I have held a theory for a long while that I have never really had a chance to express. This theory surrounds the concept of morality and ethics, their relation to culture, time and the individual, and whether morals are “relative” or “absolute”, i.e. are morals the same for everyone at every time, or are they relative to the individual or society.
First let me back up by saying that I am a utilitarian. What this means is that I do not believe morals exist because they are handed down by God or gods. God might indeed exist, but thats not particularly relevant. Instead, I believe moral rules, obligations and even political laws exist for a sole purpose: to increase human happiness and decrease suffering. I distinguish this from pure hedonism or the philosophy of “if it feels good, do it.” There are indeed many actions like taking drugs that feel good and might make you happy in the short term but in the long term cause more suffering and pain to self and others. I also say God is irrelevant to the discussion because I feel if God exists, he too must be a utilitarian! The reason is that I do not think a supremely intelligent being “who is love” would create moral rules or laws arbitrarily or for his own amusement. God would not outlaw something “just because” or to test people’s faith. He must have a reason. With something like stealing or killing it is obvious that when people perform these actions that they cause misery and pain, so it would make sense that God would outlaw them. But more on God and morality another time. For now you will just have to agree or disagree with me that morality exists for a purpose (human happiness) and does not stand in its own right. It is a means, not an end.
Secondly, I am not a moral relativist, at least not in the strictest sense of the word. Moral relativism is the philosophy that morals are relative to either the culture or the individual. What is right for one individual or society may not be right for another. There is some truth to this. C. S. Lewis in one of his books talks about modesty as being relative to the culture, such as the amount of skin that must be covered up and how much is allowed to be shown. In one culture, a lot of skin must be covered up in another not as much. The reason is that in the latter culture, people are used to seeing a lot of the human body and as such it does not incite feelings of lust or tempt people into unchasteness. One could argue that this is in a sense “moral relativism” but Lewis would deny such a claim. Or one could bring this down to the individual level. It might be okay for you to drink, because you have a temperate personality and not prone to getting drunk, however it might be wrong for me to drink if I were a recovering alcoholic. So there is some truth to that as well.
Moral relativism, despite elements of truth to it, has some obvious problems. If morals are relative to the culture, and that culture believes its necessary to sacrifice the first born infant, is that morally acceptable? In some cultures they still perform cliterectomies as part of a ritualistic coming of age ceremony. Is it right to say that this is an acceptable practice within that culture and we should ignore it? Or do we have an obligate as outsiders to step in and stop this from happening when possible? If an individual believes no one should own personal property, does he have a right to steal my car? There are countless examples where relative morality comes to conclusions that we won’t feel comfortable with and would be difficult to create a society we’d want to live in.
So on the one hand, there are some areas where morality seems relative and others where it seems morality is relative and others where it seems it must be absolute. What are we to make of this? I believe the problem stems from blurring the lines between morals and values. I define morals as the specific rules about what is right and wrong, such as “do not steal” or “do not commit adultery” to borrow from the ten commandments. I define values as the things moral rules are defined to protect, those things that promote human happiness (remember, utilitarian here) and decrease human suffering and pain. Values are such things as “truth”, “love”, “life”, “freedom”, etc. Now my thesis here is that morals are generally relative to the time, place and situation, whereas values are absolute. For example, nobody values killing for its own sake except the criminally insane. Life is a human value, not death. As such its an absolute. However the moral rule might change depending on the situation. We generally believe that it is okay to kill in self-defense.. So the rule, the moral, is relative to the situation. Its okay to kill in self-defense, because doing so protects your own life and might also stop a murderer. Its not okay to kill for fun.
What is interesting about this philosophy is that with the exception of the criminal psychopaths, we all share the same values. You can see this in the pro-life versus the pro-choice debate. Both groups ironically share the same values! The pro-choice group believes that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy because the embryo prior to the first trimester does not feel pain and is not truly a human being yet, or perhaps they belive the embryo might feel some pain but this is very limited and better than the woman having to give birth to a child she can’t raise. On the other hand, the pro-life groups feel that abortion is wrong because the embryo is developed enough to be considered a human being (perhaps at conception), does feel pain and should be protected. Also many feel that abortion causes side-effects both physical and emotional that harm the woman.
