SITH ARTICLE
Whether we may Know Moral Truths Without God?
Objection 1. According to the skeptic, man may not know any moral truths with any amount of certainty. Heracleitus, for example, said there is nothing static in the universe, only endless transformations. Nothing is; everything becomes. No condition persists unaltered, even for the smallest moment; everything is ceasing to be what it was, and is becoming what it will be. Because of this endless transformation there is a unity of opposites. Good and bad are the same, so are life and death. They are merely stages in a fluctuating movement. Given the changing nature of all things, the distinction between good and evil is to man an impenetrable mystery to man. Ergo, man in no way may know any moral truths.
Objection 2. According to Martin Luther, reason is a whore. It is dishonest and not to be trusted for it is generally used by evil powers. In other words, during the fall man’s reason became so corrupted and depraved that it cannot lead us to any truth. The only truth that we may know is the truth that God revealed to us, in His great mercy, in the Bible.
Objection 3. By our reason we may know all moral truths. Just as we may know mathematical truths fully and completely we may know moral truths. There was no reason for God to give us the Bible for all that we need to know we may discover by means of our natural faculties.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says that in the fall man’s reason was corrupted, but not to the point where man lost the ability to know good from evil. Indeed this could not be. For if man could know not how to act it would be unjust of God to hold all accountable and punish those who act in evil ways.
I answer that, as with many things, the truth lies in the middle of two extremes. It is true that by means of our reason we may discover moral truths. St. Paul discusses this in the beginning of his letter to the Romans. All men know the difference between right and wrong. In the fall man did not lose his ability to know the difference between these things, the lost his ability to do them. All men know the difference between right and wrong, but no man is able to do only good. It was the will of man that was bent in the fall.
However, though man may know good and evil, man may not know them absolutely. Because man cannot perfectly discover moral truth God revealed the entire moral law to man in the Bible. Ultimately our knowledge rests on the merciful revelation that God provided to us in His Word.
Reply Obj. 1. If the skeptic is right, what is the point of anything? If we cannot know good from evil, what is the point of trying to do good? And what is the point of punishing crime? If evil is only an illusion it is unjust to punish people for their crimes. But this is all nonsense. Each one of us knows the difference between good and evil; each one of us knows the necessity of punishing those who do evil. There is a knowable difference between good and evil.
Reply Obj. 2. Man’s reason is not so corrupted as to prevent him from knowing mathematical or scientific truths; if man may know these truths by means of his reason how can we assume he may know not moral truths by means of his reason? Indeed Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Hammurabi and many others came to understand and recognize moral truths contained in the Bible without ever having read any part of God’s Word themselves. This agreement of many wise men regarding moral truths with the Bible shows that man may discover moral truths without reference to the Bible.
Reply Obj. 3. As St. Thomas Aquinas says (Sum. Theol. I, II Q. 91, A. 4), even though all law is knowable by reason, there was and is a need for Divine law. Man’s end is eternal happiness. If man’s end was natural, no Divine law would be needed, but since his end is eternal and divine, this law is needed.
Further, human judgment is uncertain. Though all men may know morality, no man may know it perfectly. The wise men of history agreed on the essentials of morality, but disagreed on a few minor particulars. All men have reason by which they may discover moral truths; but all men have sinful passions within them which corrupt their reason and prevent them from perfectly reaching the truth. It was for this reason that God revealed the perfect moral truth. It is our plum line, our absolute by which we may measure our imperfect thought and action. It is by God’s revelation as revealed in the Bible that we may have certainty in the moral, that we may know things beyond a doubt.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
On Morality (Fifth Article), From Where does Morality Originate?
FIFTH ARTICLE
From Where does Morality Originate?
Objection 1. It would seem that, as Descartes believed, morality originates in the power of God. Because of God’s power 2+2=4. But if God willed it, 2+2=5 could be true instead.
In the same way murder is only wrong because God wills it. God could just as easily will that murder be good and generosity evil. Indeed it must be so. God is all powerful, so he cannot be bound by any laws. He cannot be told what is good and evil; He alone must determine and create what is good and evil. Therefore morality originates in the power of God.
