Truth Reconciled

The terms “good” and “evil” are well-known among all human civilizations. They are used to describe actions and to construct rules for societies. Most people throughout history have believed that good and evil are universal, that they are based on eternal laws, usually given by a God. Morality is what we call this set of eternal, universal rules that define the right course of action in any given situation.

Despite our near universal agreement on the rightness and wrongness of certain actions, morality is a topic that evokes much disagreement. There are many different theories about what defines it, but there is no consensus. Because of this, the very existence of morality is often up for debate. Perhaps it is nothing more than an ill-defined human construct, polluted with cultural biases and logical contradictions.

While no one has been able to prove the existence of morality, it is also true that no one has been able to disprove it. The fact that certain rules are so universally agreed upon seems to evince that a universal, objective morality does exist. It seems that humanity is not inventing morality, but rather discovering it. Maybe morality really does have a firm foundation rooted in absolute truth, but we just haven’t figured it out yet.

Currently, there is no published theory of morality that can claim to be grounded in absolute truth. Many theories have been put forward: that morality is based on happiness, well-being, God-given mandates, and so on. All of them are inadequate. Let’s take a brief tour through some popular theories to get an idea of what the issues are.

Morality grounded in Theology

The natural state of humans is to have no notion of morality; the idea of it comes only after other people start telling us how to behave. But who really has authority to tell another person how to behave? All man-made positions of authority are just that: man-made. The validity and extent of their authority can always be questioned.

Perhaps we can assume the existence of some ultimate universal authority, probably God. This constitutes the theory of Morality grounded in Theology. It is as old as religion itself, is very widespread, and has been defended by many philosophers, most notably William Paley and William James.

The main problem with Morality grounded in Theology (but not the only problem) is that people don’t agree on what God has said, or even who he is. If God is the source of morality, which god is it and how can we know? Many different cultures have received contradictory commands from their gods. Which religion is telling the truth?

Even if we manage to discover the true God, we run into more difficulties. What do we do in the situations where God has been silent? Do we need to wait for him to command us in every situation? What if God changes his mind and switches the definitions of good and evil, then would they really be switched? Are his commandments completely arbitrary, based on a whim, or is there some reasoning behind them? If there is any reason for them at all, then they must be based on laws that are even more fundamental than God. In this case, God is not the source of morality, but rather the messenger of it.

Morality grounded in Happiness

Most people will probably assume that the reason for God’s commandments is to make us happy. Others may simply deny the existence of God and jump to the idea of happiness because it’s the next simplest thing they can think of. The theory of Morality grounded in happiness or well-being is another very old idea. The ancient Greek philosophers came up with several different versions of it, including Epicureanism and Hedonism. A strong defender of the happiness theory in more recent times was John Stuart Mill, who called it Utilitarianism. 

Happiness-based morality comes with many inconsistencies, as you can probably tell by the fact that there are so many versions of it. They all have to give arbitrary answers to the following questions. Whose happiness is morality trying to achieve? What kind of happiness is it? Is it short-term or long-term happiness? Is it individual or collective happiness? People are made happy by different things, so how can we determine what is right in a moral dilemma involving more than one person? Whose happiness is more important? Must we conclude that morality is relative, meaning that each person has their own morality, which depends only on their own personal feelings?

Moral Relativism

This relative morality, or Moral Relativism, was the philosophy of Protagorus, who is known for saying that “Man is the measure of all things.” The theory of relative morality has no foundation in truth. It is a perfect example of ancient Greek sophistry. 

If morality is not objective and universal, then it is inconsistent with itself and has no authority and no value. In other words, it doesn’t exist. The very purpose of morality as a concept to help one decide how to act is defeated with the idea of relativism. One should either accept that morality doesn’t exist or try thinking a little harder. Despite the fact that moral relativism is the worst and most inconsistent of all the moral theories, it seems to be one of the most commonly accepted theories today.

Morality grounded in Natural Law

The next major theory arises when we think beyond happiness. Why do certain actions tend to make us happier than others? What is happiness? Maybe we could think of it as a kind of positive feedback for doing something that is naturally good for us, individually or collectively. In that case, morality could be defined and generated by the laws of nature, independent of our diverse and inconsistent opinions.

The great philosophers Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas seemed to agree with the Natural Law theory. They believed that if morality is defined as a set of laws that are objective and universal, then it must be derivable from natural law. The failure of this theory is that no one has ever been able to convincingly work out what the laws of morality are and where they come from under the Natural Law theory.

