a new morality (?)

for awhile now, i've been plagued by the idea of what morality is, why it is and where it comes from. all my life i have been raised within the system of what might be called the Judeo-Christian moral tradition, and i certainly mean it no disrespect by questioning or deconstructing it. i don't mean to pick at it simply to get away from it or pull it apart to justify my immoral actions. the reason is this: i have a hard time doing anything just because somebody tells me to. its incredibly stubborn, i know...and it shows a lack of trust -- in God, perhaps, and the basic goodness of a moral code -- and say what you want about my failures in faith, but i have come to realize this: "because i say so" is an unacceptable reason for anyone to do anything, and biblically, it is rarely the reason God ever gives. oh sure, He punctuates with that a lot, but he never fails to prove Himself.

God, as creator of nature, therefore works through a natural process; as designer of a universe held together by laws of physics He must work through those physical laws as well -- i think of them as the work gloves with which the Hand of God moves. the notion that miracles, that signs and wonders can be explained by natural phenomenon therefore is not a problem for me. to many people of faith, it is considered a blow to what they believe, the work of people who are trying to tear down the supernatural and replace it with a mundane, natural explanation. but if God is the creator, and creation is nature, than there is no such thing as "supernatural" -- or, rather, everything in creation is supernatural...and if you ever study biology or astronomy or geology, it really boggles the mind; nature itself verges on the supernatural, and it is almost incredible -- the perfection of the life cycles of plants and animals, or the immensity of outer space, or the fine calibration of the earth we live on. the scientific explanation never detracts from the power and sovreignty of God, it points out just how powerful and sovreign He is. discovering the physical laws that govern natural events, be they everyday occurances or miraculous wonders, simply give us an explanation of what is happening, and aid our appreciation of how and why it did happen.

when it comes to the question of human nature, things become more controversial, more arguable; few can agree on what is 'natural' for humanity, and discovering the normative properties of the race is either used or seen to be used as a way to oppress the non-normal; certainly there is that danger, and whether or not discovering a norm is undesirable because of that danger is another discussion entirely. at any rate, there is little agreement as far as what human nature is, and there is less agreement about what 'natural laws' govern it. morality is an attempt to the answer that question of the natural laws of humanity.

if our system of morality is God-given, from On High and written in stone, there is still much to be discovered about that system. following the moral code is certainly good enough, but for many understanding why is an important part of that act of obedience as well, to say nothing of the need to explain to those individuals who are disinclined to follow certain of those moral tenents why obedience is necessary. a moral system that does not contain an answer to the question "why?" amounts to brainwashing or mind-control -- to finally use the analogy i've been setting up all of this time, it amounts to observing natural phenomenon without having any concept of the physical laws that govern it -- it is mysterious at best, confusing at worst. therefore, if morality is to be taken from On High, it still requires a why; if God is the source of our moral system in a "down from the mountain" fashion, it still must contain reasons for its own formulation, because we know that God does not allow natural phenomenon to stand alone without physical laws just as we know he does not allow a moral system to stand alone without its own reasons for being -- the explanation of which is not to detract from the authority or sovreignty of God, but to demonstrate its fullness.

and yet by the Divine system mankind is a complete moral failure; so much so that we've managed to fail in several different ways. our inability to live up to the Divine Moral Standard is the reason for Christ (who came not to do away with, but to fulfill 'the Law') and his death on the Cross. as a race we have fallen so far from the finish line we've needed even more Divine assistance than we knew to begin with. in other ways, we have surpassed the Judeo-Christian Divine Moral Standard of the Penteteuch, the laws of which were given to a society that existed on the brink of extermination. laws that seem to govern moral practice (complete with appropriate punishment) are in actuality laws concerned with the health and survival of a people. medical and technological advancements seem to make certain pronouncements of the law obsolete. do clean needles sterilize the immorality of getting tatoos? do health codes and disease control cure the meat of unclean animals? do condoms protect against the depravity of promiscuity or homosexual sex? and what about the medical and technological advancements that the Divine Moral System has absolutely nothing to account for -- what moral code do we take into account when considering the dangers of genetic engineering, or cloning? what happens society has outgrown its moral system? or is it hubris, to think we have come so far? is it pride to allow ourselves loopholes around the Divine Moral Code just because we have the technology to create them? to me, it is clear that we need a New Revelation...

that said, and putting other points to be raised aside for the moment, there are those that argue that the entire cause of morality and the need for a moral code is society itself -- that without society, without a community, without any number of gathered individuals, great or few, there would be no need for any moral system. morality is what governs the social commerce between individuals in a community, and arises alongside and just as naturally as communities do themselves. this sounds entirely reasonable; even if you don't have a moral code from the mountain, you are going to have to end up with a system one way or another. in large, organized, secular societies, you have governments and legislation that order what is proper and improper social commerce between neighbors, and on a subgovernmental level a public, communal sense of courtesy or general morality determines the right- or wrongness of less pressing concerns like manners and personal conduct. in fact, one could say there are several strata of morality, or even several moralities -- a morality of society, a morality of the state, and a morality of religion.

this social origin of morality works its way around the objections that arise with the Divine Moral System -- namely that the Social Origin states that morality is a necessary component of society -- it is inherent to social structure, inseperable from it the way the Divine Moral Code seems to be. an explanation of nature and the laws of physics as an analogy for the DMC and its reasonability is a complication not necessary for the Social Origin theory. the Social Origin theory is simply described as occuring naturally alongside society. the mechanics of its origin of course must involve an awareness of what people are prone to do, an awareness of precedents, and here again we could re-raise the concept of human nature and how the perception of it figures into the structure of the moral system. but because society, no matter how restricted, is inherently pluralistic on some level, its moral system can be nothing but basic, and therefore prove only a basic understanding of human nature.

this is the crux of the question that plagues me. is there a morality that exists apart from society, to govern a solitary man? is there a morality that exists apart from the Divine Moral System? a morality that is not just a "because i said so," or is not a system for survival, or is not just a way for us all to get along? what if there is no one to get along with? are there still moral obligations? what about the man who lives in society and is not a 'part' of it? what about the hermit? where there are many men, moral systems must exist. where there is a God, moral systems must exist; they always do. the question for me isn't the hypothetical "what if God doesn't exist and you are the only man left on earth." its more complicated than that. i guess as concisely as i can put it the question is "what is the moral responsibility of the individual?" is there only a moral responsibility when there are people around? is moral responsibility only a matter of duty owed to the Divine, and if so what is the purpose of that for me?

"what is the purpose of it for me" is the important half of that question. its not that i don't believe in a moral responsbility to society or God...but....what is the purpose of it for me? it helps me live better with other people, and i can follow rules that will make God happy, but to some degree those are outer layers, non-individual layers. i am an individual, and the core of me wants to know what is supposed to govern it and why...

what is the purpose of it for me?.......i'm determined to find the answer to this question, because i believe there is one.