Objection 2. Morality exists in its own right. It is an eternal truth. 2+2=4. Plato said this truth is the same for all men in all ages and would apply in every conceivable world. Leibniz agreed. He said 2+2=4 on Heaven just as it does on earth and to God just as it does to men. This is an eternal, universal and changeless truth. In the same way that mathematical truths exist moral truths exist. They are eternal and universal, applicable to God and man.
Objection 3. Morality is no more than convention. Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that we create objects by means of our words. A rock is not a rock until we decide, by social compact, to call it a rock. But the sounds we use to create words are arbitrary and since objects do not pre-exist our understanding of them but are only created by our understanding (we create all order for all that precedes us is chaos) all objects are arbitrary. In the same way that we create words for physical objects we create words for mental ideas. Since the words that signify ideas are arbitrary the ideas themselves are arbitrary. Just as we could have called a rock something else we could have cowardice good or generosity bad. All our understanding of the physical world is based on arbitrary words, in the same way all our ideas are based on arbitrary words and are therefore arbitrary in themselves. They are nothing more than concepts we have agreed upon—morality is no more than social convention.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says (in "The Poison of Subjectivism"), God is good. Goodness is a part of Him and true law flows out of Him like water from a spring. Goodness is uncreated. God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.
I answer that, Morality cannot be convention, for if it was there would be no God. If morality were based on God’s power alone we would praise God for his goodness in vain—it would make no sense to praise God for being good if goodness was merely whatever God willed it to be at any particular moment. But if morality existed above and beyond God, God would not be all powerful and not God in the sense that He claims to be.
Jesus says (Mark 10:18), no one is good except God alone. God is not bound by the moral law, nor is He the creator of it. God is not reduced to the moral law, for God is far more than a mere concept. God is good. Notice Christ does not say God does good, but rather that God is good.
Creatures have attributes (Peter is alive), but God is His attributes (God is life). We as men do good acts, but God as God is goodness. He is not merely goodness just as He is not merely life or beauty, mercy or power: but He is the eternal spring, the one self sufficient being from which all life, goodness, beauty, mercy, and power naturally flow.
Reply Obj. 1. If, as Leibniz noted in "On the Common Concept of Justice," morality originates in power, then the more power one has the more moral one would be. But this is contrary to reason. Often times the powerful one is the more they abuse their power and the more immoral they end up being; morality does not lie in power.
Reply Obj. 2. If there was an eternal, uncreated moral law that even God was bound to then God would not be God. Rather, the Law that bound God would be God. It would be the controlling and guiding force of the universe. But we know that God is a person for we are people and we were created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27). Therefore God cannot be a concept; God cannot be mere moral law.
Reply Obj. 3. Imagine you have fallen into a pit. You cannot escape the pit on your own accord and if you are left there you will starve to death. There is a rope lying next to the pit. A man walks by and you ask him to throw you the rope. He refuses and simply answers ‘I don’t want to.’ ‘This is unjust,’ you say, ‘you can provide a great and necessary good for me at no harm or inconvenience to yourself.’ He replies, ‘there is no law requiring me to do good.’ Nonetheless you argue that his inaction is unjust. For if he was in the pit he would rightly ask the same good of you.
No man truly believes that morality is convention. The response of all men to injustice, even legal or socially accepted injustice, is to complain that it is unjust. All men appeal to a notion of justice above and beyond mankind’s social and legal standards when they are they are wronged in a socially acceptable way. This common response proves that no man truly believes that morality is mere convention.
From Where does Morality Originate?
Objection 1. It would seem that, as Descartes believed, morality originates in the power of God. Because of God’s power 2+2=4. But if God willed it, 2+2=5 could be true instead.
In the same way murder is only wrong because God wills it. God could just as easily will that murder be good and generosity evil. Indeed it must be so. God is all powerful, so he cannot be bound by any laws. He cannot be told what is good and evil; He alone must determine and create what is good and evil. Therefore morality originates in the power of God.
Objection 2. Morality exists in its own right. It is an eternal truth. 2+2=4. Plato said this truth is the same for all men in all ages and would apply in every conceivable world. Leibniz agreed. He said 2+2=4 on Heaven just as it does on earth and to God just as it does to men. This is an eternal, universal and changeless truth. In the same way that mathematical truths exist moral truths exist. They are eternal and universal, applicable to God and man.
