The argument for absolute truth has always been one that’s intrigued me, and I’ve been thinking about it a lot lately as my eyes have been opened to the cultural shift that's been upon us over the past few decades. It’s never ceased to amaze me the amount of people who believe that truth is relative or that it can not necessarily be known at all. I think it would be safe to assume that most Americans travel to the beat of their own drum. What is right for me isn’t necessarily what’s right for someone else. I suppose the easiest examples of this from our culture to use are sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, and abortion. Most Americans would come out and say that if someone wants to engage in any of these acts that it’s okay, because they’re doing what feels right to them, and who are any of us to tell them that what they’re doing is wrong? So basically, with this argument, most people are saying without realizing it that right and wrong are determined on an individual basis. A vast amount of people live by this philosophy and so few seem to realize the arrogance of it. If I am to believe that I can essentially do what I want when I want and that I don’t have to answer to anyone other than myself for what I do, have I not in all reality elevated myself to the same level as a god?
Now some may say that they’re not so selfish to say that they do what they want when they want it. There are still rules to be followed. A few rules may be thrown into their moral beliefs to say that what you do is right as long it doesn’t harm anyone else. But what exactly are the boundaries of what harm is? Is it just physical harm? Emotional harm? Is consentual sex outside of marriage okay since you’re not physically harming one another? What if someone feels used and worthless afterwards? Have you then harmed them? What if a person doesn’t feel hurt until you break up with them months or years later and they realized that they gave themselves away to someone that stopped caring about them? What if one couple has sex outside of marriage and never regrets it and another couple does the same thing and does regret it…was it then right for one couple yet wrong for another? And with all this said, if it’s okay to do what you want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, is it then okay to harm yourself? Does that mean suicide, cutting, and eating disorders are right? They’re not harming anyone else, so with that thinking it must be okay. And yet, it clearly isn’t.
So what then do we determine we can base our morality upon if we ourselves do not determine it? Perhaps our government or our culture? Well, that would almost seem logical, if indeed our government and culture were reliable when it came to morality. Unfortunately, our laws and our culture are constantly changing. The things that many, including the government, say to be permissible now…such as the previous examples of homosexuality or abortion (sorry, the topics are just easy targets)…were not permissible by law nor culturally acceptable just a mere half century ago. So were these things wrong then but are right now? How can this be? And why does the government, an institution made up of individual people like me and you, have the right to determine this? Now if we are to turn to culture rather than government to determine our morality, then we are in the same dilemma, especially since governments are typically a reflection of cultural beliefs. Cultures everywhere across the globe have repealed laws against sodomy in the last 50 years: Germany, Hungary, Australia, Israel, Russia, Thailand, the U.S., the U.K. and many more. Does this mean that sodomy has always been right and we as cultures, governments, and individuals up until the last fifty years have been completely wrong? Does this mean that cultures such as Malaysia, South Korea, and India which still have anti-sodomy laws in place are now wrong in this matter though they would have previously been seen as right?
I think it’s pretty clear that when it comes to morality, we are not merely accountable to ourselves, nor are we merely accountable to our neighbors, governments, or cultural standards. Just as culture is constantly changing and shifting, so I too as an individual am in a constant state of change. It’s silly and even narcissistic to think that I myself could determine my own morality when I myself am so often proved to be wrong, and it’s just as silly to think that a culture could even determine morality when it so constantly flip-flops on its laws, opinions, and beliefs. So what does this mean then? Who are we then accountable to? Is there even such a thing as morality or truth, and if there is, can we ever really know it? Well, if the answer is that we are accountable to no one and that there is no such thing as morality, or even that there is but we can’t know it, then we might as well just all go jump off a cliff because there’s no point to anything. There’s no point in creating rules nor obeying them, there’s no point in restraining yourself from things like murder or stealing or lying or general selfishness because they might not even be wrong. There’s probably no point in loving one another or doing good deeds. How can you even know, really? So you might as well do what you want when you want it, right?
