(GYM Lessons) Moral Makeup:

When I go to the gym during the week I don't like to watch the TV's there. Not because I don't like TV, but because I can never find a remote and they are always on some channel, I don't care for. So, I like to take some reading material that I find online. This usually has to do with Christian Evidences and Apologetics to some degree. The past two weeks I have read two very interesting works and I really wanted to share them here. My apologies if this runs long again, but when it comes to explanations putting forth a minimal effort is not enough I believe. Regardless of the size these are worth the read.

This document was written by David L. Lipe, was published by the Apologetics Press, and is called "The Foundations Of Morality". I was impressed by it's ingenuity on the topic or morality even though the work itself was only some twelve pages. The general purpose was to discuss the building blocks of ethics and morality within a culture as well as an individual. It also goes into defining the difference between secular and religious ethics. Finally it rounds off the paper by analyzing the implications of the universality and nature of morals. (That sounds more confusing than it is, but I'm crunching down here to keep from posting too much so bear with me please.)

*Some sub-topics or themes within this document that I thought were worth meditation or reflection are;

- Cut-Flowers
The cut-flowers thesis, coined by Glenn C. Graber, speaks of a child who sees a flower he wants. The child reaches down and grabs the pretty flower ripping it out of the ground, but the child left the roots and the dirt in the ground as they were not pleasing to him and did not seem necessary when all he wanted was the pretty flower. Thinking it would be so simple the child re-plants it somewhere else without the roots. Obviously the flower does not survive without its foundation and so either are morals. This thesis was created to explain the decline in morality that has been more obvious by the passing months let alone years in this country. It represents the removal of the moral foundation, which many would argue against, and then shows how it withers slowly away. These same persons however, do not see the value in the roots of the plant, even in the face of our withering flower. The document goes on in detail about the purpose and implications of this thesis today, but I'll stop here.

- Religious vs Secular Morality
A long lived debate and indeed a familiar one. The document goes on to define the two and how they work. Then pitting the two against each other in what is without question a "no contest" fight. Simply put, secular morals are generally devised of a persons choosing. This may come from outside sources through life or it may be of that individuals design somehow. In both cases however, it is a piecemeal system of what do I want to believe is right and wrong as well as what do I want to apply to my life. In essence a subjective morality. A religious morality however looks to a singular outside source, a divine source, regardless of personal desires, and then applies those morals to oneself. Keeping a single standard set by this divine source, holding it to be objective. When the comparison comes though we see that a subjective moral system is inherently faulty so long as an objective one exists...and one does. Why does it fall apart? Because, an objective one means that their is a single standard, a fact, a permanent unyielding truth that causes no conflict within itself while a subjective one means just the opposite. That each persons morals are personalizable and are somehow still accurate. Basically stating that what you believe is right is right irregardless of what that means. Allowing killers, rapists, and thieves to be free in their desires and "ethics", but that is quite unacceptable to the vast majority of the secular morality grouping when asked. So then even they believe their must be a true standard (an "objective" one) when the chips fall. Yet when the time comes to choose a standard they keep to what they believe to be right and wrong as small groups or individuals and so it remains, faulty as it is, a subjective morality for them by their own design.

- Universal Experiances: (A Moral Breakdown)
(This was new to me. Instead of going on about morals as a singular matter the author broke it down into building blocks and I was truly impressed at what it reveals, though I doubt I can accurately explain in a paragraph.) The author goes on to point out that all men feel some form of moral obligation. It doesn't matter how insane or clearheaded you are, we all feel that their is a right and wrong and generally we feel the urge to do what is right though we may act otherwise. Is what is right and wrong the same for everyone, of course not and that is the two (main) ingredients that make our morality. Why is this important? Because, we can put reason and logic to define how we come up with our actions and decisions, but we cannot explain away our base calling to hold right and wrong or our base calling to do right. Granted what actions a man takes may be wrong even though his neighbor sees it as right it is not the ultimate action that I am interested in. Instead it is the imposing conscience that each man has. Though we have learned and been taught what right and wrong are (and that knowledge may be faulty depending on the situation) the conscience itself (the urge to observe right and wrong) is consistent and active. What does this mean? Well, the author understands it to mean that their is something upon all of us (what we might refer to as a conscience) that holds a standard and a law to which we are subject. Every time a person has a chance to help someone for instance, he has the option of helping or not helping and though his decision is often made based off of what he has learned of right and wrong, he none the less feels the need to chose and then carries regret or guilt if he chose inappropriately. It is not his terms of right and wrong, but his motivator to chose (his conscience) that the author holds to be a "moral law" placed down upon us all. Of course I am summarizing while the author went into great detail in explaining and proving and citing various sources, but I have actually heard others state similar concepts before that hadn't really sunk in until now. So essentially a persons morals are made up of intellect (teachings and personal judgment ability) and conscience (some apparent external motivator), the later motivating the former to make a choice of right and wrong. This is a universal situation among mankind.

- That little voice: (Moral Law)
So this "moral law" is an un-definable external motivator. Now the author, having spoken enough on the topic to make the point correctly and clearly, approaches the connection between God and this conscience we all carry. After addressing the obvious questions and opposition to his document and then going on through a great discourse of how logically such a conscience cannot be fabricated or individualized he ends the work with this statement, "The following logical implications, therefore, may be established from the above discussion: (1) there is a moral law that man feels compelled to obey; (2) the reality of God is reflected in each person's conscience; and (3)a personal being (God) exists and urges moral obligation upon every human" and I am compelled to agree with him having found sound wisdom in what he says. I've had this fight a few times and I had never thought to approach it in this way. I may try it in the future as I would like to see what those opposing have to say. From where I sit this seems both sane and sound, but when dealing with those who don't agree with my beliefs things like sane and sound aren't always the most important thing it would seem.

(I 'really' wanted to go on, but space does not permit. Feel free to email or post here with questions or comments, they are always welcome.)