One lazy Sunday afternoon, I met up with an online friend, Don, in McDonald’s and had an interesting, cordial discussion on “What is morality?” My friend is an agnostic, and I tried to show him that an objective moral law exists so a moral Law Giver must exist.
C. S. Lewis noted that people quarrel all the time. When people quarrel, they appeal to a moral reason that applies to all parties involved.
“Get back in line, pal. I was here first.”
“Give me a piece of your pie. I gave you some of mine”.
“How would you feel if someone did that to you?”
How do we explain these principles of right and wrong?
At the theory level, we came up with 4 possible views of morality
1) Morality is created by society – “Society says it is right”
2) Morality is created by individuals - “To each his own”
3) “Might is right”
4) Moral law (objective) is given by a Lawgiver
Don pointed out that Malaysians ‘judge’ German Nazis as ‘evil’ but their actions do not appear ‘evil’ to them. Doesn’t that show that moral views are dependent on people?
I agreed that people can get their moral views mixed up just as they could get their arithmetic wrong. It shows that morality is something we can discover or fail to discover. It is not the same as saying that we create our own morality.
My friend eliminated option (3) because clearly, an evil dictator can be in power but it doesn’t make him right. He’s in favor of a combination of (1) and (2).
“What’s wrong is what displeases me…”
“The only way you can be wrong is when you disobey your own standard.”
“When my preference is shared by the majority in a society, it would be enforced as a moral law.”
At the practical level, I agree with his observation that in a democratic society
5) Law/legislation is setup by the majority
6) Pariahs have to be ‘under’ the laws of the land
7) The laws of the strongest will prevail
8) We may ‘know’ what is right or wrong, but we don’t obey it
So far, so good
But I pointed out that it’s inconsistent with Option (1) to judge others based on my own self-created values and then, impose them on others by law.
“It’s right because it pleases me. But why should others obey the rule that pleases me?”
We agreed that in this view, the thief who steals/doesn’t give a hoot about others is moral to himself but immoral to the victim. But he’s NOT objectively moral or immoral.
By the way, we also observed that the tyrant, the revolutionary and the mass murderer is an ideal representative of this view.
“If that is so, we shouldn’t judge the thief at all”, I said.
Remember, the principle we call “To Each His Own” means that my moral values only apply to myself. My moral views do not apply to others as they have their own set of values.
“Why not? How does judging others violate ‘To Each His Own’?” my friend asks.
“I don’t care about his standards. I can’t help but judge others by my own values.”
How can you judge others by YOUR standard? It’s inconsistent with Option (1) because your moral standard is applicable to you only. Who are you to judge? You can’t judge others based on your own standard. They have their own standards.
If right or wrong is a matter of my personal preference, then saying “Robbery is wrong” is like saying, “Vanilla is immoral because I like chocolate ice-cream…”
Therefore, we can’t set up a law that punishes robbers because it is as absurd as a law that bans vanilla ice-cream just because we happen to like chocolate.
My friend is not convinced.
“But that is so different! Robbery and vanilla flavor are two different things.”
Exactly! Here comes the clincher:
What’s the DIFFERENCE between robbery (wrong) and chocolate (not wrong) if both ultimately boils down to subjective, individualistic preferences?
He was quick to detect the answer:
“Because there is a reason for the law, i.e. robbery harms others (applicable to others) and vanilla ice-cream does not.”
That’s precisely my point: In order to judge or impose a law, you must have an objective reason that applies to everyone despite their personal tastes.
If vanilla ice-cream is objectively poisonous, then it is right to legislate against it. But if you merely feel that vanilla tastes bad and bans it, when in fact it’s not poisonous, it’s absurd.
Similarly, if robbery or rape is merely subjective, individual preference without any universal standard, it would be crazy to legislate against it. The moral principle that it’s objectively wrong to harm others is an example of Option (4).
The light has dawned.
After settling this issue, we discussed something about what an agnostic is. He’s someone who has no idea or evidence that God exists… unless maybe a super-miracle happens.
So we shared a little about how we can move on from here. Ultimate issues like God, faith and moral values are knowable… but what are the criteria for knowing?
I threw a few suggestions – at least, we agreed that there are four tests that we can apply to any truth claim.
If order to be true, it must not be irrational. (Square circles can’t exist)
In order to be true, there should be credible evidence. (We can throw out any religion that teaches that the earth is flat)
In order to be true, it should explain adequately our human experiences (like love, beauty, personhood, friendships etc.)
In order to be true, it has got to be relevant to how I live my life here on earth.
