Original Morality

Is there such a thing as right and wrong? Is there an absolute standard against which we can measure every word, thought and deed? Does not our innate sense of justice demand that we have a perfect judge to determine the fate of those who transgress our moral codes? Where do morals come from? 

There are two main schools of thought. Socialization theories of moral development suggest that morality is learned. In other words, we behave in certain ways, either good or bad, because of what we see others do. Especially our parents and later, more significantly our peers. In this view, our morality is shaped by the society in which we live. Extrinsic environmental factors are more influential.

Cognitive theories of moral development say that as we mature we construct our own understanding of the world. We figure out for ourselves what is right and wrong, good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable,and we do so by virtue of reason: by analyzing moral rules and making judgements about whether they should be followed or not. Intrinsic factors such as our own thoughts and reasoning are more significant in this view.

As is often the case with seemingly opposing theories, the truth  of how morality develops is a combination of both theories, and then a little bit more. The little bit more is the question left unanswered by both theories. Regardless of how our morals develop, we must ask where they came from in the first place. Have we just figured it all out for ourselves over the centuries, by trial and error? Who first decided that it was wrong to murder, to steal, to lie? From where did the sense of fair play within all of us come? If morality has no origin and is not absolute, then who can truly say what is right and what is wrong? Why do our souls cry out for justice?

I am comforted by the knowledge that there is a perfect judge, and one day he will call all of us to account. Absolute morality begins and ends with God. He is absolute truth, and denying it does not alter the fact.

The Oldest Profession

Advocates of prostitution put forward some weak arguments. The oldest profession in the world argument erroneously suggests that just because the practice exists and has done for a long time, it is automatically justified. Another says that more marriages would break up if not for sex services. A third says that the incidence of rape would increase if men couldn't pay for sex.These are fallacious arguments which are easily dismissed by virtue of simple logic.

The best argument in favour of prostitution is the exercise of free will in a free market economy. If an adult chooses to sell themselves for sex, we may question their motives, be perplexed about how anyone could do that, think it morally outrageous and wrong, but in the end we must allow the choice. If sex is simply another service, and the sale of it is legal, then what is the problem? Is anybody getting hurt? Is anybody being taken advantage of? Deceived? Defrauded? If a person chooses to pay for sex we must allow that choice as well, despite any moral objections we may have.

It could be argued that, like the sex worker, the labourer uses his body to make money, as does the sportsperson and the model. The labourer requires strength to carry out his duties, the sportsperson strength and skill, while the model requires beauty. The sex worker must have all three to execute their role and earn their rightful dues. Having sex with strangers for money is in every way, but one, the same as every other so called respectable job, isn't it?

Many argue that it's not the same because we are talking about the most intimate form of human relations and the most private expression of love, but obviously, sex, for many others, does not fit that description. Sex has other objectives. It can be incredibly selfish, and it can be harmful. It can be a tool which is used to achieve some other purpose besides the expression of love. It can be used as weapon. No matter how it is used, ultimately we are left with the argument that what consenting adults do in their private lives is their own business.

As a Christian I accept the Bible's teaching that the only moral context for sexual relations is marriage, which is defined as being between a man and a woman. In such an exclusive and committed relationship, love can be expressed through sex. Adultery is condemned, as is fornication and homosexual practice. One of the things I really love about the bible is that it not only talks about the way things should be, but also the way things are. The chasm between what is and what should be causes us humans to suffer emotional pain.

The bottom line is we must respect the right of others to make choices about how they live, how they work and how they play. This includes sex workers. The consequences of their choices may be unfortunate and regrettable, or not, but they still have the right to choose. God gave us all free will. People are amazingly complex and the reasons we do, or don't do certain things, are no less complicated.

I finish with a quote from a friend of mine, "Each person needs to consider their actions, beliefs and addictions for themselves. My role is not to judge them, rather to walk beside them as best as I can... To be God's hands and feet to all people. I'll leave judging to God."

Illegal. Immoral or Both?

Apparently generous Commonwealth bank ATMs were dispensing more money than requested by customers earlier this week. The bank said people were deliberately overdrawing their accounts, and that this was possible because the ATM's were offline, and therefore not connected to the bank's database.For those collecting the bonus cash, it must have seemed like a miracle but banks don't give money away. It's not like Monopoly where a bank error in your favour can net you a cool $200. The beneficiaries of the surprise cash have been told to return the money. Fraud squad is involved, and advising people that keeping money which does not belong to them is a crime which may result in prosecution and a 10 year jail term. That seems a bit over the top, doesn't it? These people aren't criminals...or are they?

You can be fined for littering, but is it immoral? It's against the law to use a handheld mobile phone while you're driving, but it's okay to eat, drink, smoke, have a conversation, or listen to the radio - or even do all five things at once. Is talking on the phone while driving immoral? Is it even criminal?

The possession and/or use of heroin is a crime even though it is less harmful to the body than tobacco which is a legal product. Slander is illegal but it's not a crime to assassinate someone's character in a secret whisper. You can be fined for staying ten minutes too long in a parking space. It's illegal to exceed the speed limit but you can't be fined for overstepping the boundaries of truth in order to manipulate somebody, or their opinion of you. Telling lies is, in many instances, perfectly legal. It's not against the law to be greedy or selfish or to fornicate or to commit adultery, but it is illegal to cut down a tree on your own property without permission.

Consider these many examples and ask yourself the question: Is every illegal act also an immoral act? Or try this one: Should all immoral acts be illegal?

And Justice For All

I read today that an Islamic court in Malaysia will reconsider the sentence handed out to a mum for her heinous crime of drinking beer. Her punishment was to be six strokes of the rattan. According to the Minister for Women, Family and Community Development, the sentence is too harsh. No kidding. This story comes on the back of the case involving Sudanese woman Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein,who is facing forty lashes from a whip for wearing indecent clothing.She wore a pair of trousers in public.

At the other end of crazy, is the story of Portsmouth serial menace to society, David Moore, who has collected 103 driving offenses including nine counts of driving under the influence and 24 convictions for driving while banned. He was sentenced to just six months in jail because that's the maximum penalty available under the law.

Some people tell you that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. They say that morality is universal. Even allowing for the extreme nature of these cases, it doesn't require Einstein's intellect to figure out that something has gone wrong with human notions of decent behavior and justice. Rational people gasp in astonishment when they hear of this madness, but rational people made these laws and rational people imposed the sentences. Are we all mental?

Western laws are based on the Ten Commandments while Islamic Law is obviously based on the Quran. Very nice ideals are presented in these great books but perhaps they are too hard to attain, too much for mere mortals to achieve. Somewhere along the line, the theory of justice has been flushed down a toilet of relative morality. The practice of justice can be a truly terrible thing in the hands of fragile fallen humanity.

What punishment would you give to David Moore?
	Forty lashes from a whip
	Six strokes from a cane
	Six months in jail
	10 years in jail
Free polls from Pollhost.com