JRHS Writing BLOG

Morality Defined

Ethics are the basis of how we live and conduct ourselves in this world. Secular Humanism, Cosmic Humanism, Marxism/Leninism, and Christianity all have different views and definitions of morality.

Secular Humanist ethics have no foundation for right and wrong, or an unchanging standard. Their morality is subjective and based on the moment and situation, in a view known as ethical relativism. In this belief, “ethics are relative to man’s interpretation of them in any given situation” (Noebel, 94). This ethical relativism is the generally accepted idea of Secular Humanists concerning morality.

Similarly, Cosmic Humanist ethics are based on the same idea of ethical relativism. In this view, the only ethical absolute is individual autonomy. “Ethical Relativism, as one would expect, has led the Cosmic Humanist to a point where the distinction between good and evil has become hopelessly blurred” (Noebel, 111). Cosmic Humanists furthermore believe in internalized values, no external boundaries, and tolerance. David Noebel wrote, “Nothing is ever really wrong, ironically, except judging other people’s moral beliefs and actions (Noebel, 112).

Marxist/Leninist ethics, on the other hand, do define a point of right and wrong. The foundation of their morality is the dialectical views of class struggle. Therefore, Marxist ethics are in constant change determined by social evolution. Perhaps today morality is defined by working towards a classless society, but tomorrow will be determined by the aims of the achieved classless society. Ultimately, Marxists/Leninists believe in class morality. This means that anything done out of devotion to the working class is ethical, including hatred of the Bourgeoisie. “Hatred can be moral, according to the Marxist, as long as its directed toward the proper institution, class, or enemy” (Noebel, 103). The underlying view of Marxist ethics is that the end justifies the means. Therefore, anything is moral if it helps bring the society closer to a classless state. “Marxists judge the result, not the methods; the consequences, not the act” (Noebel, 105).

Finally, Christian ethics are entirely different, as they are based on theology and grounded in the character of God. Morality is, essentially, all that conforms to God’s character. Unlike ethical relativism, Christian ethical standards are universal and absolute. “Without a standard, there could be no justice; without an ethical absolute, there could be no morality” (Noebel, 117). The Bible provides some specifics, and gives the foundation of all morality. However, to fall short is inevitable. Man’s falling short of Biblical moral standards is why the world needed a Savior, and therefore the reason that Jesus came to die as atonement for the world’s sin. Because Christians believe in a strict standard of right and wrong, they believe in forgiveness, and that’s where they find hope. Nevertheless, it is the Christian’s responsibility to not only understand Biblical morality, but follow it, and live the truth they proclaim.

Noebel, David A. Understanding the Times. Colorado: Association of Christian Schools International and Summit Ministries, 1995.

This is a fascinating read, though I would argue that Mr. Noebel could go back even further to establish his point(s). The problem with morality, as I’ve come to view it, is it really based upon religious principles and not necessarily societal norms or a “universal” understanding of right and wrong. This means that, depending upon the prevailing religion of a place, the morals that the culture has adapted to is based upon the rules setup by the religious leaders and texts and interpreters.

In some cultures, human or animal sacrifice was expected. In many ways, murder was an accepted practice if it was in the name of whatever deity they worshipped. Likewise, look at all the things that have been done in the name of God. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Dark Ages. Misinterpretation of the very scriptures that formed their worldviews have caused travesties in the name of their god(s).

To go further, much of the moralities which Mr. Noebel has commented on come from a worldview of humanist thought and a distinct lack of the presence of God or other almighty deity. It comes from the idea that we, as people, all have an understanding of good and evil. This is something I disagree upon wholly.

We, as people, are selfish and instinctive. If you believe in human evolution, which I find way too many gaps to be truly valid, then it’s apparent that through our sheer tenacity and willingness to climb over whatever came in our way that our morality is based upon strength and cunning. If you believe that we were created by God, then look back in Genesis and see that we, with free will, were more than willing to give up everything God had given us by ignoring the rules set before us. We threw away everything to wallow in our own immorality because, well, we made the choice to do so. I would argue that we have morality only because we have sin; and we only have sin because we chose to defy our Creator.

To believe in a world view that doesn’t involve God is to have no morality. It should also be noted that the logic and reason that is used to come to this conclusion is also flawed in that I have yet to see anyone prove that you can get order from chaos. We cannot legitimately argue that we grew to reason and we developed logic through evolving. We evolved logically because we saw that tools were more useful than rocks and fire was better than cold. This sort of metaphysical logic and universal reason is bogus.

It is only through God that we have any morality at all.