Morality does not derive from Laws.
Morality derives from God: from the nature, purposes, and methods of God; as manifested in divine creation.
The morality of Men derives from their personal affiliation to God*.
*The morality-enabling affiliation to God must be personal; it may or may not also be collective in different places and eras; but it must be personal.
Note: This is intended as a summary statement of the argument behind today's earlier post.
I appreciate the way you have framed this important theme. First we must acknowledge that morality is of God. Next, we must understand that aligning our morality with God's is not a matter of adhering to some externally imposed law. Finally, we must recognize that morality alignment is an overwhelmingly personal and relational matter and not a matter of dogged obedience to some rigid, externally imposed law that is regarded as "reality."
ReplyDeleteSorry for the above -- it simply helped me get the ideas right (which I hope I did).
It strikes me that Jesus is the example to follow in this regard. His morality (and everything else) was finely attuned to God's morality and the motivations and purposes inherent in Creation, and it's quite revealing that he did not simply bow his head and follow the religious laws of his time. Quite the contrary, he blatantly violated many of them. However, Jesus's relationship with God was so well-aligned that he was able to draw upon his love through creative acts, especially the creation of Heaven.
@Frank - Yes, that's it. The example of Jesus is apposite - it shows the distinction I am getting at.
ReplyDeleteThis is another of those questions where it is very helpful, indeed necessary, to acknowledge the change in human consciousness through history - such that what was once net-good (morality based in laws) may become net-evil.
Laws are positively valuable when, but only when, they are not regarded as the ultimate source of morality.
We have now reached a point when an atheist-materialist judges X to be morally-wrong *because* it violates Y Law - and, for him, that is the end of the discussion.
If pressed hard he may justify by arguing that Y Law is good, or at least better than nothing, or that without Laws there would be unconstrained selfish exploitation...
But such arguments are framed in utilitarian terms and include multiple probabilistic predictions; and the real force of argument and source of vehemence stops with a dogmatic belief in the intrinsic goodness of Law Y.
Publicly stated dogmatism of such a belief is, indeed, a major source of moral self-esteem in our culture. It is meant to be, and mostly understood as, a marker of moral integrity.