by The Exodus » April 7th, 2009, 8:43 pm
Hello all,
I'm pulling my hair out with the simple question of: What makes something right or wrong?
For a long time I've been somewhat of an "objectivist" - meaning only that I do not think morality is something with no *real* value outside ourselves. However, I do not prescribe to the notion that a certain list of rules is *always* right.
My main concerns I'll try to write plainly. I don't see how either a subjective stance of ethics *or* of an objective stance gets us any closer to the question of "what is right". The former cannot, by definition, give *reasons* why something is right, nor is it even able to justify that something *is, in fact* right, and as I'm sure most here would agree that pure subjectivism is self-defeating, I won't say anymore. But it seems the latter doesn't get us any closer either. It eventually results in question begging, because a) it doesn't give us any ability to actually *access* or *know* objective value, and b)it presents the Euthyphro dilemma all over again - is x wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it is wrong? Now, I know the common answer to this critique is to merely say that "x is wrong because God *is* so, therefore, since he says so, it is good", but this doesn't answer, in my mind, the primary question of how WE know what is good. If you do prescribe to a sort of hyped version of Divine Command Theory, this seems to pose problems of our *own* moral intuitions of what is good and bad, which, if we are Theists, we believe are somehow transcendentally given to us by God... for example, I think it would be unjust for God to eternally punish some people in a horrible fiery torment, no matter what the crime. What am I to think of myself - that I'm wrong? Or of God - that he is right? How am I to choose, since I must rely on some understanding of morality (which comes from where?) to make any decision at all?
Then we come to the rather uncomfortable dichotomy between Jesus and Yahweh, where Jesus tells us God is like a father, and the prophets depict God pretty much as a might-is-right tyrant. But if we believe Jesus to be the son of God, we must accept he accepted the Hebrew Bible. Yet, his depiction of God is much different.
Then there is another problem still for theists that if, as I do, we believe in judgment, we must ask ourselves how we are going to be judged. I'm inclined to be sort of Libertarian/Pluralistic in a sense, because I simply do not feel I have the authority to tell someone they are morally wrong - committing evil in fact - by acting on a belief, the same type of which I have. I do not like to think two opposites can be valid, but I simply cannot believe that we - as men - are in a position to judge such a transcendental law as morality, seeing as we cannot completely understand someone's intentions.
But again, pointing to this distinction does not tell *us* what is morally right or wrong. It only tells us that we cannot know for another. What makes something right or wrong? How will God look at our actions and judge them? I don't think he will look at the fact that I had a cheeseburger for lunch as wrong, but supposing I thought it was wrong to eat cheeseburgers, and I ate one ? Or suppose it was wrong to eat one, and I didn't know? Or suppose it was against wrong, and I knew, but I thought with a pure conscience convinced myself that this was a misnomer since it did not deal with anything I deemed important? The fact that I do this with a pure conscience makes it *just like* committing an action with no knowledge of the law, for, as far as I'm concerned, I have no knowledge of any personal law (I supposed you could say subjectively constructed system of ethics) I am breaking, for I have *completely changed my own moral law*.
And here we are introduced to the concept of pragmatic philosophy or pragmatic truth - the idea that basically, things are true to you based on their effect... e.g. I am ashamed of fornication because I have been taught it was wrong, whereas someone in another culture may feel it is a great moral success to have sex with many people. The effects (shame) are a result of a certain cause (teaching). This is not "objective" truth, but "practical" truth. Practical truth (read William James's The Will to Believe) is empirically verifiable. Example - *believe* that you are ugly, and you will walk around with your head down and feel ugly; *believe* that you are attractive, and you will become attractive/have confidence, etc. Another example: the fact that we've been taught to be afraid of rats, *creates* the reality of our fear if we see one running across the floor (your body even has certain reactions to this - perhaps you sweat, feel anxious, heart increases); yet suppose another society has taught their young that rats give long life; this will *create* the reality of, not fear, but desire! How very odd, that our beliefs can shape our reality.
I fear that this may be the case with morality, and thus, some element of Existentialism seems true, which, I am afraid, I find nearly inconsolable with (at least my current understanding of) Christianity, because if this Existential/Pragmatic hybrid is true it seems one can justify *anything to oneself in order to make things "right". Also, this means I have the ability to not only *break* my moral law, but *create* it as well.
Anyway, I seem to be running round and round with this topic, and it's extremely distressing. It seems like I'm one step away from losing my mind. Any thoughts?
Corage, God Mend Al! - George MacDonald