Morality: The Pre-existing And Universal Code Essay, Research Paper

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.

360