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

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.