UNDERGROUND PASSAGES

1
Moralities, God, and Religion.

How many different forms of morality are there? What is their nature? In ancient days, morality referred to the performing of certain acts. It was strictly a matter of behavior and not intention. If an act caused harm to someone, it was considered immoral. More recently in history, morality became a matter of one’s character rather than the act itself. It was believed that a man with a good character did good things. He could not be guilty of immorality. In the present day, morality refers to the intention behind the act, whether it be good or evil. For instance, if I render a person scandalized, if I disgrace him in front of his peers by saying false things about him, my motive being malicious, then I have done evil to him, because my intentions were immoral. But if in the course of conversation, certain things I say unintentionally lead to his scandal, then there is no immorality.

Some people take morality a step further and say that even if there were no act committed at all, if I intend to do evil, I commit immorality by sheer intention. Suppose I drive to my neighbor’s house with a plan of stealing his lawn chairs from his front yard, but when I arrive, the chairs have been locked away in the garage. I am unable to carry out the act of theft only because I had not the opportunity. My intention was to steal. According to the stricter definition, this, too, would be an act of immorality!

Let me depart for a moment my examination of moralities to view what specifically is the nature of good and evil, right and wrong. How do we know what is wrong or evil? The simplest definition of this is doing and intending to do harm to someone else. The rule of thumb often used as an admonition not to do harm to anyone is simply, "Harm no one." What is meant by this is that in one’s daily affairs, do not take what doesn’t belong to you, do not lie to your neighbor, or about him, do not hurt him bodily or even emotionally if it is avoidable. I could go on and on, but something very like the Ten Commandments would arise in describing good and evil. As a matter of fact, since the rule "harm no one" is so general, people tend to base their understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, on principles like the Ten Commandments or the entire Bible. The Bible offers many people examples and explanations of what is right and wrong. It is an interesting fact that believers in the Bible do not profess to know on their own the true nature of morality. This is known only by the revelation of God to Moses and the prophets, as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Returning to forms of morality, there are still other possibilities in terms of moral beliefs. There are those who reject the traditional underpinnings of morality in religion and God, but maintain that morality can still be meaningful. I shall call them "good atheists". It seems to me that it is difficult at best for people to hold to this perspective. Their claim is that man himself can know what is right and wrong on his own without recourse to the Bible or the Ten Commandments to guide him. But there arises here the clear danger that morality will break down without any clear sense of a stable right and wrong, because each man will be evaluating for himself. There is no problem, of course, if one comes right out and rejects traditional morality outright. But these "good atheists" try to maintain absolute standards and universal truths without any foundation.

A form of morality that traditional believers may not consider as a morality at all is often called egoism. The adherent, first of all does not believe the teaching that one should put one’s neighbor first and be concerned firstly with his benefit. He repudiates altruism. Also, he believes that he ought to act firstly in his own interest, devoting himself to his education, emotional and psychological development and interests, as well as to satisfy his needs and desires. The egoist is not out to harm anyone, but if his interests and the interests of his neighbor conflict, he will not hesitate to seek out his own interest. Most egoists subscribe to the view of "enlightened self-interest" in which one practices a philosophy in which immediate, pleasure-type needs are not acted upon, but one controls himself and sets out to achieve higher goals.

I have briefly gone into the nature of good and evil as it is believed in traditionally, as well as the contrary view of the egoists. Allow me to take a critical look at the standard understanding. As far as "harm no one" is concerned, or "act for the benefit of your neighbor", without the foundation of God and religion, as well as the sacred authorship, as is believed of the Bible, there is no way to hold to these views of neighbor love and altruism. Life, first of all, is really much too complicated for anyone to be always and everywhere concerned about his neighbor. In the natural course of events, isn’t one bound to say or do things that will bump up against his neighbor, go against his interests? And what about my own interests? Am I supposed to make a perfect sacrifice of myself, so that my neighbor will always be well, and feel well?