Basis For Morality

[Alethia]

The knowledge of right and wrong... an instinct within every human... But where does it come from? I see this as a current debate in the world today. As I Christian I know where morality comes from. But in the current trends being displayed in the world abroad it is often difficult to answer for those who don't believe there is a God who creates the foundation of right and wrong... What do you all think?

[mitchellmckain]

I think that the most fundamental question is whether or not things are right or wrong for a reason. I completely reject divine relativism (that things are only right or wrong because a deity says so) as being just as morally vacuous as other types of moral relativism. I certainly sympathize if like C.S. Lewis you feel that that the very existence of morality suggests to you the existence of a creator. But this is a subjective judgement. As long as things are right or wrong for a reason then those reasons themselves are not only a sufficient basis for morality but frankly a better basis for morality.

From a Christian perspective you can put it in this way: if only we could understand the reason WHY God commands the things that He does then this would be far better than simply knowing what it is that He commands.

[StillSearching]

Mitch, I agree with you if you are saying in so many words that it is our job to learn and develop morality. If God alone determines it, then he's doing a lousy job of communicating it to us right now. Where are our burning bushes and booming pronouncements from the sky?

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, I agree with you if you are saying in so many words that it is our job to learn and develop morality. If God alone determines it, then he's doing a lousy job of communicating it to us right now. Where are our burning bushes and booming pronouncements from the sky?

Well that was not what I was saying, but...

I will say this... In raising up a child, the way that you deal with the question of morality for a two year old cannot be the same as for a teenager let alone an adult. Somewhere along the line, their child growing up does indeed have to make some serious choices about how they are going to live their life and the parent cannot make those choices for him. Thus a wise parent will not make the only basis for all of morality just a set of commands their children must obey, but instead try to give them some good reasons why they might not want to do certain things so that when they grow up to think for themselves they will have a rational basis for doing some things right.

I will certainly say that God gave us brain because He expects us to use it, and I certainly think that it is God's desire that we do what is right because it is right and not because we hope to curry favor with Him (and earn our way in to heaven).

I will also say that I think that it is rather obvious that in the "two greatest commandments" Jesus is saying that morality is based on principles rather than a legalistic code and thus that God very much expects us to use such principles in figuring out what is the right thing to do in situations of the modern world that could not be addressed in the Bible at all.

[Alethia]

I do not doubt the source of morality. it comes directly from God. The fact that me going into someones house and taking whatever I want is wrong, not because I was taught that, but because it is inate. And yes, you do teach your child good morals, but who taught the first person...? We have morality because we are made in the image of God. What I am posing is that, the foundation of Morality lies in God himself. Without God there is nothing to base it on.

[mitchellmckain]

I do not doubt the source of morality. it comes directly from God. The fact that me going into someones house and taking whatever I want is wrong, not because I was taught that, but because it is inate. And yes, you do teach your child good morals, but who taught the first person...? We have morality because we are made in the image of God. What I am posing is that, the foundation of Morality lies in God himself. Without God there is nothing to base it on.

Well the origin of morality and the basis of morality are two different issues.

Since I believe that God is the orchestrator of evolution then I can hardly think that the historical orgin of morality can have any other source but God. And more concretely I believe that our very humanity consists of ideas of love and personhood that come from direct communication from God as well. Furthermore, although I know well that people very often find reasons for moral behavior apart from anything they believe was communicated from God, since I believe that the inspiration of God saturates the earth like the air we breathe, this certainly does not mean that their reasoning was not ultimately inspired by our creator.

But I think the critical point is that it is important to understand that things are right or wrong for a reason and NOT just because some deity says so. God commands us to do things because they are right and good for us and not that things are right and good for us only because God commands it. As Paul said in the epistle to the Romans 2:14-15,

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.

One of the REALLY funny things about this is that in the Old Testament, it talks about "the law of God written on the hearts of men" as God's ultimate hope for His people, because what God wants is for people to do what is right for its own sake because it is right and not just because God commands it in order to curry favor with Him. THUS when atheists, who do not believe in the Bible, do by reason alone what God wants us to do, we can say that they value what God values in that case, and God is far more interested in that than in all the things that the religious do in God's name (some of which are pretty horrific).

[Matt]

I don't think, theoretically, that you need God for a system of morality, but I would point out what others have noted that this has not been demonstrated from history yet. One of the major criticisms of guys like Christopher Hitchens is that, while they insist that their ethical systems derive from reason alone, their Christian upbringings would suggest otherwise.

I think a stronger argument for God is the kind of moral compass that we have. I think it is interesting that we have a sense of what is right and wrong, and yet we have the inability to do what we think is right. Why do we violate our own consciences? Why do we experience guilt? Why is their a push toward altruism? I think these suggests a moral "fall" from the ideal, which is consistent with the biblical narrative.