Objection 3. Morality is no more than convention. Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that we create objects by means of our words. A rock is not a rock until we decide, by social compact, to call it a rock. But the sounds we use to create words are arbitrary and since objects do not pre-exist our understanding of them but are only created by our understanding (we create all order for all that precedes us is chaos) all objects are arbitrary. In the same way that we create words for physical objects we create words for mental ideas. Since the words that signify ideas are arbitrary the ideas themselves are arbitrary. Just as we could have called a rock something else we could have cowardice good or generosity bad. All our understanding of the physical world is based on arbitrary words, in the same way all our ideas are based on arbitrary words and are therefore arbitrary in themselves. They are nothing more than concepts we have agreed upon—morality is no more than social convention.
On the contrary, C.S. Lewis says (in "The Poison of Subjectivism"), God is good. Goodness is a part of Him and true law flows out of Him like water from a spring. Goodness is uncreated. God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.
I answer that, Morality cannot be convention, for if it was there would be no God. If morality were based on God’s power alone we would praise God for his goodness in vain—it would make no sense to praise God for being good if goodness was merely whatever God willed it to be at any particular moment. But if morality existed above and beyond God, God would not be all powerful and not God in the sense that He claims to be.
Jesus says (Mark 10:18), no one is good except God alone. God is not bound by the moral law, nor is He the creator of it. God is not reduced to the moral law, for God is far more than a mere concept. God is good. Notice Christ does not say God does good, but rather that God is good.
Creatures have attributes (Peter is alive), but God is His attributes (God is life). We as men do good acts, but God as God is goodness. He is not merely goodness just as He is not merely life or beauty, mercy or power: but He is the eternal spring, the one self sufficient being from which all life, goodness, beauty, mercy, and power naturally flow.
Reply Obj. 1. If, as Leibniz noted in "On the Common Concept of Justice," morality originates in power, then the more power one has the more moral one would be. But this is contrary to reason. Often times the powerful one is the more they abuse their power and the more immoral they end up being; morality does not lie in power.
Reply Obj. 2. If there was an eternal, uncreated moral law that even God was bound to then God would not be God. Rather, the Law that bound God would be God. It would be the controlling and guiding force of the universe. But we know that God is a person for we are people and we were created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27). Therefore God cannot be a concept; God cannot be mere moral law.
Reply Obj. 3. Imagine you have fallen into a pit. You cannot escape the pit on your own accord and if you are left there you will starve to death. There is a rope lying next to the pit. A man walks by and you ask him to throw you the rope. He refuses and simply answers ‘I don’t want to.’ ‘This is unjust,’ you say, ‘you can provide a great and necessary good for me at no harm or inconvenience to yourself.’ He replies, ‘there is no law requiring me to do good.’ Nonetheless you argue that his inaction is unjust. For if he was in the pit he would rightly ask the same good of you.
No man truly believes that morality is convention. The response of all men to injustice, even legal or socially accepted injustice, is to complain that it is unjust. All men appeal to a notion of justice above and beyond mankind’s social and legal standards when they are they are wronged in a socially acceptable way. This common response proves that no man truly believes that morality is mere convention.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
On Morality (Fourth Article), Whether we Owe the Same Duty of Morality to All Men?
FOURTH ARTICLE
Whether we Owe the Same Duty of Morality to All Men?
Objection 1. Moses says (Deuteronomy 23:20), You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite. Morality need not be given equally to all men. We do not owe the same duty of morality to members of other nations as we owe to our countrymen.
Objection 2. Moses says (Deuteronomy 9:23), be assured today that the LORD your God is the one. God is the source of all morality and justice. God is one and unchanging. Therefore we owe the exact same duty of morality to all men.
Objection 3. Before Christ a godly man could say (Psalm 3:7) Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked. A man did not owe the same duty of morality to his enemies as his friends. But Christ says (Mathew 5:46), if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? In the church age we have a equal duty to all. We may not treat friends or family better than we treat strangers or enemies.
On the contrary, Jesus said to the Pharisees (Mark 7:9-13), You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that. We have a duty to give charity and be generous to all; this is a part of morality. But though this morality is owed to all, it is owed in a greater degree to one’s parents. One may must take care of his parents before he gives charity to the strangers.
