"There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair." - Albert Einstein
Morality is a tricky philosophical concept. Some believe it to be nothing more than a social construct subject to the caprices of Man; others think it as a set of codified laws inspired by the divine, universal and eternal in nature. We can surmise then, that morality can be seen within the lens of a relativist or an absolutist. Both positions are not without merit. So called moral standards indeed change with the prevailing zeitgeist of our societies. For example, the consumption of alcohol in the United States was considered immoral in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This sentiment was reflected in the 18th amendment of the United States constitution which prohibited alcohol. Over time however, this "moral standard" became increasingly unpopular and eventually these prohibitive laws were repealed in the 21st amendment in 1933. It is now unthinkable for modern societies to ban alcohol on the basis of morality. Perhaps we can conclude that
morality is relative and evolving.
Yet, there is a disturbing corollary to moral relativism. If moral standards can indeed be taken as relative, then it would suggest that all deeds, no matter how dastardly, can be condoned; it's just a matter of the degree of tolerance and willingness of the society at large. This cannot be right. Heinous crimes like mass murder or rape can never be completely justified in any circumstances. We find little redeeming quality in the dictator who commits genocide at the behest of his people. We condemn soldiers for the slaughter of innocents in war. Taken in this light,
moral standards appear to be absolute! It seems that neither relativism nor absolutism can be the sole descriptor of morality. What then, can we make out from this tangled web of right and wrong? It is my opinion that solution to this problem lies in the idea that
moral relativity operates within the framework of absolute morality. This can be illustrated by a question: "Is the glass half empty or half full?" The answer of course, varies with individual perception. However, this answer does not affect the existence or properties of said glass, of which half of its volume is occupied by fluid. A glass which is "half full" is taken in reference to a completely filled glass. Similarly, a glass which is "half empty" can only have meaning if the concept of an empty glass exists. In turn, an "empty glass" can only exist if the concept of a glass without any fluid exists.
This means that human and societal perceptions of morality, while relative, fall along a continuum of absolute good and evil. Morality seems relative to us because absolute good and evil are concepts that transcend mortal boundaries. Most events happening around us can be viewed in shades of gray and it is impossible for any human to act as the sole arbiter of right and wrong. To give us some credit, our limited appreciation for absolute morality enables us to derive certain approximations of right and wrong, and on this basis we define moral standards and laws. I call it a form of moral "sixth sense". It is one that is imperfect and one that can be twisted at will. This must constitute the relative aspect of morality. Thankfully, our
constantly shifting positions on morality do not influence the definitions of absolute good and evil - definitions that can only be understood by the divine alone.
Since it is not humanly possible to define absolute good and evil, it would be a farce to view morality as a concept independent of the divine. I believe that morality can be better understood through close communion with God, a being of absolute good. This will heighten our perception of good and evil (though our worldly perceptions can never be perfect). An attempt to dissociate the divine from morality is hubris on our part - for none of us have any authority to ultimately define good and evil. If humans do not have the mandate to pronounce absolute judgment on each other, then absolute morality must acknowledge the presence of the divine.
If we choose to take the easy way out and dismiss all notions of absolute morality, then things become more ridiculous. A universe where moral values are purely relative is a universe devoid of good and evil. What is considered "just" for one society can be easily viewed as "unjust" by other societies. If there exists no absolute framework in morality, then there can be little meaningful debate of what constitutes "right or wrong". It becomes a matter of our terribly subjective minds. If morality becomes reduced to mere opinion, then judicial law becomes laughable as well. Hence, I would argue that
morality cannot be a "purely human affair" as Einstein suggests, but a divine one as well.
Qooties.
N.B I will not elaborate on how we should achieve a "closer communion" with God. This is not a theological essay, although some of my arguments are based on the premise that a divine being exists.
And no, I do not think that crimes in the name of religion are divinely inspired. Any other comments or opinions on my post are most welcome =)
