The universal moral code is comprised of those beliefs which are shared by most every civilization in history and described by the great prophets, philosophers, and holy men of every age.
The existence of a “universal moral code” is a question which has been hotly debated on these pages in recent weeks. In his recent article on the subject, Steven D. Laib argued that “morality is what people believe it is.” The arguments he presents to support his thesis, however, are mostly a list of examples of immoral behavior, not behaviors that are moral by some other standard.
For example, he cites the existence of the practice of human sacrifice in history as proof that what we consider unacceptable today, was “once considered proper in certain times and places.” However, citing the barbaric acts perpetrated by the autocratic elites in a primitive society is not adequate evidence of an “evolving” or “subjective” morality. I doubt whether the masses in Mesoamerica believed the practice of human sacrifice was culturally acceptable, let alone morally right and proper. Rather, this practice was imposed upon them by the clerics and kings who ruled those societies. And to the extent that certain individuals were willing to sacrifice themselves in the misguided belief they were serving some greater good, I would argue that would actually be a very noble and even moral act: giving one's own life that another may live is an example of the very highest moral act (in a sense, akin to the willingness of Christ to die for our salvation); this, however does not mean the man who wields the implement of death is behaving morally.
And the fact that a majority of the indigenous people of Central America allied themselves with Cortez and his Conquistadors (and their Catholicism) demonstrates their rejection of the Aztec cult-of-death. Once the Spaniards landed in Montezuma’s backyard, the oppressed people subject to ritualistic human sacrifice at the whim of their masters had a champion to rally ‘round. Thus, they aided Cortez in the sack of Tenochtitlan. It matters little that the Spanish, in turn, eventually subjugated the teeming masses (that was simply a lesser evil).
One may cite each and every example of brutality and injustice in history but it is frankly beside the point. Those of us who argue in favor of a “universal moral code,” authored by God, do not believe that man is pre-disposed to behave morally; rather, man has an innate sense of what is moral yet tends to choose sin over righteousness. The belief in the innate goodness of man is pure folly, especially when one attempts to design a political system upon this porous foundation. A just political system (ours is the closest thing to it in history, though hardly truly just) is built upon the bedrock principles of the universal moral code, no matter how far short of this ideal man tends to fall.
As Dr. Phillip Ellis Jackson pointed out in his essay on the subject, there a variety of reasons why man behaves immorally; poor socialization and mental illness, among them. I would add that the very belief in the non-existence of a moral code (relativism) could also cloud one's judgment when confronted with a moral choice. But I would submit that the root cause of most aberrant behavior is the immemorial king of all the deadly sins: pride. Whether man is elevating himself above God’s laws or the rights of other men, the excessive love of one's self may be the most pernicious and destructive sin of all; and whatever the cause of immoral behavior may be, its mere existence does not preclude the reality of the universal moral code.
The example of the three children Steven Laib uses in his essay is, in reality, not so much an argument against the existence of a universal moral code as a demonstration of differing types of immoral behavior: the school bully who uses force to get what he wants is guilty of both pride and avarice, not a champion of a different moral choice; and the socialist in his example is guilty of the sins of both pride and envy – another example of immorality in practice. These are not innovators of a new or different morality; they are, in fact demonstrators of immoral behavior.
And the use of Islamic law and custom in reference to a debate on the existence of a universal moral code is simply setting up a straw man: many teachings of Islam, and many of the actions of its Prophet are, in fact, egregious violations of the universal moral code, not proof of its non-existence. If one objectively studies the life and teachings of Mohammad, one cannot be faulted for concluding that his was less a life of virtue than an exercise in vice: he had at least a dozen wives and his favorite, Aisha, was reportedly six-years-old when they were married and nine when the marriage was consummated; he engaged in scores of raids where men, women, and children were killed and property stolen – in fact, the Koran actually stipulates how to divide the booty seized in battle; he violently spread his faith through conquest and killed or subjugated those who refused to submit; he ordered the execution of bound prisoners and the death by stoning of adulteresses. This is why these brutal acts are rampant today in the Islamic world, not because a “peaceful” religion was hijacked by militants. The act of stoning a woman to death for having sex out-of-wedlock is not moral (in an Islamic context) because Islamic morality differs from ours; it is quite simply immoral.
It matters not how clever or well-intentioned a man or even a generation of men may be, they may not legitimately re-write or alter God’s moral code. As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “The first thing to get clear about Christian morality between man and man is that in this department Christ did not come to preach any brand new morality. The Golden Rule of the New Testament is a summing up of what every one, at bottom, had always known to be right. Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that. The real job of every moral teacher is to keep on bringing us back, time after time, to the old simple principles which we are all so anxious not to see.”
The universal moral code is comprised of those beliefs which are shared by most every civilization in history and described by the great prophets, philosophers, and holy men of every age. For Christians, it was best described by the Sermon on the Mount and has been summed up as “The Golden Rule.” It was written by God and is the standard by which man will eventually be judged by the same. What it is not is fungible, arbitrary, or alterable by man.
Alas, this debate may ultimately prove futile for as Lewis stated in The Abolition of Man, one cannot prove the truth of the universal moral code because “its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent cannot prove it.”
josonitsch@yahoo.com
Read more articles by Jeff Osonitsch
Good essay.
