Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Absolutely Moral?

Yesterday I wandered into the midst of a conversation between a moral relativist and a moral absolutist. It was a thought-provoking experience. When asked if I believed there is an absolute truth, I had no hesitation in answering. As a critical realist, I am persuaded that there is indeed such a thing as objective truth, even if what we "know" as human being may at best approximate it.

But what about morality? Do I believe in moral absolutes? There I found myself returning to Plato's famous Euthyphro dilemma. If there are moral absolutes, where do they come from? If God is the source of them, then God can command genocide and it is moral. If genocide is wrong no matter what, then morality seems to transcend even God.

The moral absolutist offered the suggestion that moral absolutes might simply be an expression of the Creator's character. That doesn't seem to me to solve the problem. In fact, it seems to create a problem akin to the "fine tuning" of the laws of physics: then we have a Creator of our universe whose morality is fine tuned to the cosmic moral absolutes...

I am pretty sure that the question whether "killing babies" is absolutely morally wrong came up. It seems to me ironic that a Christian fundamentalist would ever want to raise that issue, since the God of the Bible commanded such acts. One cannot make the problematic nature of such stories go away by waving the magic "Well, that was the Old Testament" wand, since the Letter of James quotes the Abraham story as a positive one. That God was "only testing" Abraham, and that the story in its present form is intended to combat child sacrifice, still leaves unresolved the problem that it remains appropriate for the author for Abraham to think it conceivable that God would make a request that his son be sacrificed.

How might we retell the story today from our own perspective? What about a version in which a heavenly voice asks Abraham to kill his only son. Abraham refuses, saying that no God worthy of worship would ask such a think. Then God says, "Well done, Abraham, I was just testing you..."

So is killing babies always morally wrong? I find myself recalling as I ask this question an episode from M*A*S*H that I watched as a child. In it, Hawkeye Pierce is showing evidence of mental instability, and the psychologist who counsels him gets him to remember something he had been blocking from his memory. He and a number of other people had been on a bus driving through the jungle. They stopped and shut all lights and kept quiet when they realized enemy troops were nearby. One Korean woman on the bus had a tiny infant that wouldn't stop crying. "Can't you keep that thing quiet?" was what Hawkeye had asked her, if I remember correctly. The woman, to save the rest of the people on the bus, smothered her baby.

Would it have been a better moral choice to allow the baby to cry? Perhaps they all would have lived, or perhaps they all would have died. Is any further judgment upon those involved necessary, beyond the horror of the tragedy of what they did, and the guilt that will haunt them the rest of their lives? Cannot what this woman did be called a sacrifice as much as Abraham's action, if not moreso? This woman gave her child's life to save others. Abraham had no such motivation. Conversely, if this woman's action would still be considered murder, does that term apply any less appropriately to Abraham's case?

In yesterday's discussion, I would have liked to say that I believe in moral truth just as I believe in truth more generally. It is there, it really exists, and yet our own perception of truth as human beings may or may not approximate that truth to any real degree. But it seems to me that morality is far more complex and difficult terrain than other sorts of truth, such as scientific.

Can we be "absolutely moral", even without moral absolutism? Is moral truth objective in the same way as scientific truth? What do you think? Personally, I find it ironic that it seems to be those who claim to be moral absolutists who find the least problem with the story of the binding of Isaac. Perhaps such claims to the Creator as the source of absolute morality are simply one more way to bolster a fundamentalist understanding of the Bible's perfection. But the Bible's moral perfection is every bit as difficult to maintain as its grammatical perfection, or any other sort of "inerrancy".

13 comments:

elbogz said...

If, there is absolute black, the blackest of all blacks….
And, if there is absolute white, the purest and whitest of a all whites,
Then, there must be absolute grey.

Unknown

Jason said...

Wow. Great post.

My old fundie church used to tell us that today, black and white thinkers are thought of as mentally unstable, and yet Jesus was a black and white thinker. I bought into that for a while, until I grew up and was exposed to real life.

elbogz said...

If we are going to talk about God and human ritual sacrifice, then we can’t forget about Judges 11 beginning at verse 30
30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD : "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."
36 "My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
38 "You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

Somehow that one never makes the Sunday Gospel reading does it? They don't do a bible study of that one. God demanded human ritual sacrifice of Mizpah, and of course Jesus.

Scott Ferguson said...

I have heard Judges 11 explained by pointing out that God never asked Jephthah to sacrifice anyone. The father was reaping the consequences of his own action. It is not even clear that he would have been punished if he had repented his oath and spared his daughter.

Much more troubling than even the Abraham/Isaac story (which gets the press because humans respond more strongly to the anecdotal) are the instances where God commands the Israelite army to bash infant children of their enemies against rocks. In those cases God commands it, does not pull back and innocent babies are slaughtered.

