Societies
We are sometimes tempted, or even encouraged, to use the views of different societies as a litmus for what is really good and evil. Generally, it's used as an argument for relaxing rules: "That society thinks it's OK if people do this, so maybe we're just being a little silly when we think it's a horrible thing."
The Bible teaches that societies can fall into immorality. The view a society has on what is right and wrong could be horribly twisted. This seems to me quite easy to believe—it's not easy to believe that everybody would become totally bad with no thought for good, not at all. But it is easy to think that people's views could gradually shift farther and farther towards evil, to the point where the people who think of themselves as normal, and just as good as anyone else, would be horrible in another society, or even in their own society a few decades earlier. Moreover, I find it fairly easy to believe that those people would be bad by an absolute standard of right and wrong.
This shifting is believable to me because morality works so much by trend: people think it might be wrong to do the things that shock and offend others, but they think it's OK to do the things that others aren't concerned about, even if the law or the moral codes contradict them. People may take some interest in those codes at first, but most of them seem to think that the final answer lies not in the written rules, but in the general sentiment of people around them. If people can approach morality that way, then it is a malleable thing of society, and it can drift with the personality of the society. Once the code itself drifts, people will happily perform their favorite once-sins, those which are now perfectly moral in their eyes. Thus, not only the abstract beliefs, but the actual actions of the society will degrade.
Now, if morality can drift in that way, and a society can fall into moral decay, as I think it can, is there any reason to be concerned about the validity of our own moral beliefs simply because some other society is less strict? I expect a few will land in my comments, but at least from the tack I'm taking, the answer seems to be a clear "No" to me.
OTOH, this raises a new line of thought. How indeed can we rate our moral code, if not by other societies? Clearly, if a moral code can drift so easily as I imply earlier, we have some reason to keep an eye on it. And what shall we compare it to? Perhaps, to our knowledge of God, and even more, to what it says in His Word. Perhaps, to what stings our conscience; but will our conscience not be silenced if we brush it off enough? More often than not it will. I think the Bible is the only real way to approach the matter, with God being our source of instruction about the meaning of His Word, but I'm looking forward to some interesting comments about this.
The Bible teaches that societies can fall into immorality. The view a society has on what is right and wrong could be horribly twisted. This seems to me quite easy to believe—it's not easy to believe that everybody would become totally bad with no thought for good, not at all. But it is easy to think that people's views could gradually shift farther and farther towards evil, to the point where the people who think of themselves as normal, and just as good as anyone else, would be horrible in another society, or even in their own society a few decades earlier. Moreover, I find it fairly easy to believe that those people would be bad by an absolute standard of right and wrong.
This shifting is believable to me because morality works so much by trend: people think it might be wrong to do the things that shock and offend others, but they think it's OK to do the things that others aren't concerned about, even if the law or the moral codes contradict them. People may take some interest in those codes at first, but most of them seem to think that the final answer lies not in the written rules, but in the general sentiment of people around them. If people can approach morality that way, then it is a malleable thing of society, and it can drift with the personality of the society. Once the code itself drifts, people will happily perform their favorite once-sins, those which are now perfectly moral in their eyes. Thus, not only the abstract beliefs, but the actual actions of the society will degrade.
Now, if morality can drift in that way, and a society can fall into moral decay, as I think it can, is there any reason to be concerned about the validity of our own moral beliefs simply because some other society is less strict? I expect a few will land in my comments, but at least from the tack I'm taking, the answer seems to be a clear "No" to me.
OTOH, this raises a new line of thought. How indeed can we rate our moral code, if not by other societies? Clearly, if a moral code can drift so easily as I imply earlier, we have some reason to keep an eye on it. And what shall we compare it to? Perhaps, to our knowledge of God, and even more, to what it says in His Word. Perhaps, to what stings our conscience; but will our conscience not be silenced if we brush it off enough? More often than not it will. I think the Bible is the only real way to approach the matter, with God being our source of instruction about the meaning of His Word, but I'm looking forward to some interesting comments about this.
posted by Soaring Gryphon | 12:10 AM
4 Comments:
(In general I agree with you.)
