Morality

The argument for morality is quite a popular argument for Theism.. In the most basic form, the argument goes like, there seems to be a moral law. If there is a Law, there must be a Law Giver, namely God.

Now, in order for this argument to be valid, the assumption must first be verified. Namely, that there is a Moral Law. We get a hint of it in the arguments of people. When people argue over who gets to take the seat (granted, in more gracious society, people don't do that, but the argument happens in their hearts often too), they say things like "I got here first, so I should have the seat" and so on. And after that, there comes the cry "its not fair!" These remarks are quite telling of the Law they seem to appeal to. They appeal to a certain standard of fairness which they expect the other party to adhere to. And interestingly, few people would reply "to hell with your standards". Rather, they would argue about some other factors that are more important than "being there first" etc. This brings us to the first observation. In dealing with people, people always have a certain standard to follow which they themselves believe should be followed, and expect others to follow. We shall for the moment leave aside discussions of whether the standard is exactly uniform, or what exactly is expected. My point is firstly that this standard is appealed to.

The second thing I would like to point out is the surprising uniformity of this particular standard which we appeal to. What is common between Confusious, Muhammad, Moses, Socrates, Plato and Jesus is quite substantial. You may argue about whether you should have only 1 wife or 4 or 1000, but almost all would agree that you cannot just have any woman you want. You would also be hard pressed to find a society which applauds cowardliness or liars. Even if you did find one, you would probably find that the one who is being lied to, when found out, will not be pleased with the liar, even if the rest of the society is (I am of course, meaning a lie with no "good" purpose, not a "white" lie). Such ideas are as alien to us as the shape of dogs in Pluto.

The third thing is the universal failure of people to keep this standard which they had set for themselves. Unless one really moves the standard to suit your own needs at that point of time, you would find that none is as charitable, as brave, as honest as he believes that he (or other people) should be.

The fourth thing is that people do actually compare their standards with that of other people's. And they do so quite "righteously". We look at the Nazis and say that their code of morality (with regards to exterminating Jews and the likes) are really sub-human. As though our own set of morals are "higher" than theirs. We are saying that they "should" not exterminate innocent people. But here comes a curious point. On what basis do we say this? We are almost saying that there is a "correct" way to behave, that all men should conform to, that is not dependent on the society.

All these put together seem to suggest a real standard that exists outside of human creation.

But before we move to that conclusion, let us look at some other arguments. It had been proposed that morality need not come from within or from above, but can be the result of human convention. Now, I am not really interested in the form of how it came about. Sufficient to say that there had been some ideas that are possible ways that the moral code had developed. Whether or not they are true is of course, another matter, and little evidence had been given to show why this other way is more probable than that of a absolute standard. (I would stand corrected if anyone does show me some argument or evidence that this is more probable. Don't bother about David Hume's argument about miracles for the moment though, I will get to that in a later post)

What I am interested in, is the logical conclusion of such a belief. It does mean that we may no longer say to other people that their standard is wrong. The Nazis have as much a right to do what they believe. And so does the thief. And the liar. And the murderer. None have a right to say you "should not". At most, you can say you "will be well advised not to" or that "you will be punished severely" or that "you will cause great inconvenience to others". But there is no such thing as "should not". Afterall, they are conventions.

(Hmmm.. I think there is a better logical conclusion, but its quite illusive to me for now.. This seems fairly weak. Nevermind, I will come back to it next time when I can remember my thoughts)

I suppose you can eventually take this position. But you cannot reject the absolute morals and at the same time, demand that people follow your own standard. On what basis should they?