I answer that, A man asked Christ to whom the duty of morality extended. Christ replied to his neighbor. In response to this reply the man asked (Luke 10:29) who is my neighbor? Christ replied in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that every man is our neighbor. The stranger, the man who is most different and distant to us is our neighbor and it is to him that we owe the same duty of morality that we owe to our friends and family. However, though we owe the same duty of morality to every man, we owe it to a greater degree to our family, friends, and countrymen.
God has placed with in us greater degrees of affection corresponding another’s closeness to us. We feel a greater degree of affection for our countrymen than the foreigner, a greater degree for a friend than an unknown countryman, and still yet a greater degree of affection for a spouse, child, sibling or parent than we feel for the closest friend. As David Hume explains, this is natural and to be expected. We would call a mother wicked or insane if she did not prefer her child and love him more than she loved the stranger. If every parent looked after their children and every child took care of their parents, and every friend was loyal, and every citizen patriotic and every government served on behalf of its citizens, the world would be a utopia.
The truth lies in the middle way. One can prefer their family and friends to the point that they do harm to strangers in order to promote the well being of those they love. This is the morality of Thrasymachus and the Sopranos. Others, in their desire to love all mankind equally, abandon their family and friends. This is an equal and opposite error. As with many things, the truth lies in a balance between two extremes. For example, though we should be generous to all men, we must be sure we take care of our family first and foremost. We owe the same duty to morality to all men, we must never be immoral or unjust to any man, but we owe a greater degree of this morality to our family, friends, and countrymen.
Reply Obj. 1. To only be moral to one’s countrymen is the error of nationalism. Hitler believed that men ought to be generous and kind and that they ought to refrain from harm. All moral men agree with this. But said this morality only applied to the German people (Volk) and that it need not be extended to non-Aryans. We may judge the error of this philosophy by its ill outcome.
Reply Obj 2. The fifth commandment is to honor thy father and thy mother. One is not to honor all men equally, but rather to give greater honor to his parents. The standard of morality to be given to one’s family is higher than that which is owed to a stranger; the duty of morality differs in degree.
Reply Obj. 3. But Paul says (I Timothy 5:3-4) Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The church age did not end familial duties. Though the moral code is one and we must obey it always, no matter who we deal with, we have a greater duty of morality, even within the church, to family and kin.
Whether we Owe the Same Duty of Morality to All Men?
Objection 1. Moses says (Deuteronomy 23:20), You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite. Morality need not be given equally to all men. We do not owe the same duty of morality to members of other nations as we owe to our countrymen.
Objection 2. Moses says (Deuteronomy 9:23), be assured today that the LORD your God is the one. God is the source of all morality and justice. God is one and unchanging. Therefore we owe the exact same duty of morality to all men.
Objection 3. Before Christ a godly man could say (Psalm 3:7) Deliver me, O my God! Strike all my enemies on the jaw; break the teeth of the wicked. A man did not owe the same duty of morality to his enemies as his friends. But Christ says (Mathew 5:46), if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? In the church age we have a equal duty to all. We may not treat friends or family better than we treat strangers or enemies.
On the contrary, Jesus said to the Pharisees (Mark 7:9-13), You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, 'HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH'; but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that. We have a duty to give charity and be generous to all; this is a part of morality. But though this morality is owed to all, it is owed in a greater degree to one’s parents. One may must take care of his parents before he gives charity to the strangers.
I answer that, A man asked Christ to whom the duty of morality extended. Christ replied to his neighbor. In response to this reply the man asked (Luke 10:29) who is my neighbor? Christ replied in the Parable of the Good Samaritan that every man is our neighbor. The stranger, the man who is most different and distant to us is our neighbor and it is to him that we owe the same duty of morality that we owe to our friends and family. However, though we owe the same duty of morality to every man, we owe it to a greater degree to our family, friends, and countrymen.
God has placed with in us greater degrees of affection corresponding another’s closeness to us. We feel a greater degree of affection for our countrymen than the foreigner, a greater degree for a friend than an unknown countryman, and still yet a greater degree of affection for a spouse, child, sibling or parent than we feel for the closest friend. As David Hume explains, this is natural and to be expected. We would call a mother wicked or insane if she did not prefer her child and love him more than she loved the stranger. If every parent looked after their children and every child took care of their parents, and every friend was loyal, and every citizen patriotic and every government served on behalf of its citizens, the world would be a utopia.
