Right and Wrong

Morals, I think, are one of the hardest parts of organized religion to swallow. Some people don't like morals because morals are definite "do not cross or else" lines and they don't like being told what to do. Others don't like morals because morals are laws, and we are supposed to be living by the law of love and not of fear. This is more of a christian thing.

But first, what are morals? Morals, in the sense I am talking about here, that is, a moral system, are black and white statements about what is right and what is wrong. Morals command certain actions and forbid certain other actions.

Many world religions have similar moral codes. In fact, ethics would probably be the greatest similarity between otherwise diverse religions. I am far from saying that Christianity, Judaism, Bhuddism, Islam, and Hindu all have the same ethics, just couched in different language. That is not true. However, all moral codes cover the same basic ground. For instance some religions allow polygamy, others do not, but all agree that you should not simply sleep with any woman you want. Some forbid violence altogether, others allow almost unlimited violence to anyone outside the tribe, most fall somewhere in between, but all place some kind of restriction on interpersonal aggression. The similarity is not necessarily in specific laws, but in the areas that the laws cover.

Morals inevitably develop into a system of rules. This is how they always have been, and probably how they always will be. Even in Christianity, under the supposed "law of love" we still have labored under specific rules. So the specific questions to answer are, why do morals develop or devolve into lists of rules, is it possible to have a religion without a moral code, and is christianity helped or hurt by rules.

I think lists of rules are natural. In the same way that we have a natural need to systematize what we believe, so we have a natural urge to systematize what we consider right and wrong. The one follows naturally from the other. What we believe about the universe and about God will ultimately determine what we believe is right and wrong, especially in regards to the authority of our morals. In their essence, morals are really free from any concept of reward or punishment. The statement, "I should" is a completely different category than "I want to" or "I am compelled to" or "it would be more convenient for me to". The moral capacity is something entirely different from any capacity for self-preservation, and it could not have come from self-preservation. In the essence of a moral code there is no concept of "do this because the results will be good" or "don't do this because the results will be unpleasant." Moral codes say "Don't do this because it is wrong" and leave it at that. At some basic level we all know that right and wrong are authoritative in and of themselves, without any element of self-preservation. This can be proved by the fact that we frequently find ourselves experiencing moral urges that collide with our other instincts.

That having been said, self-preservation can be used to support morality. This can be done in two basic ways:

Intrinsically: God has designed the universe with right and wrong at the very heart of it. Scientists think the space time continuum is the most elemental thing, but they are wrong. Right and wrong are much more basic. So for actions that are wrong there are unpleasant consequences. Evil comes back upon those who work it, inevitably. Morals really are for the greater good of society, and so some people tell us that why come from our herd instincct, to preserve society. This is not logical, because 1) it begs the question by assuming that we would feel a moral compunction to preserve society, and 2) sometimes the right thing to do is ignore society and preserve the individual. However, a society of moral people is a better society because that is how God designed us to work. A sexually pure individual can not get STD's, will run less risk of mental and emotional pain of damaging relationships, because that is how God designed us to work. So reward and punishment are intrinsic in the results of our actions. This is complicated by the fact that other people's actions affect us, and our actions affect other people so that we sometimes suffer the consequences of other people's actions, just as much as they suffer ours. However the rule remains true.

Special: A person in authority can choose to inflict a punishment on a person for their actions, or choose to grant a reward. Parents use this all the time to teach right and wrong. God has used it as well, especially in the Old testament. He doesn't do so as often or obviously in the New Testament, but He still does use special rewards and punishments on occasion. If He has moved away from special reward and punishment, it is likely because He wants us to move beyond it. However, that does not in any way remove or mitigate the intrinsic rewards and punishments that He designed into nature from the start.

In the question of religion, special punishment is a touchy question. Special punishments can be used correctly, in service of correct morals, or incorrectly, in the service of a flawed moral system.

So what makes a moral system right? It must conform with the nature of God. It most follow from what is true. By faith we appreciate what is true, and then by morals we do what is good. The nature of God is love. Right and wrong flow from love. If you love perfectly you will act perfectly. Why then the need for lists of rules? The answer is that we are fallen human beings. When a child is born it is a completely self-centered creature. He takes only, he gives nothing. This self centered attitude is exactly correct in an infant. In a toddler it is a problem that must be countered. Moral or ethical training for children almost entirely consists of teaching them to overcome their "me first" attitude. Most children do not simply apprehend this truth. We all learned it over time through specific rules. First we learned not to hit Mommy because she would punish us. Maybe we still wanted to hit Mommy from time to time, but we knew that she hit harder. Eventually we learned that it is not nice to hit Mommy. Slowly we learned that Mommy loved us, and that she did good things for us, and that we should do nice things back, and so on, slowly, by degrees, learning to live more and more outside ourselves. But for most of us, we were doing what was right because we were forced to, long before we learned the why of it. This is why moralists moralize, that is, make systems of rules. The general principle is "Love the Lord your God with all your being, and Love your neighbor as yourself," but very few people simply comprehend that principle. We have to be taught it by people who already know it, and it has to be applied to specific situations, which turn out to be rules, however you look at it.