It’s not easy to find a conversation partner that is as reflective as this guy is. So it’s always a pleasure and honor to indulge in such dialogues especially amongst friends.
C. S. Lewis noted that people quarrel all the time. When people quarrel, they appeal to a moral reason that applies to all parties involved.
“Get back in line, pal. I was here first.”
“Give me a piece of your pie. I gave you some of mine”.
“How would you feel if someone did that to you?”
How do we explain these principles of right and wrong?
At the theory level, we came up with 4 possible views of morality
1) Morality is created by society – “Society says it is right”
2) Morality is created by individuals - “To each his own”
3) “Might is right”
4) Moral law (objective) is given by a Lawgiver
Don pointed out that Malaysians ‘judge’ German Nazis as ‘evil’ but their actions do not appear ‘evil’ to them. Doesn’t that show that moral views are dependent on people?
I agreed that people can get their moral views mixed up just as they could get their arithmetic wrong. It shows that morality is something we can discover or fail to discover. It is not the same as saying that we create our own morality.
My friend eliminated option (3) because clearly, an evil dictator can be in power but it doesn’t make him right. He’s in favor of a combination of (1) and (2).
“What’s wrong is what displeases me…”
“The only way you can be wrong is when you disobey your own standard.”
“When my preference is shared by the majority in a society, it would be enforced as a moral law.”
At the practical level, I agree with his observation that in a democratic society
5) Law/legislation is setup by the majority
6) Pariahs have to be ‘under’ the laws of the land
7) The laws of the strongest will prevail
8) We may ‘know’ what is right or wrong, but we don’t obey it
So far, so good
But I pointed out that it’s inconsistent with Option (1) to judge others based on my own self-created values and then, impose them on others by law.
“It’s right because it pleases me. But why should others obey the rule that pleases me?”
We agreed that in this view, the thief who steals/doesn’t give a hoot about others is moral to himself but immoral to the victim. But he’s NOT objectively moral or immoral.
By the way, we also observed that the tyrant, the revolutionary and the mass murderer is an ideal representative of this view.
“If that is so, we shouldn’t judge the thief at all”, I said.
Remember, the principle we call “To Each His Own” means that my moral values only apply to myself. My moral views do not apply to others as they have their own set of values.
“Why not? How does judging others violate ‘To Each His Own’?” my friend asks.
“I don’t care about his standards. I can’t help but judge others by my own values.”
How can you judge others by YOUR standard? It’s inconsistent with Option (1) because your moral standard is applicable to you only. Who are you to judge? You can’t judge others based on your own standard. They have their own standards.
If right or wrong is a matter of my personal preference, then saying “Robbery is wrong” is like saying, “Vanilla is immoral because I like chocolate ice-cream…”
Therefore, we can’t set up a law that punishes robbers because it is as absurd as a law that bans vanilla ice-cream just because we happen to like chocolate.
My friend is not convinced.
“But that is so different! Robbery and vanilla flavor are two different things.”
Exactly! Here comes the clincher:
What’s the DIFFERENCE between robbery (wrong) and chocolate (not wrong) if both ultimately boils down to subjective, individualistic preferences?
He was quick to detect the answer:
“Because there is a reason for the law, i.e. robbery harms others (applicable to others) and vanilla ice-cream does not.”
That’s precisely my point: In order to judge or impose a law, you must have an objective reason that applies to everyone despite their personal tastes.
If vanilla ice-cream is objectively poisonous, then it is right to legislate against it. But if you merely feel that vanilla tastes bad and bans it, when in fact it’s not poisonous, it’s absurd.
Similarly, if robbery or rape is merely subjective, individual preference without any universal standard, it would be crazy to legislate against it. The moral principle that it’s objectively wrong to harm others is an example of Option (4).
The light has dawned.
After settling this issue, we discussed something about what an agnostic is. He’s someone who has no idea or evidence that God exists… unless maybe a super-miracle happens.
So we shared a little about how we can move on from here. Ultimate issues like God, faith and moral values are knowable… but what are the criteria for knowing?
I threw a few suggestions – at least, we agreed that there are four tests that we can apply to any truth claim.
If order to be true, it must not be irrational. (Square circles can’t exist)
In order to be true, there should be credible evidence. (We can throw out any religion that teaches that the earth is flat)
In order to be true, it should explain adequately our human experiences (like love, beauty, personhood, friendships etc.)
In order to be true, it has got to be relevant to how I live my life here on earth.
It’s not easy to find a conversation partner that is as reflective as this guy is. So it’s always a pleasure and honor to indulge in such dialogues especially amongst friends.
Comments