Morally Right, and Morally Wrong (Pt 1)

[archistrage]

I’ve recently started taking several philosophy classes at my school. One of the biggest topics in each of them, and in fact is specifically one of the classes, is Ethics. We’ve been discussing in lectures, and reading in our books all about the various moral theories throughout the ages, and discussing whether we believe them to be true or not.

Now these issues are things that I’ve spent lots of time thinking about to myself, but I’m just now having to find ways to put them into words, in order to show people what it is I believe. So I would like to run them past you guys just to see what kind of responses I can expect to get throughout the year, as well as just hear what you have to say on these things.

First off, I would like to state that I don’t believe in the separation of Good and Evil. What I mean by this is that I don’t think you could describe something as good (+1), something as evil (-1), and something as neutral (0). I believe that what we call evil is merely a corruption of good (1). So for instance something we describe as evil, is really something that contains less, and less, and less Good. So for another math example, (1) is perfect goodness, and it merely decreases in value, however it cannot reach (0), because evil cannot exist without something good to corrupt.

{I hope you guys like the math references. I believe that there a good way of grasping these concepts. Just please don’t think of .9999 as a nearly perfect number, while .0001 is a conceptually evil number}

Now I think that there are a good many people who share that same people. After all, God made the entire Universe, God is good, there is no other ‘creator’, therefore all there is is God, and all there is is good. So what we call evil must somehow be based off of Good (or lack thereof).

So, now that we have that situated, let’s take a closer took at Good and Evil. Let’s take a look at some of the primary examples of what we say are wrong.

Murder- Quite possibly the biggest of them all. We say murder is wrong because it takes away a person’s right to life, or to put it better, a person’s right to live. To have a life, and make something of it. It also interferes in the happiness of others as well. A person’s family, their friends, the man they met in the coffee shop whom they gave a good piece of advice to. All of these people have this person ripped from their lives.

Rape- Rape is often called ‘murder of the soul’, and anyone who has heard some of these cases will understand. We say rape is wrong, because it stops a person from having the right to say no, to have a choice in the matter. To control who it is that they wish to share that intimate relationship with (intimate not merely being defined as sexual).

Stealing- We say stealing is wrong, because it stops a person (the seller) from having the right to sell a particular item. The seller has worked hard to build and establish their store, they have kept a particularly devout attitude of servitude towards their customers, in order to build a reputation as a worthy shop to buy from. They’ve done all of these things, and someone steps in and steals an item, and they interfere with that system, and make a mockery of it.

These are the 3 biggest crimes humans have always faced. I would like to point out to you that the biggest similarity between the three of them, is that fact that it takes away a person’s right to do that particular action in their life.

Now one of my biggest beliefs about God, is his respect for our free will. I believe that God’s biggest gift to mankind is not that he gave us freewill, but that he lets us keep it. After all we’ve said and done, he has let us keep it. He has even gone so far in this respect, in that he refuses to force himself into our lives, without our consent. Take for example, in the Gospels. When Christ returns to his home town of Nazareth, he is amazed at the lack of Faith he finds there, and as a result, he is unable to perform any great acts or miracles, apart from healing a few beggars. Now contrast this with earlier in the Gospels, when whenever a person comes up to him and asks to be healed, he says, to the effect, may you be healed by the strength of your faith, or, “your faith has healed you.” This is not because the power and strength of our Faith empowers his healing abilities, but because he will not force himself on us anymore than we desire.

I would like to point out, that it is in returning to God, that we feel the rush of embrace into his arms. Take the Prodigal Son, and realizing what a fool he had been and returning home, the Father met him halfway. That is the mercy and love of God, that when we have come to understanding just what it means to have him in our life, and to accept him, that he rushes to welcome us back into his abode.

So, for my first try, I will define an action to be ‘evil’, as something that impedes or hinders upon a person’s right in exercising their free will, or in other words, in existing, and living their life.