[PlunderBunny]

I do not doubt the source of morality. it comes directly from God. The fact that me going into someones house and taking whatever I want is wrong, not because I was taught that, but because it is inate. And yes, you do teach your child good morals, but who taught the first person...? We have morality because we are made in the image of God. What I am posing is that, the foundation of Morality lies in God himself. Without God there is nothing to base it on.

Yet, there are some who will easily go into someone's house and take things with nary a feeling of guilt or regret. If morality is truly innate, how is what we consider bad moral behavior to be explained? Have they simply lost faith in God? To me that seems like an easy way out of a difficult question.

No, perhaps you were not raised by parents who specifically told you 'not to steal' or 'not to kill', but they most certainly brought you up to be a good person with good values, perhaps through example or some other method, which is why - to you - stealing is wrong.

Like you, I believe that morality came from God, but perhaps more indirectly; I believe that morality comes from evolution, which - I believe - was set into motion by God. This leads us to a morality which is both innate in us - by which we want to protect and preserve our race - but also leaves room for a flexibility in and of itself.

"Who taught the first person" seems a ludicrous question to me; the early peoples had a very different morality than what we have today. Shucks, people from only a couple hundred years ago had a very different morality than us. Yes, God wanted us to be moral beings, but he also wanted us to have free will. These aren't mutually exclusive concepts, but they do lead one to believe that God left room for us to figure some things out - such as morality - for ourselves.

[StillSearching]

PlunderBunny,

Methinks that you and I are going to get along quite well. Just curious, what's with the cupcakes reference? What is your religious background?

[Josiah]

It's been said twice that morality comes from evolution. But I disagree with this. I know a person who would - in my thinking - survive VERY well, and live to pass their genes on. He is not at all moral in the Christian sense. But he DOES have a sort of "herd mentality," he is willing to protect his own, and love his own. However, when it comes to anyone outside his family, his small click, his town? Forget it. Others are just animals, pieces of meat. They are dispensible. (And since he believes firmly in evolution, you can see how he would believe this. Why is the person in the next town any different from the cow in the next town?) He often jokes about how he is descended from Vikings - who took over the world genetically by invading countries and raping the women, leaving blood descendents for others to raise. This is the sort of morality - and it is true morality, with a set of right and wrong - which evolution will give us.

Very moral people do not propagate their genes well. They are self-sacrificial. They are not sexually promiscuous. They care not only for people within their own "tribe," but people of rival tribes. They would even SACRIFICE their own good, and the good of their tribe, for the good of another tribe, even a rival tribe, even if they were ungrateful. In short, evolution would give us people who believe and hold to what was romantically called "the law of the jungle." Evolution would teach that might makes right, the strongest win, it is ethical (and necessary!) to pick off and destroy the weak in society, and to reward the powerful and ruthless.

However, the very morality that we all hold in our hearts tells us that it is NOT kind, or nice, or "good" to pick off the weak, to reward ruthlessness, or to care only about ones self, and one's own "pack" or "herd" or "tribe."

Let me put it another way. Jesus would not have passes on his DNA well. In fact (if you take the Christian reading of history) he has passed on none. However, most people in the world revere him as a highly moral person. As I said - Vikings are excellent examples of successful "breeders," of what Evolution would teach us is the right way to live.

And so I conclude that ethics couldn't have come from evolution. At least, the ethic of self-sacrifice, sexual temperance, and love and compassion for the weak could not have come from evolution. It had to come from somewhere else. And God seems to be a good alternative.

(Now, you're going to say that we have found that being kind to children and the weaker ones in our tribe has also been genetically helpful to us, since children grow up to be mighty warriors, and sometimes the weaker members turn out to be even more helpful in other ways. However, this is missing the point. There is NO genetic/evolutionary benefit to allowing a mentally handicapped person to live, and to love and nourish him all his life. Yet we know this is right. So what tells us to do this? And there is NO genetic/evolutionary benefit to loving the "radical other" - the Muslim in Afghanistan, or the Chinese worker making your iPod, or whatever. Evolution tells us to love ourselves, to promote our own good and that of our own people first and foremost. So what tells us to love the other, even when they will NEVER benefit us, and may even take advantage of our love?)

oops - sorry for letting this post get a little long!

[StillSearching]

Wow. So many misconceptions in that post, I just don't even know where to start.

[PlunderBunny]

It's been said twice that morality comes from evolution. But I disagree with this. I know a person who would - in my thinking - survive VERY well, and live to pass their genes on. He is not at all moral in the Christian sense. But he DOES have a sort of "herd mentality," he is willing to protect his own, and love his own. However, when it comes to anyone outside his family, his small click, his town? Forget it. Others are just animals, pieces of meat. They are dispensible. (And since he believes firmly in evolution, you can see how he would believe this. Why is the person in the next town any different from the cow in the next town?) He often jokes about how he is descended from Vikings - who took over the world genetically by invading countries and raping the women, leaving blood descendents for others to raise. This is the sort of morality - and it is true morality, with a set of right and wrong - which evolution will give us.