Quixie said...

That was the very last episode of M*A*S*H.
A very poignant scene. Hawkeye finally losing it on the last episode - and Klinger staying behind!
Lovely ironies.


McG:
"Can we be "absolutely moral", even without moral absolutism? Is moral truth objective in the same way as scientific truth? What do you think?"

Ó
The absolutist sees no problem with the killing of Isaac; the grey-matter relativist spots the paradox right away.

Lovely ironies.

My take on it is that the only acceptable response to G-sh calling down from a cloud, asking for a child sacrifice, is to flip him the bird stiffly (at the very least).

Such a request is a logical inconsistency and would come from no god worth having faith in, in my opinion.

A false Buddha encountered on the road is rightly shot down.

(***insert the first verse of Bob Dylan's "Highway 61 Revisited" here***)

. . . which segues into the question . . .

What exactly does the author of the Gospel According to the Beatles mean by "Gospel"?
Is it like a fanciful analysis of spirituality as expressed in their music?

That'd be an interesting review.

peace

Ó

Timothy Mills said...

Excellent post. It continues to amaze me that some people don't see the difference between objective physical reality (which can be demonstrated in a million ways) and objective moral reality (which cannot).

Objective morality is a compelling idea - it would make things so much simpler if such a thing existed. But that doesn't mean that it does exist.

Anyway, thanks for a lucid and thoughtful addition to this debate.

Bob MacDonald said...

Jason - nice Pug!

And I always thought it was the true Buddha that got killed.

For us to be moral requires that we raise our law over God - and know in advance all consequences. God is righteous by definition (see dialog with Abraham over S & G or the middles of Psalm 51 or 67).

How does God get righteous? (Funny question) - by taking the consequence of sin into himself. So in the story of David and Bathsheba - it is the son born to David who must die. (2 Samuel 12:14)

Morality is measured by consequence - i.e. it is a function of time. God, being beyond time is not measured by it but being gracious also, gives us the means to be likewise unmeasured through that child's death. So the anointed (David proleptic of Christ) lives as a sin offering for us.

N T Wrong said...

Nice blog.

"I would have liked to say that I believe in moral truth just as I believe in truth more generally. It is there, it really exists"

Well, things exist. I'm not sure that categories of existence make any sense when applied to morality.

Cobalt said...

It doesn't matter whether I believe in absolute truth or absolute morality. Humans don't have absolute perception, which means that all I think is what I think. At least with the truth about the phenomenal world we live in we've got ways of evaluating it, but moral truth? Not so much.

The fact that I can live with myself and accept this worldview without being a sociopathic stomper of kittens is probably something that guys like that will never understand.

James F. McGrath said...

In visiting the blog of a visitor who posted a comment on another entry, I found that that person's most recent blog entry on their own blog was about how there are no moral facts. That's certainly relevant to this discussion! :)

Bob MacDonald said...

I have noticed in the last 4 months since finishing a very rough draft of the Psalms that there are a lot of distractions in the world that stop me from penetrating further - they range from my own ignorance, to philosophy, and methods of interpretation, or a proper system of confession. While all of these and more can / must have some of my attention, they are not the path. I remain convinced that the path is defined only by my confrontation with the divine - and that is mediated by the full scope of my inter-communicants - cyber, Sunday, work, and family - a similarity to Bonhoeffer's four mandates for ethics.

The confrontation un-mediated is clearest in John 16: When the advocate comes, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. Without this presence - I in the world and of the world, am perpetually distracted. With it, I recognize both my separation and the love that calls and enables, and embraces me fully.

jt said...

I do not recall God saying "I am moral, ye be moral" He said; "I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy."
I believe morality is a part of holiness just as truth.
My point is maybe we are asking the wrong question as it pertains to moral absolutes and absolute truth. The better question seems to be what is holiness? What does holiness require? What is the result when holiness comes into contact with impurity, sin or evil?
I recall at one point God in compassion removes himself from the children of Israel because his holiness would destroy them if he did not.
Holiness has a destructive side to it when it comes in contact with sin and impurity.
In God's economy there is black and there is white...but superior to both is his holiness.Without holiness "no man shall see the God"

James F. McGrath said...

OK, but you've said nothing about killing one's son in response to a divine command. It is easy to talk about "absolute holiness" (and/or "absolute morality") in the abstract, and get a few "Amens" in response. But if that holy standard involves committing genocide, are you still on board with the program? Or would you more likely presume that it was not in fact God speaking to you, or that you must have misheard, or that you dreamt God spoke to you (rather than having been spoken to by God in a dream)?