful nature of man or the very idea of sin is discounted self-deception is already clouding judgment which 9 out of 10 times will lead to actions that promote self-interest rather than anything else. Quoting from Jer 17:9 "he heart is deceitful above all things".
Who has the moral authority to decide what is moral and immoral? Only the One who has no sin. Therefore the Son of God has the right to judge mankind. God's Word is the standard by which we must live and our actions judged, not forgetting 'circumcision of the heart' which goes beyond the law and demonstrates our gratitude for our salvation and Christ's love to the world.
Only a radically transformed value system based on a credible moral authority backed up by an objective standard against which morality of actions/thoughts may be measured can fulfill the requirement of a suitable foundation for a moral framework. Unapologetically there can only be one absolute, true Foundation for a truly moral framework.
In conclusion, in the absence of an external moral authority and an objective, absolute standard against which behaviour may be measured, the world becomes an explosive minefield of which consequences can be seen in the wars, dictatorships, poverty and human suffering which characterizes our present day.
The problem often is that we 'pronounce' certain things moral/immoral that may not necessarily be moral. Thus, it's possible for there to be an objective moral standard about many things: murder, adultery etc; but it is also possible that a subjective morality also exists: concerning, for example, whether or not it is right or wrong to give to a beggar who may or may not abuse the gift. Sure, there is a principle – "we should give" – but there is also a choice. I'm fairly sure we cannot pronounce a final judgement on these things.
These day's I'm starting to realise that many people confuse morality with Christianity. As a result, Christianity has been reduced in the minds of many , both Christians and not-Christians.
you post too seldom.
Post a Comment