I guess I find myself at odds with CS Lewis, because I believe a universal moral code CAN be proved, by its indepensibility.
If there is no univeral morality, there is no morality, period. Morality with no higher authority than the one advocating it is no morality at all, it's just a collection of ideas.
That collection of ideas may have meaning in some way, but only to the inventor of them, for one cannot cannot suggest one's morality for another person if that morality contains no authority, nor can the seeker of morality evaluate another morality apart from a transcendent standard.
Morality is relative if there is no univeral standard. There is no way to evaluate morality apart from a universal standard,because the evaluation itself appeals to absolute concepts using absolute terminology.
I am disappointed that Steven Laib and James Carmine have not stepped up to the plate to answer Dr. Jackson, some of the other posters, and the author, Jeff Osonitsch. Perhaps the moral relativists might bring some of their insight to the debate.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 20, 2006
I have decided to avail myself of the opportunity to respond to the first comment above. For the record, I don't consider myself a moral relativist. I believe that a proper moral code is indespensible for any successful society. However, while this may be true, we find that all together too many societies have ignored the implications of eliminating morality. At the same time others have instituted moral standards that are at odds with what we understand to be correct and proper.
If we return to my example of the three children, and particularly the sneak thief, we see an example of this. It appears that the reason for my using this example was not apparent. Consider the socialist who wants to take from the wealthy and hardworking to give to the poor, and in some cases, the lazy. They think that their attitudes are justified. They also are adults, not children. They may have a juvenile attitude, but they have grown to adulthood, have attended college, and presumably hold jobs. They should know better. What I believe is that they have denied conventional morality for their own views which they believe are better, and ignore the consequences. This last is largely because despite their education, they think with their emotions, rather than their brains.
Or, consider our latest enemy, islam which considers all moral standards other than its own to be improper. Their standards are generally nonsensical and in many instances outrageous, however, they believe them because they have been indoctrinated to do so. They speak out of both sides of their mouths, preach "religion of peace" with one side and threaten to kill anyone who doesn't submit to their rule with the other. Is lying moral? I think everyone would agree that it is not. However, for them it is. They consider their system to be one of universal justice. However, when it denies justice to certain people, particularly women, it shows its true colors. And they consider this to be a god given, perfect system. (Note that I use the small g intentionally. I am convinced that islam has nothing to do with the G-d of the Bible)
While there should be a recognized universal system or morality, and I believe that the Biblical model serves as the best one we have available, there are many who discount it for any one of a number of reasons, and then there are those who also believe that we don't need such a standard. The result is a mess.
My conclusion: There is no universal system operating, even though we have what should be one, available. Morality is, for the masses, what they believe, despite the existence of something better.
Comment by Steven D. Laib, J.D. M.S. | October 20, 2006
Steven Laib: I agree with what you are saying above, especially the part, “I am convinced that Islam has nothing to do with the G-d of the Bible.” This is because the proclaimed (by Muslims) nature of the Islamic god Allah is vastly different from the nature of the Judeo-Christian God. The latter binds himself to his covenant with man, whereas the former believes Allah is not bound by anything and can do anything he wants whenever; belief in a god who is so bound would be blasphemy.
To your comment I would like to add, “To claim that one has a right to act according to conscience, but without at the same time acknowledging the duty to conform one's conscience to the truth and to the law which God himself has written on our hearts, in the end, means nothing more than imposing one's limited personal opinion.” – John Paul II.
Comment by sedonaman | October 20, 2006
However, citing the barbaric acts perpetrated by the Republican elites in a primitive manner is not adequate evidence of an “evolving” or “subjective” morality. I doubt whether the masses in the Mid-east and the armed forces of the USA believed the practice of human sacrifice was culturally acceptable, let alone morally right and proper. Rather, this practice was imposed upon them by the Republicans and kings/Bushies who ruled this society. And to the extent that certain individuals were willing to sacrifice themselves in the misguided belief they were serving some greater good, I would argue that would actually be a very noble and even moral act: giving one's own life that another may live is an example of the very highest moral act (in a sense, akin to the willingness of Christ to die for our salvation); this, however does not mean the man who wields the implement of death, or commands the sacrifice, is behaving morally.
And the fact that a majority of the indigenous people of Iraq at first allied themselves with Bush and his Crusaders (and their Fundamentalism) demonstrates their rejection of the Saddam/Sunni cult-of-power. Once the Marines landed in Saddam's backyard, the oppressed people subject to ritualistic human sacrifice and torture at the whim of their master had a champion to rally ‘round. Thus, they aided Rummy in the sack of Bagdad. It matters little that the Gang of the Willing, in turn, eventually subjugated and tortured the teeming masses (that was simply a lesser evil).
Comment by PietVA | October 24, 2006
Can someone interpret Piet for us all? I read his post three times and still cannot make sense of him.
Ok, now I see. Piet is reciting the leftist litany in a way that tries to be clever, but only succeeds in demonstrating his shallow thinking. Crusade? Fundamentalism? Sack of Bagdad?These are buzzwords with no meaning, requiring only their recitation and no rational thinking.
Oh, and it's worth mentioning that Piet sidesteps the conversation entirely, as is common in leftist circles, preferring instead to bring up irrelevancies.
Comment by Mountain Man | October 25, 2006