These are admittedly simplified views of the two groups and there are other variations but they’ll suffice for my example. I think it can be proven that both groups actually share the same values, they just disagree on the best moral rules to protect and promote those values. Both groups believe in personal freedom and the preservation of life. The pro-lifers would be just as against a government program forcing women to have babies and the pro-choicers would be just as against the government forcing women to have abortions the way China does currently. The two groups disagree because the two values come into conflict in a way that is not obvious to resolve. The pro-lifers believe that personal freedom must take a backseat to protect life and the pro-choicers believe the opposite or that human life isn’t in the picture yet to need to be preserved.
This has some interesting connotations. First it means that moral rules, or at least some of them, are relative to the situation at hand. This shouldn’t concern us. This isn’t the same as saying morality is “whatever I feel like” or “whatever society says is good.” We can judge one society or culture as being better than another based on the health, happiness and other values that we all share. Of course, its difficult to judge your own culture and easy to misjudge someone else, but this should not dissuade us. We should try to look objectively passed our own bias at other cultures, other points of view and ask, “does this work?” Does this make people happy, keep them healthy, prevent disease, death and misery?
This also means moral rules can change depending on the time in history. One thousand years ago, protection of the environment was not a big concern. If the environment is as big of an issue as some scientists say it is, than we have a moral obligation to protect it, to change our personal habits as well as our political ones to protect our air, food, energy and climate. This is a new moral concern, relative to our situation and point in history, but the values are the same – human health and happiness. You may disagree that the environment is a big concern, but even the most ardent right wing extremist will hesitate to shout “Pollution is good!” This is because we share the same values and just disagree on the rules. Similarly, other moral concerns may fall by the wayside. If for example, there was such an abundance of technology and production of goods that everything could easily free (Star Trek fans will recognize this theme) the moral need to protect wealth, business and property may no longer be a concern. I’m not saying this will ever happen, but we could imagine it.
I think most people, even particularly religious people, have a sense of this utilitarian concept of morals versus values, even if they don’t express it. Religious people will not very often say “its right because god says so, and thats that” except for the most extreme among them. I had a conversation with a conservative Christian about whether premarital sex was morally acceptable. He told me “if pre-marital and extra-marital sex were outlawed, sexually transmitted disease would be reduced dramatically or wiped out entirely.” He did not attempt to persuade me on purely religious grounds but he was basically saying that we as human beings would be better off if we followed this moral rule. Although I disagreed with him, its a point I can respect. At that moment, we were sharing the same values, even if we differed slightly on the moral rules.
We often disagree on moral principles because it isn’t always obvious what the correct moral action happens to be. I already mentioned the abortion and environmental debates as a examples of this as are other disagreements between liberals and conservatives. Often, two opposing sides will accuse the other as being amoral. While I think there are definitely plenty of amoral political figures, I think the average person has a pretty decent moral compass, regardless of which camp they fall in. I have met very moral liberals, conservatives, moderates, theists, atheists, agnostics, humanists and fundamentalists. I have also met crooks of all flavors. Most would agree on things like respect for others, hard work, pursuit of love and truth, protection of children, etc. are all values we should promote. They just don’t always agree on exactly how to do that. There are countless gray moral areas even in just day to day life. I think the solution here is to stand outside our own personal biases and view morality as another scientific inquiry with the purpose of increasing happiness and protecting life. Moral knowledge will need to be flexible and increase or change, rather than just basing it solely on religious grounds, or ignoring the questions entirely.
Craig is an agnostic, skeptic and political moderate. He is a practitioner of zen meditation and has respect and interest in many religions, but not a subscriber to any of them. 
As usual, I tend to agree in principle with everything you said here. There is no doubt that the vast majority of God’s commandments are there for our own benefit. Just as you stated with sexual promiscuity – people who have a different sexual partner every day tend to have diseases, and will never find a permanent relationship and all of the rewards that come with that. People who show love tend to receive love. People who do bad things such as lie, cheat, steal, and murder tend to be treated in much the same way by the rest of society.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
This is a difficult one. And while do agree with much of what you said, the problem is that for manyit is impossible to open your mind.