Well, you can take that stance, as some do. Or there is another option. Perhaps there really is such a thing as absolute morality. Perhaps truth does exist. Perhaps we can even know it. And perhaps there is really a higher power outside of ourselves to whom we are accountable. In the end, it’s the only thing that really makes sense, isn’t it? Because seriously, if I am ultimately my own higher power and determiner of what is right and wrong in my own life, then I would highly advise everyone around me to run for their lives, because I know my own heart and I know the many limitations of my own mind (Yes, tis true, I don’t know EVERYTHING…or much at all in the grand scheme of things), so trust me…I am not someone that anyone would want to determine something as important as morality. And quite honestly, I don’t want any other flawed human being telling me what morality is and isn’t either when they themselves have a limited knowledge and a heart that has committed many wrongs. Isn’t it far better in the grand scheme of things then for someone who is perfect and utterly holy to determine what is right and wrong, and to hold all of humanity accountable for their actions rather than leave them to themselves…especially when we are so clearly in need of salvation from the wrongs we have committed?
I myself firmly believe that absolute truth does exist, that we can know it, that God has already made it known to us, and that we are accountable to God for both our thoughts and actions. I’m interested, though, in what everyone else thinks. Are these plausible arguments? Does Scripture back it up? Does human nature or history back it up? Are there any plausible arguments by which relativism could in turn be truth? Really, I just want people to stop and think for a second. We get so caught up in daily tasks and in absorbing entertainment that we never take the time to contemplate the things that really matter…the basic beliefs we hold that in the end really are a matter of life or death. These underlying beliefs will either lead us toward the Gospel or away from it, so it seems that absolute truth is a good place to start. And for those of us who do believe in absolute truth, particularly those of us who are proclaimed followers of Christ, we must ask ourselves if there are perhaps beliefs that we still hold in which we have made them relative to our own judgement. We must recognize whether or not we are thinking backwards in that we are rejecting teachings of the Bible because they do not fit what we think or feel is true rather than rejecting our own beliefs because they are not aligned to God's truth. Because if the Bible is truly God’s word, and if it is absolute truth, then as it is said in Romans 12:2---Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. THEN you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. Something to think about…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think truth and morality are absolute because I'm a monotheist. Even though I disagree with the relativist crowd, I have some sympathy for their position because (1) all people suck at morality to the point that even a cult that proclaims "all who spit on the sidewalk are doomed to failure, death and eternal afterdeath" is expected to be full of people who spit on the sidewalk, thus spawning revival meetings full of cultists who espouse the even more puritan view that spitting is evil whether the lug lands on the sidewalk or in the bathroom sink,* and (2) most moral questions have obvious answers only because people who like to talk about moral questions are *really* good at abstracting away inconvenient details and sidestepping whatever hard parts remain.
Another way of saying all of that: self-interest makes liars and cheaters of everybody. No exceptions.
The only "philosophy of morality"-type questions that matter to me these days are the ones that focus on how absolutists can help others make better moral decisions and how society should respond to moral failure.
The truly sick thing about morality—absolute or relative—is how often it compels people to respond to one moral failure with another one....very often, a bigger one. Say, stoning a woman accused of adultery.
I don't see any contradiction in saying both "premarital sex, homosexuality and abortion are wrong" and "society cannot prevent or punish sexual immorality without risk of comparable or greater moral failure."
The beautiful thing about absolute morality is it provides a basis for a person or a congregation to lead by example on moral issues. It makes no sense to expect moral leadership from relativists, but absolutists have every reason to expect that they will be held accountable (eschatologically if not by their peers) and so must do their best to model life lived in accord with both justice and mercy. That's obviously hard to do, but I think it is well worth the effort.
* In general, I'm opposed to attempts to outlaw bodily functions.
Doc, I love your last comment marked by the asterisk. I'm relieved. I was really worried. :-)
I'm really trying to figure out where I stand on this whole separation of church and state thing concerning morality and law. On the one hand, I think the morality laid forth in the Bible is going to yield the best results for society. Yet I also have to admit that my people pleasing side comes out at times too, in which I don't want to expect a people who don't know God to act like they do. To force people to adhere to Christian morality will only inhibit the inside-out change that must take place from a relationship with Christ. There are times when I hate the Christian agenda in politics, because it often taints the name of Christ...and yet there are times when I think it is necessary to achieve a greater good. You know, that whole law and order thing. Holding people accountable for their actions...such a new concept these days!
Post a Comment