Natural and moral laws seem to have a very different tone. Natural laws state that such and such a thing is a certain way, while moral laws state that such and such a thing ought to be a certain way. How can the latter be derived from the former? The connection has eluded everyone who ever thought about it before. Some moralists have concluded that it is possible that objective morality exists and is well-defined by some natural laws, but we just can’t figure it out.

Amorality

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had a different take on natural law. He claimed that there is no way to obtain an “ought” from an “is,” and therefore morality as a concept doesn’t make any sense. Nietzche’s theory is called Amorality. In the same way that Atheism denies the existence of God, Amorality denies the existence of right and wrong. It is a theory which claims that the ideas of good and evil are human inventions, passed on by the most uneducated who reproduce the most, and that they hold no authority whatsoever. People do whatever they desire, guided by unfounded opinions rather than supposed moral truth.

The theory of Amorality seems to overlook the possibility of some kind of goal. If there is something that a person or society wants to achieve, then there are certainly better and worse ways of achieving it. Perhaps the goal is happiness, or well-being, or success. But all of these goals seem arbitrary. Is there any universal goal provided by natural law?

Survival of the Fittest

One common goal that has been proposed is the preservation of our species. This seems to be the goal of nature, whether or not nature is aware of it. Some have advocated for this foundation of morality, but still, this is an arbitrary foundation that can be disagreed with. An amoralist could simply argue that the goal is arbitrarily assumed and carries no authority.

What if two different species come into conflict? Which species should be preserved? Is it survival of the fittest? If so, are we talking about the fitness of the entire species or just subgroups of individuals such as families or nations? Should we include our entire biosphere? The extent of our survival group is an arbitrary choice. There must be some deeper law that determines what is right.

The Categorical Imperative

If a truly objective universal morality really exists, it should be based on absolute truth, and should be independent of the person or people thinking about it. The philosopher Immanuel Kant had some things to say about objective universal morality. He first assumed its existence and then undertook to determine what principle embodies it. In other words, what principle helps you figure out whether any action is right or wrong? The principle he came up with follows directly from the concept of morality: if the rule you wish to follow can be universalized without self-contradiction, then it is moral.

For example, suppose you are at the store and you have gathered one hundred dollars worth of groceries and you are ready to enter the self-checkout to purchase them. Suddenly you realize you left your wallet at home, so you have no way to pay. It’s possible that no one would notice if you simply walked out without paying. A loss of $100 probably won’t hurt the business, and you don’t have time to go home and get your wallet. Can you justify stealing in this case? Let’s apply the categorical imperative. Should everyone in your situation just steal the groceries? If you believe that everyone should act in that way then Kant says you can justify your decision. If not, then it is not right.

It was a novel philosophy, but it had more of a practical rather than a definitive nature. Kant’s “categorical imperative” is useful in evaluating one’s motive for doing something and ensuring that one’s actions are consistent with one’s beliefs, but it doesn’t actually provide an objective definition of morality, nor prove its existence.

Who can properly determine whether the universalized rule is good or bad? Suppose a certain terrorist wants to kill infidels who won’t convert to his religion. You might think that such an act is evil, but the terrorist might believe that everyone everywhere ought to do exactly what he is doing. In his mind, the categorical imperative justifies his actions. Kant’s theory is therefore incomplete, as it still leaves differences of opinion unresolved. The universalization of moral rules is still carried out in the mind of each individual rather than being well-established by objective logic.

Morality Unexplained

In order to accept any one of the moral theories, you must first accept a completely unfounded assumption, such as “morality comes from God.” There is no proof of this statement; it is simply assumed. If you accept this as your foundation and someone else disagrees with you, then there is nothing that you can say to them about morality until you first get them to believe in your God. And unless you happened to choose the one true God, this will be a very shaky foundation.

The same holds true for any other assumption you make, such as “morality is based on the survival of our species,” or “morality is what brings happiness.” There is nothing you can say to me that will completely convince me of any of these theories. There is always room for disagreement. This means that, for now, morality remains unexplained, and its existence unproven.

I’m not satisfied with the current state of moral philosophy, and it has been one of my personal goals to discover the true foundation of objective universal morality. It needs a foundation that no one can disagree with, a foundation grounded in truth that makes no assumptions. I managed to find that foundation, and I will describe it in detail at another time.