For example, you said “I think the solution here is to stand outside our own personal biases and view morality as another scientific inquiry…”. Asking a Muslim, Christian, or just about any other devout religious person to put down his personal belief in his God’s commandments is impossible for them to do. They believe that they’re God has instructed them to rebuke you!
It’s like the Islam-o-nazi’s who blow up themselves and innocent people. They believe so strongly in their cause, that all other things go out the window. While that is an extreme viewpoint, it’s the same on a smaller scale for any organized religion. They will have no part of your “put my bias aside” statement.
So the real question then becomes: If God is real, would following his commandments and “moral values” make the world an entirely better place… OR… has religion and religious turmoil been the downfall of mankind advancing up to the point? Would love to hear your thoughts on that one.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Wooops…. Let me rephrase that.
If God is real, would EVERYONE ON THE PLANET following THE SAME GOD and commandments and “moral values” make the world an entirely better place… OR… has religion and religious turmoil been the downfall of mankind advancing up to this point? Is religion holding the planet back, or is it the lack of ___INSERT RELIGION NAME HERE___ keeping us back?
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
The problem with Graig’s post is that he does not take into account what mankind would be like without laws. Man is deprived meaning that he marked by deprivation, especially of economic or social necessities. This meaning would fit perfectly with Graig’s position. However the meaning from a God perspective would be that man has lost his moral compass. He has no connection with God who is the source of Justice.
Man on his own does not have the ability to control his own desires much less determine what is right or wrong. In the Garden Adam lost his connection with the source of all things good and righteous. Leave children to themselves without any parental control and they will fight until one strong willed child takes over. Self preservation takes place with the others so that they can survive. Some might call this the survival of the fittest.
After the fall in the garden Cain killed his brother Able and chaos began until God sent the flood to destroy the wickedness in the earth. We find much later that God chose a people for himself so that he could teach them his ways. In order to establish right from wrong God gave them his laws. The problem was not solved with laws because even though God’s people were better than the others who had no God, they would still break his laws. So the truth is law is not the answer either with the exception that God’s chosen people now knew right from wrong. The term sin refers to the breaking of God’s laws. Without law sin is not charged against us.
Rom 5 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Tell your child he cannot do something and he will wonder what he is missing. Sometimes the temptation was not even there until we set the boundaries for them.
So when man creates a legal system to control the evil in our society they have not solved the problem. Take a look at the corruption at every level of society it simply cannot be completely controlled, in fact it is much worse today than when I was a boy. Society left to itself without God will self implode. Man will eventually destroy himself and even now has the ability to do so. The only reason it has not already done so is because God is still in control.
Romans 13:1-7
vs1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
vs2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
vs3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; vs4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.
vs5 Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake.” vs6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. vs7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
What we all need is a changed heart, one that does not want to sin. God is the God of peace and he has provided a way for man to make peace with God. The problem with those who reject the existence of God is that they usually do not want the peace that God gives, they still want to live according to their own rules. They do not want to believe that God would destroy the evil in this world.
The greatness of the Gospel (good news) is that God sent his own Son to take on himself the sins of the world. He did not do it by changing the laws but by giving us a new heart that no longer wants to sin. But because we still live in a fallen world walking around in a physical body that has not changed and still thinking with the same mind we were born with we still sin. The scripture says that we must begin to renew our minds Rom 12. We do that by the written word. There are two phases (this term is rather vague) to salvation . What I mean is that we are justified (saved) at the point of genuine faith but we are still living in this world and God uses the rest of our days to sanctify us. This is where he molds us into vessels he chooses, so that we can do the things he calls us to.
