You don't need a Bible, and you don't need a god, to come up with a system of morality.
The key to understanding morality is wellbeing.
Morality is (generally) that which promotes
order,
tranquility,
peace,
cleanness,
health,
fairness,
freedom,
prosperity, and
individual rights such as property rights,
... for the greatest number of people. And morality balances these factors when they conflict with each other.
This can be tricky. It's much more difficult (and nuanced) than simply opening up an old book.
For instance: If a government requires its citizens to put all their property and money into a big bucket, and then divides it equally among the citizens, ARGUABLY that eliminates poverty and hunger ... which is a good (moral) thing. BUT it violates INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS (remember "life, liberty, and property" from the Fifth Amendment). It's wrong for you (or a government) to steal from me, EVEN IF IT'S FOR A "GOOD CAUSE."
The exception to the "no government stealing" rule is TAXES. Taxes are a necessary evil. The government's legitimate job is to protect our borders, maintain an army, repair roads and bridges, and administer criminal justice (and it needs MONEY to do these things ... dammit). It is NOT the legitimate job of the government to redistribute wealth. Because that is morally wrong.
And creating rules about taxation is infinitely complex: Unrealized capital gains? Inheritance tax? Graduated income tax? Tax deferment for retirement accounts? "Loopholes" that the government creates to encourage people to do things that the government likes? Tax credits that reward people for having children? Exemptions for charitable donations?
Legitimate moral rules prohibit certain things, such as:
disorder,
fighting (you should do your fighting in court),
slavery,
theft,
fraud,
and murder.
The concept of morality is fluid because advancing technology sometimes creates new means by which people can hurt other people, or it creates new situations that never existed before.
|
At this point, a Christian might come up with this "gotcha" question:
"One person says that cannibalism is wrong. Another person says that cannibalism is okay. Without an objective standard for morality, how do we know which position is correct?" Answer: The human race has certain instincts, and one of them is self-preservation. Another basic instinct is the desire to belong to a group or society where people work together and help each other and exchange goods and services and money. Anyone who practices cannibalism is not going to be accepted by the group. The practice of cannibalism is counterproductive, and a prohibition against it is a good idea. The objective standard is wellbeing for the greatest number of people, and rules that don't violate individual rights. |
|
|
|