In the army I use and teach a particularly complicated piece of equipment. I have been using it for so long it is second nature to me. I can hear what it is saying to me almost like a language. For new learners I give them rules of thumb to tide them over until they have enough practice to reach that level. This sound generally means this, that sound generally means that. Rules of thumb. When they have thousands of hours operating it, they will no longer need those rules, they will know. Until then, those rules will keep them alive.

Moral laws serve the same purpose. A perfect person, Jesus, loved everyone and everything perfectly and so always acted perfectly. His followers did not. So He left them rules of thumb to follow until they had enough practice that they didn't need them anymore. We all start out with rules of thumb, and to get the most out of them, they must be good rules.

Another reason for rules and laws is the effect on society. A society that follows moral laws is going to be happier, no matter why the people are following those laws. It may not be a heaven on earth, but it would certainly prevent hell on earth.

So is it possible to have a religion without a moral code? I don't know. It certainly wouldn't fit my working definition of a "system of beliefs, morals and worship" but it might be something that could popularly be called a religion. Or perhaps it would more commonly be called "spirituality". I am skeptical of such terms. I am skeptical of anything that purports to provide spiritual "enlightenment" without rules of conduct. I am afraid that without real honesty, purity, humility and sobriety, we will be running after an emotional high, while the term "spiritual" will give us just enough of a sense of superiority to make us insufferable. I do not see how there can be any true spirituality without true virtue. Unless my spirituality makes me work, really work, unless it pushes me to real prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude, I don't consider it worth much of anything. This is the main problem I have with certain Christian sects that take too wide a view of "God's Forgiveness" saying it doesn't matter what crimes you commit, God will forgive them. He will cover them up with the merits of Christ's holiness, like snow covering a pile of manure. I grew up on a farm, and I can tell you, a pile of crap covered with snow is still a pile of crap. So if my religion ever ceases to hurt, ceases to challenge me and point out my faults and make me squirm, I will be left with two choices. I will either have to believe that I have become perfect, or I will have to believe that my religion is flawed.

So has Christianity in particular been helped or hurt by our insistence on rules? Well, rules are definitely not the best way to acheive real holiness, they are just the only way. Without laws of conduct there would be no approaching real holiness. We would have no place to start. Even if we were taught the law of Love in our brains, it would never make its way to our heart without action. In order to act we would have to want to act, and we would have to know how to act in specific situations, and without Charity being completely a part of us, we are always going to need a lesser reason to act, and a lesser way of knowing how to act. So I think the laws, the true laws based on the word of God, have helped. We certainly can not do without them, and our society would be a right old mess without them. However, I have no doubt that some people have hurt themselves and others with laws. Anytime we consider the law to be an end in itself, and not a means to something more perfect, we do everyone a disservice, and I am afraid this has happened far too often. We fall in love with the image in the mirror, and never turn to the Beloved who is standing behind us. Christians, and especially Catholics, have a tendency to see the rules and follow the rules, and keep following the rules, and keep following the rules, and never get to the point where we go beyond them, because the morals of Christianity are good morals. If you follow them conscientiously you will be what most people would consider a decent sort of person. However we are not called to be decent people. We are called to be like God, like Jesus. We will have to be decent people a long time before we become holy people, but we will never be holy if we are content with merely decent.

Whatever the case, it is not the rules themselves that are to blame. They do only what they were intended to do, they point the way. It is the teachers and followers congregating around signposts when they should be walking that cause the problems.

This I will say. If you follow the rules because they are true and good, and you follow them to the best of your ability, God will not leave you alone. He will not let you get comfortable. Unless you take measures to keep Him out, He will find a way to draw you further in, either by showing you a glimpse of something more, or perhaps by lighting a fire under your tail. Or both.

Next I have to think about worship.

Also, please pray for another soldier, injured when his brakes failed on a steep and dangerous hill. He lost a few square inches of scalp but seatbelt, helmet and guardian angel were all working together to save his life. His kevlar helmet was crushed and deformed but better the helmet than his head. He was conscious and coherent when they put him on the bird, and after surgery he is expected to do fine. Still, head injuries are nothing to mess around with, so keep him in your prayers please. We don't have that much more time over here.