In heaven there will be no laws to break for we will have no inclination toward sin, all things will become new. This is very condensed but hopefully we can get a vision of why we need someone greater than ourselves to rule over us with justice and mercy. I purposefully left out the meat of the gospel to simply address the problem of man’s inability to rule himself.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0
Mr. Murray,
You know I have great respect for you and that I learned a lot about Christianity and morality from you growing up. However, I’m not entirely sure what particular points you’re disagreeing with. I never said that there shouldn’t be laws or a form of justice. We do have to make some attempt to put boundaries in place to protect people, property and have a civilized society, using the best knowledge we have at the time. However I just believe that those laws (whether legal or moral or both) should stem from our shared values and not be dogmatically followed because of tradition or upbringing or because we think “God said so.” We also shouldn’t demonize other people that disagree with us, because even if they have their facts wrong, sometime they are still trying to do what they think is right.
I know you’ll disagree with me on this but please know i mean no offense. The bible and Christianity does indeed have a lot of value in terms of morals and values, but is is my belief that the Bible is also a human construct, just like human laws and morals, and all the other religions of the world. As such some of it will be inaccurate or immoral. I have read things in the Bible that I just have not been able to accept at face value and that I think hurt rather than help people. Also, people have actually discovered valuable moral rules that are NOT explicitly stated in the Bible, such as the outlaw of slavery. So we ARE able (sometimes) to find out what is right and wrong, by looking at and feeling the effects on ourselves and others. That was the main thrust of my post, that we should look at the effects of the moral rules to see if they’re working. The rules should serve people, not the other way around. Or to quote a famous moralist “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”.
I do agree that no matter what moral rules you believe is the standard, noone is able to adhere to them perfectly. We are by nature imperfect, flawed human beings. We should constantly be striving for improvement, even if perfection isn’t ever possible. I disagree with Christianity’s view that “perfection is the standard.”
MIke,
I agree it is difficult for people to put their religious prejudices aside, but not impossible. It is much harder for a fundamentalist (Christian, Muslim, etc.) to do so, because as you said they believe God has handed down the moral commandments, and those commandments never change. The problem stems from their dependency on the specific rules and words–they believe that people should serve the rules rather than the rules serving people. So they ignore any evidence that the rules are actually hurting people–because to them the effects are irrelevant! This is why you get muslims stoning women for adultery in some countries or Christians being against sex-ed in schools. If you look at a particular holy book and its laws as being absolutely perfect, unchanged and directly out of the mouth of God, then its difficult to change your mind on those rules regardless of evidence. After all, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac at God’s command. If you look at a Holy Book as imperfect humans writings as they tried to understand life, death, morals and (possibly) the intervention of a loving creator, then its easier to accept new information.
Your last question seemed to be whether religion helps humanity or hurts it overall? Thats an extremely complex question and most people want simple answers. An extreme atheist would say “all religions are thoroughly bad.” An extreme adherent of a religion will say “my religion is good, everyone else’s is bad.’ But I think these answers are simplistic.
I view religion like any other human endeavor–technology, politics, etc. There is some obvious good and truth in all religions and some bad in all of them. Our friend Brady from Mansfield told me that conservative Christians donate far more to charity than liberals do, and I think that is because they are inspired and commanded by Jesus’ discussion of caring for the poor and giving to charity. At the same time, we have crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and modern day televangelists–things that were all aided by or made possible through religion. I myself have received outright abuse from some more fundamentalist christians, back when I myself considered one.
I don’t think all religions are equal. Some are better than others. Even Sam Harris, a very respected atheists talks about how the Jains are more peaceful and harmonious than many Christians, and how eastern religions actually have a lot of value. He talks about how George Bush was even on much higher moral ground than many of his Islamic political counterparts.
Sorry I think I’m rambling. In final answer, I think if God is real, then yes following his commandments to the best of your ability would make the world a better place, because he would be a loving God that would want the best for us. The problem stems from the fact that we can’t prove whether God exists (or doesn’t) nor which religion is the “best” or “true” one and so we often fight about that. If God’s not real, then the benefit of everyone following the same religion would depend on how good that religion is at promoting, health, happiness, peace and all our other values, but it would always be imperfect and based on something not real.
(Quote)
Rate Comment:
0 
0