(Continued in Part II)

 

[archistrage]

Okay, it was a good first try, but not perfect. We also must remember to include, not merely man, but men; society in general. After all, man comes together for the protection and welfare of not only themselves, but others as well. “United we stand, divide we fall,” that sort of thing. Society, the whole idea of ‘civilized’ man, is base on the notion that there are certain previously agreed upon rules amongst men for what can, and cannot be done (the things I am discussing at this very moment). Many times we find that a law is not perfect, and so it must be revised, or done away with for hopefully one that will succeed where it failed. This concept of revising laws in society, is no different from a boy changing his moral code, after finding out that something he thought was acceptable, turns out to be harmful to himself or others.

In that sense, of revising and editing some law or code, we must always bear in mind that man and society are (both) always progressing, evolving you might say. As man comes into the possession of new knowledge and new understanding, he must at some point in time share this knowledge with others. It is at that point that society must decide where in it’s laws does this new knowledge fit, how it can be applied to what we already know, and by what practical means will it physically affect us?

So, for our second try. An action can be defined as ‘evil’, providing that it in some way hinders that right of man and society to exist, and to live (progress).

Well it was an even better second try, but we’re still forgetting a few things.

As mentioned above, I showed how first knowledge affects man, then society. Then we must deal with how society (this includes just man, or ‘a’ man), deals with the rest of the world, i.e. Nature, all of Creation.

One of the things we must bear in mind is our relationship with Nature. Human beings are the only sentient creatures on the planet. In short, we are the only ones who ate of the Tree of Knowledge, so we are the only ones who are capable of knowing good and evil. We must remember this, because often times their can be acts which we might say are evil, but really aren’t. There’s actually a difference between what is wrong, and being Evil. Being Evil is committing an act you know to be wrong, being aware of the harm, but doing it anyway. In both of those sentence, the definition for ‘wrong’ is what I am debating through out this topic.

So Nature isn’t evil. Well, this certainly hinders our progress, but nevertheless we will pro-gress. Let’s take a look at some of the things we call Natural Disasters.

Forest Fires- Maybe not one of the biggest natural disasters, but certainly one of the most common, and therefore the one we have the most experience with. Now in this case, I’m not talking about Arson, or ignorant teens, I mean as it happens in Nature. Lightning strikes a dead tree in an overgrown forest, sparking a great fire that destroys a beautiful, and majestic scene of green. While it is sad, yes, it is not a total loss, because out of the ashes of the trees, leaves, and plants, a blanket of nutrients now cover the grounds, providing nourishment for a new generation of life. It is a loss, but that life has not left the system, because it is on the ground ready to provide for a new generation of life. (Math Reference: Conservation of Energy)

Actually, I think I’ll just leave it at Forest Fires. I could go on with Volcanoes and Hurricanes, but I think you guys get the point.

Okay, so now we have a new factor in the equation, nature. Again, however, we see a similar situation arise. What we call ‘wrong’, is merely the result of an action that hinders life from living to its fullest extent. I think one of the things you would notice about those trees, is that after a few fires the trees would be growing more slowly, not so thick, farther apart, or less of them (?).

Okay, so here’s our third try. An action can be declared ‘wrong’, providing that it in some way hinders an man’s, society’s, and/or Nature’s right to exist, and to live.

Okay, so we’ve reached the totality. We can’t go higher than Nature without getting to God. And considering that the greatest minds of the last 5000 years have tried to put God in writing, and they’ve all failed, I won’t even attempt it.

Now as for my definition. I believe it is correct in essential, however it is missing one final element, the part that allows all of this to progress.

Here’s my final definition.

An action may be declared wrong, providing it hinders man’s, society’s, and/or Nature’s right to exist, and to live, while providing a chance for the three to learn from the circumstances, to prevent it from being repeated.

The reason I include Nature in that definition, is that I believe that’s what evolution is. However seeing as how that’s a banned topic, I won’t discuss it, and just leave it at that.

Now if you really wanted to put it in its simplest form, you could rewrite it as "an action may be declared wrong, providing it hinders an entity’s right to exist, and to live.