First of all, you are apparently drawing a conclusion based on one piece of anecdotal evidence. Perhaps you have more reasons/evidence for thinking this way, but I just have to work with what you gave me.

Secondly you say he is not moral in the Christian sense. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, but you seem to be comparing his morality to what you call a 'Christian morality', which in doing so you are presupposing the idea that there is one true morality.

As a note to what I am about to write, please excuse any gross oversimplifications of either evolution or morality; I do so for the sake of getting my point across.

That aside, let's tackle your conclusion. For the sake of discussion, let us define morality simply by 'our sense of right and wrong'. Let's also assume - and grossly oversimplify - that our morality comes from our capacities for empathy, sympathy and the like. A person without empathy or sympathy has no real reason to act in what you or I would deem a 'moral' way - thus serial killers are always severely lacking in these departments.

Evolution clearly supports the ideas of empathy and sympathy; again as a way to protect and preserve a race. Your friend may not see anyone other than his own 'tribe' as useful or even part of his race. Yet he won't harm others. Why? Because he want's to protect and preserve his race. If he goes out to another town and beats people up and steals their stuff, the other town will come over to him and - depending on the time period - kill him, take him slave, or take him prisoner. All of these things would hurt his ability to protect and preserve his race.

Empathy and sympathy are very key in the development of any sort of moral code, and they can also explain some of the things you said evolution can't explain (e.g. love for the weak).

Very moral people do not propagate their genes well. They are self-sacrificial. They are not sexually promiscuous. They care not only for people within their own "tribe," but people of rival tribes. They would even SACRIFICE their own good, and the good of their tribe, for the good of another tribe, even a rival tribe, even if they were ungrateful. In short, evolution would give us people who believe and hold to what was romantically called "the law of the jungle." Evolution would teach that might makes right, the strongest win, it is ethical (and necessary!) to pick off and destroy the weak in society, and to reward the powerful and ruthless.

Again, you are making a mistake in assuming there is some sort of absolute morality, and that you know what it is. You are creating this idea of what it means to be a moral being, and then saying how that moral being doesn't fit in with evolution. It is a logical fallacy.

However, the very morality that we all hold in our hearts tells us that it is NOT kind, or nice, or "good" to pick off the weak, to reward ruthlessness, or to care only about ones self, and one's own "pack" or "herd" or "tribe."

Your heart, maybe. I know many people who would disagree with you or feel differently in THEIR hearts. I ask you what I asked the OP: if morality is derived directly from God in some sort of 'absolute' way, how do you account for people that you would not consider moral? How do you account for the different moralities we - as a people - have possessed at different time periods throughout history?

Let me put it another way. Jesus would not have passes on his DNA well. In fact (if you take the Christian reading of history) he has passed on none. However, most people in the world revere him as a highly moral person. As I said - Vikings are excellent examples of successful "breeders," of what Evolution would teach us is the right way to live.

Again, you are using specific examples to come to a general conclusion.

And so I conclude that ethics couldn't have come from evolution. At least, the ethic of self-sacrifice, sexual temperance, and love and compassion for the weak could not have come from evolution. It had to come from somewhere else. And God seems to be a good alternative.

To explain how each one of those could be derived from evolution would take me far to long. I suggest you read some wikipedia articles on the science of morality and evolution.

*Edit* Also, you are basically saying "I don't understand how morality can come from evolution, therefore it was probably God". This is called the 'God of the Gaps' theory, and you should wiki that as well.

[PlunderBunny]

PlunderBunny,

Methinks that you and I are going to get along quite well. Just curious, what's with the cupcakes reference? What is your religious background?

Hey!

I hope we do . As to the cupcakes reference - I just really love cupcakes. I am always a bit wary to mention I am religious, because people often form wrong conclusions about me.

As per religious background, I don't really have one. My family and friends are almost all primarily atheist or agnostic - though not vehemently so. I was raised without much religion in my life, but once I moved out of home some personal things happened and I guess I just sort of 'found myself' a believer in God. However I still try to approach most religions skeptically, and would not really align myself with any group in particular.

[mitchellmckain]

PlunderBunny,

Methinks that you and I are going to get along quite well. Just curious, what's with the cupcakes reference? What is your religious background?

Hey!

I hope we do . As to the cupcakes reference - I just really love cupcakes. I am always a bit wary to mention I am religious, because people often form wrong conclusions about me.

As per religious background, I don't really have one. My family and friends are almost all primarily atheist or agnostic - though not vehemently so. I was raised without much religion in my life, but once I moved out of home some personal things happened and I guess I just sort of 'found myself' a believer in God. However I still try to approach most religions skeptically, and would not really align myself with any group in particular.

Ah! Then I think this is as excellent place for you to explore religion and Christianity as it is for me. When you come from that sort of background like we do, it doesn't really work to explore religion under a set of assumptions about what is true.