does an objective standard of morality exist?
One of Confucius' sayings,By inquiring into all things, understanding is made complete; with complete understanding, thought is made sincere; when thought is sincere, the mind is as it should be; when the mind is as it should be; the individual is morally cultivated, the family is well-regulated; when the family is well-regulated, the state is properly governed; and when the state is properly governed, the world is at peace.
Mediation and theoretical foundations of criminal law are very thinking modules. Morality is a very recurrent theme, and I find that people generally shun the idea of morality in their arguments simply because most people believe that it cannot be objectively justified; everyone seems to believe that there are differing standards of morality, and this I cannot deny when faced with the facts. Just look at how times have changed. In the past when it's considered a shame for women to even bare their legs, now nothing is thought of with empty shoulders or back. Public affection such as holding hands used to be a taboo, but to cling on to that thought now would only risk being termed a prudent dinosaur. And how about the era of apartheid? How about inter-racial marriages? These concepts have slowly changed as people liberalise their mindsets, and consequently adjust their standards of morality. Thus, I find it hardpressed to conclude that morality has an objective standard.
For us christians then, what does our standard of morality mean? Even in today's world, it is very likely that christians in a conservative chinese society and christians in the western world will have differing standards of right and wrong. But to quote C.S. Lewis, the fact that each of us have an innate sense of right and wrong shows that there is some objective standard that we abide by, something that is above and beyond our comprehension. Everyone will do a good deed because of its intrinically good nature (whether we willingly do it or not is a different issue), but no one will do a bad one just because it's bad, rather, they do it because they want to thwart good. All evil is the corruption of something good, but good is just good; it is not the opposite nor the absence of evil. Once we have established that fact, it's easier to argue a case for morality and that there should be one fixed standard and not numerous ones which people can cherry-pick to their fancy.
Despite the seemingly differing standards christians from two ends of the world may have, which people often boil it down merely to cultural differences, etc, if we were to employ the argument above, that good exists on its own and that evil leeches on to good, then is it not true that the moment we hesitate on our actions that it is most definitely a wrong? You see, if it were a clear-cut case of good, we wouldn't need to ponder so much. But if entrenched in that seemingly good activity lurks some form of "evil" that makes you stop and think, surely your gut instinct will tell you something is obviously wrong and the right action to take is to flee? Thus, no matter how different cultures may bring us up to be, it cannot replace the gut instinct we have about certain activities. The obviously intrinic good is the objective standard that we have. All other activities tainted with only a tinge of evil are the ones that are causing this debate about objective and subjective standards of morality. Think alcohol and clubbing. Think freedom of expression and homosexuality. It only takes a drop of evil to tarnish the entire good. Take heed.
My answer to the above question? Yes.
I meant to compare secular philosophy and christian teachings, but another time.
posted by solitude @ 8:56 PM
Comments: 0