What I mean by entity, is a body made up of smaller parts. For instance, government is an entity. It is composed of millions of people. People themselves are entities. You and I are. We are made up of Body, Soul, and Spirit. Our body itself being made up of different organs, which are made up of different tissues, which are made up of different cell, molecules, atoms, particles. You can even describe God as an entity, although it doesn’t use the same definition. God is the entity upon which all others are founded. The ‘corner stone’ of Creation as we say. Because though we are many parts, we are one body, we have several tissue, that form one organ, different cells that form one tissue. At the beginning of all of Creation, you find God as the One upon which all others are formed.

What do you think?

Archistrage

 

[camerong]

At the risk of oversimplifying, is it possible that terms evil and wrong simply describe the absence of God, or the disobeyance of God’s will, respectively?

You’ve added progress to the list of things that are good, and thus inhibiting progress is wrong or evil. But that does not seem clearly true. To me, progress is helpful because it enables us to better care for the sick and the poor. Progress is extremely unhelpful, however, in that it pulls us away form God–the once-baptized world is likely at its least Holy point since Christ, largely because of progress. There would be no progress in the garden, had we not fallen, no?

But its not clear if you are trying to reach this definition purely through reason, or with the help of sacred scripture and tradition.

 

[archistrage]

First off, I am referring to progress in the sense of acquiring new knowledge, and it’s practical (yet moral) way we use it in society.

Second off, it is not progress that turns people away from. People choose to turn away from God, and from then on try to apply everything they know into how it supports their claim to their people. I find this one very funny, because often times the things that Atheists try to use to prove that God doesn’t exist, I think point all that much harder as evidence of a Creator.

The reason that people think this way, is because of the separation of Science and Religion we have adopted in our “modern” society. I believe that in Religion, we have the foundation for the Truth, the answers to all our ‘whys?’ in science. I think that in all we study and learn about Science and Nature, we should check to see how it points back to our Religion.

God is Truth, and whether you seek him from a scientific point of view, or from the religion point of view, if you go finding God, he will find you.

(And in case that doesn’t answer your last question, I am trying to use both scripture and reason to reach this definition)

Archistrage

 

[camerong]

I still think you haven’t established that acquiring new knowledge is good, such that hindering it can be wrong. Christ talks about the faith of a child, saints talk about the faith of peasants… While faith may undoubtedly coexist with increasing education and knowledge, there is also little doubt that these things often have a tendency to turn us from God. But even if knowledge did not hinder, if we look to God for all our values, its not clear that an increase in knowledge helps us become more faithful or help others become more faithful.

It is obvious that some knowledge is necessary–but you talk about an increase in knowledge from generation to generation. It seems to me the first apostles had all the knowledge we need to be as Godly as we might be.

 

[archistrage]

And what knowledge did they have? They had been given great gifts of wisdom and understanding by the Holy Spirit. Great knowledge of God, knowledge of Truth.

I study the Universe, because I wish to learn about God, to appreciate him in his totality as our Creator. Just as one would study the beautiful paintings to learn about its artist, so do I study the rest of Creation to study learn about God.

And I say once more to you, that learning more about the Universe does not draw you away from God. As it says in Genesis, God created the Universe, and saw that it was good. It was only man that God created with the ability to choose between good and evil. Also, as Christ says, “It is not that which goes into the body that corrupts it, but that which comes forth.”

I would also like to point out to you, that man sins for two reasons, ignorance and pride. Pride, from saying that he knows better than God, and through ignorance, from not knowing what he is doing. (Hmm, lack of knowledge?)

Yes, Christ does say to believe like a little child. To have that unquestioning faith. And it is on top of that faith that I seek to build my understanding. The Church gives me the reasons for why these things exist, and science seeks to discover the means. I do not question the beliefs of the Church. I believe with all my heart that they are Truth, and it is from that Truth that I build upon how things could have come into existence.

Archistrage