Today's paper is one I wrote last year for the worldview class I was taking at the time. It was one of my favorite classes, especially because it challenged me to think critically and logically about our postmodern world. Without further ado, please enjoy reading!
I-Robot: Are we morally programmed?
Headlines on the Fox News website this week included, "New York Mother Reportedly Accused of Encouraging Schoolyard Brawl", "Wheelchair-Bound Vietnam Vet Uncovers Multimillion Dollar Medical Aid Fraud", "Authorities: Teen Beat Parents to Death", and "Pennsylvania Mom Who Lost Job After Donating Kidney Is Put Back On Salary." When people read about a teen killing his own parents or a mother getting involved in a schoolyard brawl, they know inside, "That is just wrong!" When a woman receives her employment back after sacrificing a kidney to her son, they rejoice in the right decision. However, in a purely relative world, when morality is based on subjective standards, claims to objective right and wrong cannot exist. Therefore, an objective Moral Law, common to all of humanity, cannot exist; and, by default, only subjective morality remains. Do we live in a purely relative universe, or does some Law or Code govern our sense of morality? What causes us to view murder as wrong, and heroism as right? A careful study of the evidence shows that Someone must have created that law, and programmed us to know it. Many arguments try to explain the Moral Law, and our knowledge of it apart from God; however, after careful examination, none of these arguments adequately explain how we came to know the Moral Law.
Let us start by defining objective moral laws. To better understand objective moral law, let us contrast it with subjective moral law. Objective moral law consists in rules outside of humanity, which are universally accepted. For instance, "do not murder". Subjective moral law, on the other hand, consists of rules that we created for ourselves. For instance, "do not eat too much food". Nearly everyone presupposes murder as inherently wrong; however, no everyone believes eating too much food is inherently wrong. One was created outside of any particular society (a universal law) and the other by our own devices. From now on we will singularly focus on objective moral law.
There are various arguments regarding the source of the moral law. In other words, the real question lies in how we know the moral law. After all, when it comes down to it, everyone understands certain intrinsic rights and wrongs. The difference in opinion comes with how we know about intrinsic rights and wrongs. Some say that it is simply a law of nature, such as the law of gravity. Others claim we do it for our own convenience. Still others believe that we know we ought to do it because it benefits society. Even still others contend that we know it instinctively, and follow it in the same way an animal follows its herding instinct. Finally, some hold that we learn it through cultural norms - we are taught to do it. We will examine these arguments in succession.
Firstly, a faction of people believe that our knowledge of the Moral Law simply represents a law of nature, such as gravity. They contend that in the same way gravity compels a stone to fall to the ground, we are compelled to follow the Moral Law. It simply exists, just as gravity unquestionably exists. However, two problems arise with this point of view. For one thing, the Law of Gravity is descriptive - we describe what occurs by physically observing it. On the other hand, the Moral Law is prescriptive - it tells us what to do. Just as a doctor prescribes medicine, the Moral Law prescribes us to act in a certain manner. Whether we take the medicine, or obey the Moral Law, depends upon our own choice. This leads to the second objection. Namely, a stone always falls to the ground when dropped, we do not always obey the Moral Law. If the Moral Law were indeed a law of nature, then we would have to obey it. We would have no choice about it, just as a stone does not have a choice whether to fall or float.
Another common argument for the source of the Moral Law is that it is internally developed for our own convenience. The facts themselves contradict this idea, however. Acting according to the way dictated by the Moral Law is often inconvenient. For instance, consider the multitude of emergency responders that went into the burning towers after 9/11 to rescue people. If they had simply consulted their own convenience, they would have run away. In spite of this, they knew their true responsibility, and many gave their lives in sacrifice. Another problem also arises: Intent overrides convenience when determining "right and wrong". Let us say, hypothetically, that a man goes camping, and a bear steals his food. Although he may get angry at the bear, he will not require justice from the bear...he will not cry out, "The bear wronged me!" However, if a man took the same food, then the camper would want justice for the wrong action done him. Both situations are just as inconvenient, but one reflects instinct, and the other intent.
Similar to the previous argument, some believe that we have the prompting to obey the Moral Law because it benefits society. This argument, however, leads to circular reasoning. Suppose I adhere to this viewpoint, and someone asks me why they should care what benefits society. I would then answer, "Because it is good for you to do so." After which, my answer would continue to go on in the same way: the Moral Law benefits society; therefore, you should obey it because it is good to do so. I am still stuck with the questions, "Who says it is good?" or, "Why should I care what benefits society?" and so on. In short, this argument is only based on the Moral Law we all know, particularly that we should practice consideration for others.
Other individuals content that the Moral Law is instinctual, and thus we obey it. However, we are, in a sense, forced to obey an instinct, whereas the Moral Law gives us a choice to obey or disobey. If, for instance, hyenas attack a pack of elephants, the adult elephants make a circle around the juveniles to protect them. They do not make this decision; rather, they do it instinctively, just as a mouse flees a cat instinctively. On the other hand, observe soldiers in battle. When under fire, their strongest instinct is self-preservation. However, they also have a weaker "instinct" yelling out, "Stay with your partners, no matter the cost." Besides these two instincts, they have a third something determining between the two causing one to appear right, and the other to appear wrong. This thing cannot itself be an instinct, because it judges between two other instincts. In addition, while in animals the stronger instinct conquers every time, many times it is opposite with humans. The weaker instinct usually wins as right, because we have compared both to some standard, some Moral Law.
Finally, a large fraction of people believe that our sense of right and wrong comes from society. In other words, we learn it from youth, and it only reflects our cultural beliefs. While we are undoubtedly taught right and wrong from birth, our knowledge does not primarily come from this source. A key piece of evidence that our sense of goodness is not cultural consists in the similarities between completely unrelated societies, and throughout different eras. Consider, for example, the punishment inflicted for theft in most cultures throughout the world. In Iran the common consequence for theft is the amputation of hands or feet. In Nigeria, a similar process is followed, where the hands of the thief are cut off. In Canada and the United States theft results in imprisonment. Finally, in some cases, China enforces capital punishment for thievery. Despite the many differences in culture and practices, most nations view theft as wrong. This implies some Moral Law that surpasses people groups and cultures, that determines correctness and incorrectness. In addition, another problem exists with this viewpoint. How could we judge between societies if right and wrong simply reflected culture? Clearly, we couldn't. However, we do judge between societies, to tell whether one is right and the other wrong. Most cultures would agree that Muslim men treat their women abominably and wrong, despite the fact that they were taught to do it from birth and it is consequently their culture. We know that on this issue Americans stand on the right side of the battle, and our laws against abuse are moral. If it were merely a matter of culture, we could not judge between the two.
In conclusion, then, we see that no other arguments adequately explain the existence of the Moral Law, the code we all inherently know. The only explanation left is that a great and powerful Programmer purposefully put that code into us. If a scientist programmed a robot to hug every child he saw, and to slap every adult he saw, we would not deny the existence of a programmer. It would be evident, in the way the robot acted, that someone who programmed him loved children and disliked adults. In the same way, when we look inside of ourselves and see the Moral Law, it points to a Someone who programmed us with His ideas of right and wrong. If that Someone has so much control over us as that, then we can rightly call Him God!
Please leave a comment on your thoughts about this essay. I can't wait to hear from you!