The truth lies in the middle way. One can prefer their family and friends to the point that they do harm to strangers in order to promote the well being of those they love. This is the morality of Thrasymachus and the Sopranos. Others, in their desire to love all mankind equally, abandon their family and friends. This is an equal and opposite error. As with many things, the truth lies in a balance between two extremes. For example, though we should be generous to all men, we must be sure we take care of our family first and foremost. We owe the same duty to morality to all men, we must never be immoral or unjust to any man, but we owe a greater degree of this morality to our family, friends, and countrymen.
Reply Obj. 1. To only be moral to one’s countrymen is the error of nationalism. Hitler believed that men ought to be generous and kind and that they ought to refrain from harm. All moral men agree with this. But said this morality only applied to the German people (Volk) and that it need not be extended to non-Aryans. We may judge the error of this philosophy by its ill outcome.
Reply Obj 2. The fifth commandment is to honor thy father and thy mother. One is not to honor all men equally, but rather to give greater honor to his parents. The standard of morality to be given to one’s family is higher than that which is owed to a stranger; the duty of morality differs in degree.
Reply Obj. 3. But Paul says (I Timothy 5:3-4) Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The church age did not end familial duties. Though the moral code is one and we must obey it always, no matter who we deal with, we have a greater duty of morality, even within the church, to family and kin.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
On Morality (Third Article), What Constitutes a Moral Act?
THIRD ARTICLE
What Constitutes a Moral Act?
Objection 1. All that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the moral law. In His Law (Leviticus 18:4) God says, you must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. What is required of us is to obey the law. Therefore all that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the law.
Objection 2. Soren Kierkegaard says that there have been honest pagans honestly worshipping a false god and hypocritical Christians worshipping the true God in a false spirit. According to him the former are better off and closer to the truth than the latter. Therefore all that is needed to perform a moral act is good and honest intent.
Objection 3. What we call morality is mere social custom. In my country a woman may dress however she wishes, but in another country a woman is deemed immoral and unchaste if her head is left uncovered. What is considered moral changes from place to place, therefore what constitutes a moral act is relative to the situation.
On the contrary, Christ says (John 4:24), God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Good intentions alone (the spirit of an act) are not enough, nor is the good act itself (the truth) enough to constitute a moral act—both are needed.
I answer that, An act must be the true and right act, done with noble intent, in the proper situation to be moral.
I may want to make love. If I do so out of marriage it is the wrong act and therefore immoral. If I do so in marriage, but with the intent to harm or humiliate my wife it is also immoral. I may do it within marriage because I love my wife and thereby do the right act with the right intent, but if I do so when it is medically dangerous for her, it is still an immoral act for it is not proper to do that act given the situation. Act, intent, and situation all must be good and true for an act to be moral.
Reply Obj 1. To obey the letter of the law and no more, this was the error of the Pharisees. They thought that a moral act lay in an act alone. But Christ said, (Mathew 23:25-26) woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. An act is not good without good intent; an act is not good in and of itself. For an act to be moral more is needed than a moral act alone.
Reply Obj. 2. This is the error of subjectivism. Subjectivists believe in the supremacy of intent. I may intend to take a savage as a slave in order to civilize him, but this good intention does not excuse the wrong I do when I deprive him of his freedom. I may love my girlfriend and attempt to do her good, but my good intent does not excuse the sin of fornication. Hitler intended to make Germany a better place by exterminating the Jews, but his good intentions did not excuse his murder. Our intentions can be misguided and misinformed. People do evil acts all the time while attempting to do good; their good intentions do not excuse them from their behavior. A moral act is contains more than a good intention alone.
Reply Obj. 3. This is the error of relativism. According to relativists what is moral is completely dependant on the situation or culture in which the act takes place. Julius Caesar said that the Germanic tribes did not consider theft an evil. Some would say that if they did not think theft was wrong, theft was not wrong for them. But this is false. An act must not be judged by it culture, for if it were no act could be bad so long as society condoned it. This is contrary to common sense. None of us accept genocide, hate or rape simply because it occurs within a society that calls them good.
