Conscience - the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action; the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
"They show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." Romans 2:15
I find it weird that people would look to human nature or instinct as a baseline for morality. I've heard so many people say that morality differs from person to person and from place to place, based on what is "right" for each individual. The entire premise is that an individual's nature, as defined above, sets the bar for moral standards. For the sake of argument, I'll gladly consider that line of thinking. It's worth investigating.
But here's a question: if our nature determines our morality, how can we trust our nature to be reliable?
Allow me to explain. It's universally accepted that no human is perfect. This idea seems so trivial, but in reality it says something very deep about humans. Even the staunchest moral relativist will not deny that no one is perfect. If none is perfect, then all are imperfect. It's an admission, by negation, that there is such a thing as "wrong." Even if only on a purely individual, entirely subjective and relative level, "wrong" exists.
It's also universally accepted that humans have a sense of "ought" and "should." We all have standards to live by and things that we value. These are the things what we strive for. Again, even if only on an individual level, there's a notion of "right." We define this as "conscience."
At this point, I must point out something that's pretty obvious: there's a duality to human nature. We are compelled to do both right and wrong. Nature and Conscience are not always in harmony. So I'll refer back to my question. How can we trust our nature to be reliable? How do we decide which compulsions are morally acceptable, and which compulsions are morally reprehensible? What's on the right side and the wrong side in the battle of Nature vs. Nature?
I have an answer to that question, but it's not a popular answer:
There is no meaningful way to determine morality by human nature. There is an absolute standard of morality, and human nature only gets us part of the way there. The best we can ever do is realize that morality exists and we don't meet its standards. Our conscience tells us this, by introspection. We have a sense of what is right, and yet still do wrong.
I'll bet you see where I'm going with this.
The beginning of Paul's letter to the Roman church lays down a pretty shocking statement about the speculations and intellect of man. If by chance you're a reader of this blog other than a small handful of people I know are familiar with it, I encourage you to read that excerpt a couple of times and think about it.
I don't buy into subjective morality. The best offering's I've heard from that kind of thinking are "that may be right for you, but it's wrong for me." I could be a serial rapist or murderer, and subjective morality would have a very hard time implicating me. Yet the thought of serial rapists and murderers makes us uncomfortable, and inevitably conjures a notion of wrongness.
I'll make a bold claim, because I'm not satisfied yet. Subjective morality only exists to assuage the consciences of the guilty. It's the only possible way around the nagging, inescapable condemnation of our own hearts. It's the only way to justify ourselves, the unjustifiable. But it doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. It offers no solution, no answers, and no goodness.
I'll leave with one final question, the biggest one: if you don't believe in God, are you absolutely sure it has nothing to do with the guilt and fear of facing His judgment?
"They show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them." Romans 2:15
I find it weird that people would look to human nature or instinct as a baseline for morality. I've heard so many people say that morality differs from person to person and from place to place, based on what is "right" for each individual. The entire premise is that an individual's nature, as defined above, sets the bar for moral standards. For the sake of argument, I'll gladly consider that line of thinking. It's worth investigating.
But here's a question: if our nature determines our morality, how can we trust our nature to be reliable?
Allow me to explain. It's universally accepted that no human is perfect. This idea seems so trivial, but in reality it says something very deep about humans. Even the staunchest moral relativist will not deny that no one is perfect. If none is perfect, then all are imperfect. It's an admission, by negation, that there is such a thing as "wrong." Even if only on a purely individual, entirely subjective and relative level, "wrong" exists.
It's also universally accepted that humans have a sense of "ought" and "should." We all have standards to live by and things that we value. These are the things what we strive for. Again, even if only on an individual level, there's a notion of "right." We define this as "conscience."
At this point, I must point out something that's pretty obvious: there's a duality to human nature. We are compelled to do both right and wrong. Nature and Conscience are not always in harmony. So I'll refer back to my question. How can we trust our nature to be reliable? How do we decide which compulsions are morally acceptable, and which compulsions are morally reprehensible? What's on the right side and the wrong side in the battle of Nature vs. Nature?
I have an answer to that question, but it's not a popular answer:
There is no meaningful way to determine morality by human nature. There is an absolute standard of morality, and human nature only gets us part of the way there. The best we can ever do is realize that morality exists and we don't meet its standards. Our conscience tells us this, by introspection. We have a sense of what is right, and yet still do wrong.
I'll bet you see where I'm going with this.
The beginning of Paul's letter to the Roman church lays down a pretty shocking statement about the speculations and intellect of man. If by chance you're a reader of this blog other than a small handful of people I know are familiar with it, I encourage you to read that excerpt a couple of times and think about it.
I don't buy into subjective morality. The best offering's I've heard from that kind of thinking are "that may be right for you, but it's wrong for me." I could be a serial rapist or murderer, and subjective morality would have a very hard time implicating me. Yet the thought of serial rapists and murderers makes us uncomfortable, and inevitably conjures a notion of wrongness.
I'll make a bold claim, because I'm not satisfied yet. Subjective morality only exists to assuage the consciences of the guilty. It's the only possible way around the nagging, inescapable condemnation of our own hearts. It's the only way to justify ourselves, the unjustifiable. But it doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. It offers no solution, no answers, and no goodness.
I'll leave with one final question, the biggest one: if you don't believe in God, are you absolutely sure it has nothing to do with the guilt and fear of facing His judgment?
No comments:
Post a Comment