Essay/Term paper: Morality: the pre-existing and universal code

Essay, term paper, research paper:  Philosophy Essays

Morality: The Pre-existing and Universal Code


Morality: A doctrine or system of moral conduct; particular moral
principles or rule of conduct.

To say that modern morality consists in accepting the standard of one's
age is to suggest that human morality changes with the passing of time. This
statement is just unacceptable. Morality is not something of a fad. It should
not go through trends like clothes or popular music, morality is the foundation
in which our society is embedded in, a foundation from which human values and
standards derive from. If we are to agree that these values and standards are
flexible within the boundaries of time, and that they contain within them no
ground rooted substructure in society, then there is no way in distinguishing
the difference between right and wrong. Morality is what identifies the
principles in which man exists, to seperate good from bad, and right from wrong,
and every society should strive to discover and achieve these principals.
Morality should not change over time even though cultures and social
stratifications do, what was morally right three thousand years ago is morally
right today and should be morally right three thousand years from now. Only
with universal principles can we as collective society discover what is right,
what is wrong, and what is best, therefore there exists not modern morality but
simply morality.

An empirical philosopher, W.T. Stace, argues that if we believe all
morals are culturally relative, it is impossible for us to judge what is best.
Although admitting he does not know what is best, he concludes that it is the
responsibility of man to discover what is. He does not dispute that moral
customs and moral ideas differ from country to country and from age to age, but
that the fact that one culture thinks something is right does not necessarily
make it right just as much as what we believe is wrong in our culture does not
necessarily mean it is wrong.

"The fact that the Greeks or the inhabitants of New Guinea think
something right does not make it right, even for them. Nor does the fact that
we think the same things wrong make them wrong. They are in themselves either
right or wrong. What we have to do is discover what they are."1

The clashes in cultures between difference of morality does not mean
that morals are relative, all that it means is that unidentified cultures and
their beliefs remain ignorant to the truth. However at the same time we
recognize this, we must be careful not to commit to our own moral code as the
just one. The only truth that we can be certain of is that there is one
universal and moral code, and although we may not have found it, we must trust
that it is amongst us and that through our experience and continual growing
knowledge, that we will come to it. This is not even to say that there is one
culture within society today that defines the true moral code, for what we know
no culture contains this. However as time passes we build upon our knowledge of
truth in search for other truths that strengthen and further establish our
already growing understanding of what is right and wrong and by doing this we
can discover certain values and beliefs from cultures that are indeed just and
right.

Of course by suggesting that there is the one universal moral code, one
would have to defend this by also implying that there is a superior power that
imposes this code amongst us. To take the position of ethical absolutism would
be quite difficult to achieve without the reference of God.

"There would be no point, for the naive believer in the faith, in the
philosopher's questions regarding the foundations of morality and the basis of
moral obligation... For the true believer the author of the moral law is God.
What pleases God, what God commands- that is the definition of right."2

Our civilization today is deeply rooted in Christianity. The belief in
God is very popular within our society. As much as we may try to escape
Christianity, it still remains with us, "The moral ideas even of those who most
violently reject the dogmas of Christianity with their intellects are still
Christian ideas."3 To believe or to accept the idea of one moral code, one must
believe that there is a God or a group of elite God's who imposed this code upon
us. So there is, for most Christians, one single God, that rules over the
entire universe, and his wishes are inked in the bible. Unfortunately, God's
wishes are consistent around the globe, and time and age is of no significance.
If some cultural group lives in disbelief of God then they simply live in
ignorance of him, and it is to their consequence that they are deprived.
However then, since it is quite evident that popular modern civilization
believes in God, it is therefore reasonable to assume that with this belief we
accept God as the one superior ruler of the universe, like any other
authoritarian ruler.

If we are faithful to God we can assume that as our leader, he has
given us rules and regulations to follow, and obey. Do any of the great leaders,
past and present, leave the people who follow them with no direction, guidance,
or instruction? Of course not. All leaders held their position because they
were instrumental in this area. God is no different. God has not left us
without direction, he has delivered to us a preexisting order that applies to
all ages. An order in which he lays the foundation in which man is to follow,
an order that if followed will deliver to every culture on earth direction and a
goal. To change this preexisting moral code of mankind as time passes leaves the
human race with no order. It would simply be impossible to say what is right
and what is wrong. What would be the grounds to indicate it? How could
anyone justify their actions without the evidence that it was the best action?
God, the adjudicator of all our fates, decides what is good and what is bad.
Killing in almost all parts of the world is considered an immoral action. If
God determines that killing is unacceptable, then regardless of what a certain
cultures beliefs are, their morals and those beliefs are wrong, and unpermisable.
However if it so happens that we have misinterpreted the preaching of God, and
killing is acceptable, then the popular opinion on this matter is wrong. The
point is that one of these morals is right and one is wrong. It is unacceptable
to say that because one society is inferior to another, or differs in ways of
another, than it is then acceptable for all cultures to act in accordance with
their ignorance and partake in unjust action.

To say modern morality consists in accepting the standard of one's age
is to suggest that man is incapable (or perhaps too indolent) in finding the
truth. If we are to accept the vast differences in morals and ethics in the
world as a beneficial standard to society we then accept that there is no right
and wrong, and thus there is no action that is best, and no action that can be
justified. We must realize certain values and beliefs that are ignorant to
those commands of God. Part of man's mission is discovering the preexisting and
universal code that God intends for us to ascertain. This was the very reason
Jesus was sent to us almost 2000 years ago, and it will be the same reason for
his return, to help instill those morals, values, and principles. And when he
returns the moral standard he will preach will not change because of the passing
of time. He will preach the same code he did originally. A preexisting,
universal moral code that will serve as a foundation for man to build upon, a
foundation where all men and women, while still being able to maintain there
culture and identity, will be able to live by the same principles, and morals as
everyone else, a foundation where everyone knows what is right, what is wrong,
and what is best.