Leo Tolstoy said in his youth he was encouraged to have an affair with an older woman. In St. Petersburg society this was considered a good. Yet he said this was an evil despite his society. The fact that his society condoned a wrong gave no excuse for him to commit it.
Today it is acceptable in many parts of the world to beat one’s wife and mutilate the gentiles of daughter at birth. In other times at history it was acceptable to sacrifice children. No right minded person condones these acts; therefore no right minded person is truly a relativist. These acts are always wrong for morality is objective and eternal, transcending all cultures and ages.
When wronged we cry ‘that’s not fair’ and thereby appeal to a standard beyond our culture. We do so even when the wrong done to us is condoned by our culture. One can only be a relativist in theory; in practice no one is a relativist. Relativism is illogical and impractical therefore the morality of an act is not merely relative to the situation in which it was committed.
What Constitutes a Moral Act?
Objection 1. All that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the moral law. In His Law (Leviticus 18:4) God says, you must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. What is required of us is to obey the law. Therefore all that is required to perform a moral act is to obey the law.
Objection 2. Soren Kierkegaard says that there have been honest pagans honestly worshipping a false god and hypocritical Christians worshipping the true God in a false spirit. According to him the former are better off and closer to the truth than the latter. Therefore all that is needed to perform a moral act is good and honest intent.
Objection 3. What we call morality is mere social custom. In my country a woman may dress however she wishes, but in another country a woman is deemed immoral and unchaste if her head is left uncovered. What is considered moral changes from place to place, therefore what constitutes a moral act is relative to the situation.
On the contrary, Christ says (John 4:24), God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Good intentions alone (the spirit of an act) are not enough, nor is the good act itself (the truth) enough to constitute a moral act—both are needed.
I answer that, An act must be the true and right act, done with noble intent, in the proper situation to be moral.
I may want to make love. If I do so out of marriage it is the wrong act and therefore immoral. If I do so in marriage, but with the intent to harm or humiliate my wife it is also immoral. I may do it within marriage because I love my wife and thereby do the right act with the right intent, but if I do so when it is medically dangerous for her, it is still an immoral act for it is not proper to do that act given the situation. Act, intent, and situation all must be good and true for an act to be moral.
Reply Obj 1. To obey the letter of the law and no more, this was the error of the Pharisees. They thought that a moral act lay in an act alone. But Christ said, (Mathew 23:25-26) woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. An act is not good without good intent; an act is not good in and of itself. For an act to be moral more is needed than a moral act alone.
Reply Obj. 2. This is the error of subjectivism. Subjectivists believe in the supremacy of intent. I may intend to take a savage as a slave in order to civilize him, but this good intention does not excuse the wrong I do when I deprive him of his freedom. I may love my girlfriend and attempt to do her good, but my good intent does not excuse the sin of fornication. Hitler intended to make Germany a better place by exterminating the Jews, but his good intentions did not excuse his murder. Our intentions can be misguided and misinformed. People do evil acts all the time while attempting to do good; their good intentions do not excuse them from their behavior. A moral act is contains more than a good intention alone.
Reply Obj. 3. This is the error of relativism. According to relativists what is moral is completely dependant on the situation or culture in which the act takes place. Julius Caesar said that the Germanic tribes did not consider theft an evil. Some would say that if they did not think theft was wrong, theft was not wrong for them. But this is false. An act must not be judged by it culture, for if it were no act could be bad so long as society condoned it. This is contrary to common sense. None of us accept genocide, hate or rape simply because it occurs within a society that calls them good.
Leo Tolstoy said in his youth he was encouraged to have an affair with an older woman. In St. Petersburg society this was considered a good. Yet he said this was an evil despite his society. The fact that his society condoned a wrong gave no excuse for him to commit it.
Today it is acceptable in many parts of the world to beat one’s wife and mutilate the gentiles of daughter at birth. In other times at history it was acceptable to sacrifice children. No right minded person condones these acts; therefore no right minded person is truly a relativist. These acts are always wrong for morality is objective and eternal, transcending all cultures and ages.
When wronged we cry ‘that’s not fair’ and thereby appeal to a standard beyond our culture. We do so even when the wrong done to us is condoned by our culture. One can only be a relativist in theory; in practice no one is a relativist. Relativism is illogical and impractical therefore the morality of an act is not merely relative to the situation in which it was committed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
