Ethics Weblog

All avenues thus far have been exhausted in trying to find the link between God and morality as we know it.  In my humble opinion, we have come up short and failed to argue the connection soundly.  In academia, any unfounded theory, or claim for that matter must be rejected since it holds no value.  One would be right in claiming boldly that there’s little or no connection between God and morality. 

Despite my personal conviction, I will have to say that it has been a personal struggle linking God to morality.  Not just now, but it has been all my life.  I do believe that morality serves its purpose for the greater good.  God, much like the stand that I argue in my last blog, created morality but left the execution to us.  Furthermore, mankind took turn in dispensing rules governing what’s moral and vice versa.

Looking back in the annals of history there are a great number of individuals (religious scholars) who can be held accountable for the notion of morality, the likes of Peter Damian, Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, Martin Luther etc come to mind.  The education they possessed back in those early years emboldened their views on a lot of issues that the church couldn’t handle.  To illustrate my point briefly, in the Book of Gomorrah — A Lesson for Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow Peter Damian laid out a lithany of acts against nature, all those acts against nature fell under “SODOMY”.  His work would then be upheld by Thomas Aquinas and the rest is, well we all know the deal by now that Sodomy is a crime.

God created us, heaven & earth and left us to take charge in running things the way we deem necessary.  Obviously we are doing a pretty lousy job at it.  Once again in my humble opinion, God has not dictated the perimeter of morality, but since he is the creator that makes him distantly connected to morality.

The premises and conclusion for this blog are as follows:

- If God were all-powerful, he could prevent evil.

- If God were all loving, he would prevent evil

- Evil exists

There is no God who is all-powerful and all-loving.

To the above argument, as sound as it is, I will have to say that there is an all-powerful God.  Why?  Well, there are daily evidence pointing to the existence of evil, and history is replete with occurences that point to the latter, the Tsunami of December 2004, the Columbine High School massacre of April 1999, the Virginia Tech University shooting April 2007, and the DC Sniper shootings October 2002 to name a few.  One should ask the following: can anybody point to God as the author of mankind’s evil disposition?  I will say with authority “no”.  After all, we are not all evil.  If the measure of God’s omnipotence and  mercifulness rests solely on his ability to prevent suffering on earth, we will be robbing ourselves with the very characteristic of our existence, humanity.

Despite all the evil that exist in the world, I am still convinced that God is all-powerful.  When I look around me, I  marvel at the intricacies of our existence, one would be hardpressed to think that we came about by random chance.  The amount of precise information contained in human DNA can not be explained solely with natural causes.   Discounting God’s omnipotence is drawing the conclusion that our existence came about without cause, without design, and is merely good luck

We are the author of our destiny, and must embrace the responsibility of our actions.  It is easy to blame God when mankind has nowhere else to turn for answers.  I subscribe to the theory that obstacles, hard times, and sufferings exist to strenghten our ability to negotiate life’s challenges.   

God indeed is all-powerful and at any given time he can prevent evil as we know it if he wants to.  As I have mentioned earlier, we have the capability to exercise our free will in choosing what is good and what is evil; so God has left us the choice to do so instead of micromananging our every endeavor.  Having the ability to choose right from wrong places the responsibility on us for our actions. 

Assuming that the Divine Command Theory ”DCT” is true, one would be hardpressed to go against the morality or truth commanded by God.  Per “DCT” God embodies goodness, never evil.  

Our presentation in class reagrding the “DCT” raised some loaded issues, to be specific three issues in particular:

1. God isn’t worthy of praise.

2. God’s decisions have should have no reason at all.

3. God could change his mind, and morality itself will alter.

Of the three issues above, I will attempt to tackle number three *(God could change his mind  and morality itself will alter).  As a believer, such statement can have irrepairable affect on my relationship with God, and others.  That statement has further opened my eyes to a series of doubts.  Doubts about the ten Commandements, the Scriptures, and my own existence.  According to the teachings of my faith, doubt of any kind regarding God’s truth is a form of blasphemy.  Therefore I reject DCT despite its simplistic nature.  God changing his mind would cause a lot of confusion, and unstability in the world.  Truth as we know it will no longer account for much.  Where to turn?  What to do?  I will have to conduct my own soul searching to come to terms with my belief.   

I have searched high and low for an interesting ethical article in the news for the better part of the week.  I was beginning to feel inadequate until I picked up the Friday September 14, 2007  edition of the New York Times.  I hit gold with a featured article, in the Metro Section, “Film Showing Same-Sex Parents Splits New Jersey School District“. 

Alas, the age old question that has been at the forefront of a many Political, Ethical, Cultural, and Religious debates.  According to the article written by Richard G. Jones, the movie titled “That’s a Family” created by Academy Award winning filmmaker Debra Chasnoff was intended to be a catalyst for discussion.  Discussion intended to teach children about non-traditional families.  Strangely enough, the discussion and instruction on the subject matter involving family diversity will continue in compliance  with state core curriculum.  

Families, in Evesham Township, New Jersey school district where the film was shown, are divided over the film’s content.  The film, primarily a documentary, features children talking among themselves about their parents. The showing of the state-approved video was being shown to a class of third graders.  The children in the movie represent the make-up of our current society (children of interracial families, children of divorce, children who had been adopted etc etc). 

The ripple was caused when one of the children in the movie Daniel introduces his parents: “…these are my two dads…”, and another child says in the movie ” it’s really cool to have two gay dads, because they adopted us, they brought us home, and love us…”.  As the issue simmered, the district decided to shelve the film.  The school district is in violation of state’s law against discrimation according to Mr Goldstein chairman of Garden State Equality, a gay rights group.  The school district said they would rely on other methods to meet state standards for teaching children about non-traditional families.

The entanglement between parents and gay right activists has reached new heights.  Parents want to have the control of when and how sensitive issues are discussed, presented, and taught to their children, while gay right activists advocate that the concerned parents are acting out of fear, and discrimination.  Who is right?  who is wrong?  Is there a universal truth to this age old dilemma?

From a Cultural Relativist point of view, there’s no right or wrong answer to this issue.  Parents who decide to allow their children to watch the video should do so, and vice versa without judgement.  Furthermore, the gay right activists should be understood as well since their point of view is consistent with their experience.  The Cultural Relativist approcah in this instance is a weak one, and must be refuted.  Teaching tolerance is one thing but the theory fails to settle the argument.  While neither parents, nor gay right activists provided sound arguments; both parties on account of what’s at stake have valid concerns.  Respect must be extended to both parties (parents and gay right activists) for their concerns, but is the school district right or wrong for shelving the movie?  No one knows, and yet there’s no standard available to judge the merit of the school district decision.

Neither party has a monopoly on the truth, culturally is there a set of standards that clearly delineate the norms for teaching?  Is there a written rule that governs the mental capacity, or adeptness of third-graders?  Is the teaching of non-traditional families a violation of moral norms in our society?  Heated, and passionate debates will continue to challenge us singularly and collectively as we continue to exist as our world is everchanging, and cultures continue to converge.  Tolerance is essential for civilized and peaceful co-existence, but total tolerance is detrimental to good order and discipline.  Cultural Relativism theory fell short of settling the issues surrounding the debates surrounding “Tha’s a Family”.  

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!