Why would you want to rate your moral code? Seriously. Who cares what other societies are doing?
I guess human beings can't help comparing themselves to one another.
I'm not talking about a comparative rating system. "And newly in 9th place is Buldovia with a 93% accurate moral code! They've been going especially strong this season, but they've got a ways to go if they hope to be in the top three by the end of the year. ..."
Seriously, the idea is that regardless of what other societies are doing, we don't want our own society to become corrupt. It's easy to compare the broad society to our personal or religious moral code and find corruption, as I'm sure many of us do regularly, and that can go a fair distance for seeing what corruption to fight. However, it is easy to forget that our own moral codes can also become corrupt. If they do, then we can do bad things when we think we aren't doing anything wrong. If that happens, then we'll be contributing to society's corruption without realizing it.
In other words, I said in my post that the easiest way for society to become corrupt was for people to be fooled into thinking that immoral things were moral. I then asked, "How do we keep from being fooled ourselves?"
For example, some modern Christians have decided that there's nothing wrong with having sex without being married. If they were simply doing it and not caring that it was wrong, then they could be corrupting society, but in a very obvious way: turning away an acknowledged moral code. However, when they believe that they aren't doing anything wrong, then the poison is more subtle. How can they rate their moral code so that they can find out that this is wrong? Right now, the issue is at least controversial, so they have a reason to question whether they're right. For some acts, in some societies, there is no controversy. How do you tell then?
For those who don't believe in God, or in a God who cares enough to help people live well, it's of great interest to compare how each group of people has solved the common problems that face us all. Since no society has yet achieved perfection, it is certainly informative for everyone to do this, whether or not they believe in a God who tell us how to live. "Moral relativism" is the idea that right and wrong are dependent not on an absolute law, but on situations and societies.
On the other hand, there's wide latitude for different lifestyles within God's will, depending on how various passages in scripture are interpreted. Here again, comparison of different societies can be interesting and helpful. C. S. Lewis wrote, I believe in the preface to The Great Divorce that good is like a tree: the bigger it grows, the further apart the leaves are. It may be that people in different societies have achieved good in an area where ours has not.
God lets us struggle with moral issues because that's how we grow. He lets us make mistakes, because if he were to prevent us from doing evil, we would be like the animals, incapable of growth, and incapable of freely loving our Maker. The freedom God gives us is a very great gift - and a very costly one. It cost Him the life of His Son. It must be very important to Him.
As we struggle with good and evil, and as we grow more into the people God wants us to be, it might help to think of moral good in a society being like health in a body. Ian, you wrote about moral corruption. Moral corruption is a serious problem when it leads to social ills - theft, homelessness, war, broken families...you know the list. Solving these problems is like finding a cure for cancer or heart disease - not easy. But it's definitely worth the effort.
You may have already taken a look at this, but Romans 1:18-32 has a lot to say about this. Especially, in verse 32, Paul says, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." Here is a basis for, like you said, the morals of a society degrading because those in the society gradually call acceptable that which is not.
This should not be surprising, though. Apart from God, there really isn't a good basis for morality of any kind. Moral relativism is on the one hand a desperate attempt to give a foundation where the true foundation has been removed; as you've indicated, this is just holding itself up by its own bootstraps and doomed to fail. On the other hand, it is a sly means by which a man may permit himself to do as he please without making it obvious that he has thrown morality to the wind.
As for your comments, Laurence, I may not be quite understanding part of what you said. Are you claiming that we have latitude in our societies because of the various interpretations of Scripture? If so, I would say this is a dangerous line of reasoning to follow. Many of the sins clearly denounced in Scripture are justified by some by "reinterpreting" other passages. I would agree, though, that the freedom and variety that God has given mankind is a blessed gift which enlivens our relationship with Him. We are not perfect, and even more subtle is the mistake to call necessary--almost to the point of morally necessary--that which God has granted us freedom in Christ. We should never confuse liberty with license, however, and claim as the misguided church did in 1 Corinthians 10:23 that "Everything is permissible." This is the sort of mistake which moves the Church and society farther from God as they turn themselves over to the desires of their hearts.
Post a Comment
<< Home