There are various areas of thought that have existed for thousands of years that have served as the basis for the assumption that there must be a god. One area is that of the existence of creation – when and how it was incepted – and to many minds – by “whom” – which is where the notion of god arises as many have assumed that something so big and complex had to have an ubiquitous, intelligent author. I won’t delve into this matter at this time, but there are many cogent, salient and sensible arguments why this does not have to be the case at all. Cosmologies aside, the next area of thought that seems to compel a god is the question of right vs wrong / good vs evil, as it were. It is the assumption and assertion of many that there has to be a final, supreme arbiter of what is right and what is wrong – as there has to be an absolute relationship, otherwise the two cannot exist. In religious parlance, we are talking about an objective morality – a morality that exists apart from this world yet determines the final status, as it were, of its inhabitants. All very philosophical, fanciful - and misguided. Morality claims a tacit authenticity as most everyone would assert that right and wrong exist. Everyone has their inner voice that tells them what is right and wrong. And so right and wrong have to exist. And they do – for every individual – but – in every individual it is an individual determination. Everyone decides what is right and wrong for him or for herself. This, in and of itself, does not prove that right and wrong exist in the macro. It only demonstrates that right and wrong are micro concepts – individually-held concepts –and hence – relative concepts. Right and wrong does not exist unto itself. Ergo: there are no actions that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Right and wrong is something we each and all wrestle with as things enter our consciences. Situations and events come from nowhere and leave us pondering the right and wrong of what just happened or what is right or wrong to do about it - It is part of life - the human condition. How we respond is a function of our consciousness. Our level of consciousness. How broad and integrated our consciousness. The broader and more integrated, the bigger and more complex the picture and understanding of life we maintain in our daily lives and decision making. The bigger and more complex the picture, the more nuanced the understanding of life and its seemingly inherent truths – such as the notion of right and wrong. A broader intellect/consciousness sees things not so much in black and white as it does in degrees. Things are seen and understood more as a matter of relative consciousness as they are as absolute in nature. The matter of right and wrong is a perfect example. Morality, or right and wrong, is a human construct. It is a product of human consciousness and it is decided by human consciousness. It is not absolute because it is tied to human consciousness and each consciousness is individual. People decide every day what is right and wrong for themselves – and they freely point fingers at other as acting rightly or wrongly – which, again, is their personal interpretation or application of their sense of morality. There may be actions which most of us deem as “wrong” – but that does not confer an absolute status to such an action. Take the most extreme example of what people might agree is “wrong” – killing another human being – taking a life. It seems like the most obvious example of right and wrong. It’s even a commandment – Thou shalt not kill – which is a mandate across all the major religions in their codified behavior guidelines. But it doesn’t take much dissecting before we discover the relative nature of such a seeming absolute moral stricture. Anyone can think of many situations in which killing another human being may not only be justified, but appropriate. As such, criminal law is quite parsed on the subject, differentiating all sorts of types of killing another human being, pursuant to both the nature of the situation (such as self defense) and the mental/emotional state of the one doing the killing. In short, it is difficult to find situations in which there is always an absolute morality to be applied. Even child abuse lacks a certain black and whiteness when it is realized and taken into account that most child abusers were themselves abused – again, the status or quality of the perpetrator, as in state of mind/state of being entering into the equation – and as is does legally and in the decision regarding possible penalties. Where this is headed is the conclusion that right and wrong are relative notions on a relative plane called life on earth. Thus, good and evil are necessarily intertwined and not absolutes. They are matters of perception, understanding and discernment at the level of individual consciousness. People, by and large, always feel justified in what they do. They have reason for what they do and tend to stand by them – feeling and asserting their righteousness – even when they are cutting off heads in defense of what they hold sacred – their notion of god. Thus, it can be said that all action is consciousness-appropriate. Appropriate from a particular consciousness, given that consciousness’s level of evolution – again stating, that the more evolved , the more complex, the less simplistic, the less black and white, the more nuanced, the “less” absolute”. The bottom line: As morality is a human invention/convention – and as it follows that right and wrong are not absolutes - no absolute arbiter of right and wrong is needed or necessary. Hence, as an argument for the existence of “god”, objective morality is a fail. Shalom
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 19:01:16 +0000