Replacing
Christian Morality with Something Better
2001
One thing I hear constantly from Christians is that atheists have no basis for morality. They say that if evolution is true (and if there is no god) then there is no basis for morals-- that for atheists there is no ethical framework— that our moral choices always change with the situation (this is called "Moral Relativism"). Well, there may be some atheists out there who think like that. I wouldn't know-- I've never met any. All the atheists I have met have exhibited very sound morals. The claim that I have no morals is not an argument. It is merely an insult.
The other thing that they say, usually after I've responded by saying that I have very high moral standards, is that this ingrained sense of what is right and wrong (even in atheists) comes from God, and is 'proof' of His existence. The existence of moral laws, they say, implies a Lawgiver. As I shall show later, this is not only utter nonsense, but it is contradictory to biblical teachings.
Of course Christians insist that they have in their possession the “objective moral standard”-- rules of conduct for everybody that are literally set in stone, in the form of the Ten Commandments (this is what is called "Moral Objectivism"). Furthermore, they argue that all of our nation’s problems— from teenage pregnancy, to inner city crime, to earthquakes— would all vanish into thin air if we would only come to our senses and embrace their godly moral standards.
Well, whatever... I know better than that. But they don't stop there. They go on the offensive and insult people like myself by accusing us of being without a moral foundation. They label us as advocates of ‘situational ethics’ and ‘moral relativism’. Christians think atheists are dangerous to the moral well-being of the country. You need to understand that this opinion is unfounded, and comes from not getting to know any atheists. In fact, based on what I have seen, I think many people who call themselves Christians are dangerous.
How so? By embracing the idea that the ends justify the means. That they'll do literally anything to get their way. Why do they do this? Because they think they are justified-- mandated by the bible and by god.
Here's a question for you. How do you know what's moral and what's not? Sometimes, all we can answer is something like, "Look, I can't explain exactly how I arrive at my morality. All I know for sure is that I know what's right and what's wrong!" Such a response may be true, but it hardly satisfies ourselves or our Christian detractors. In the mind of the Christian, atheists are trying to create a moral vacuum-- a morality free zone. But they refuse to listen.
Objective Morality is the idea that human morals are fixed in stone. One example are the rules that were handed to us by God through Moses, laws that we are required to live by no matter what the situation is. Most people think of these as the Ten Commandments, but those ten were actually a small part of the Law of Moses. Objective Morality states that morality is objective; that it exists outside of the human experience. Part of this concept is the curious idea of Objective Evil— that there is evil in the universe apart from Man, that it is floating out there in space somewhere like some kind of cosmic cloud.
It is amazing to me that people really think this way, in this day and age. The way I understand things, good and evil are labels that we humans put on our behavior, based upon whether that behavior is harmful or beneficial to other people.
Let’s use an example to take look at some of the problems of 'Objective Morality'. Objective morality states that lying is wrong. Why? That is the important question. Objective morality states that lying is wrong because God says "Thou shalt not bear false witness". It is only wrong because God says so. In many biblical instances, God's people lie. In fact, on several occasions God Himself lies, and commands others to do so. Paul himself advocates lying, and Early Church Fathers agree with him. [See "Lying for God"].
So, here we have a Commandment-- don't lie-- and the only reason we have for the rule is that God says so. But the rule isn't strictly adhered to. Exceptions are made all the time for certain people. The rule does not apply to everyone, all the time. So Objective Morality doesn't turn out to be all that objective.
What is the principle behind not telling a lie? Apparently, the behavior is the principle. But should the behavior be the principle? I think not.
I’m about to share with you a system in which the behavior is not the principle, one in which the principle is independent from the behavior– where the principle guides the behavior.
Is lying wrong in all cases? Is it always moral to tell the truth? The knee-jerk response is to say yes. But, if we're honest with ourselves, we can’t immediately answer this question. We hesitate... We can’t instantly say “yes”. The first thing that pops into our minds is: “What kind of lie?” or, “What is the circumstance?” Right away, we try to find the context of the falsehood. And here is where Objective Morality breaks down. It fails to deal with real situations. I’ll get back to this in a moment.
Another reason the idea of Objective Morality is shown to be untrue is that history denies it. Absolutely denies it. What we think is moral today is not the same as people thought years ago. Consider slavery. Imagine you were alive 400 years ago. Slavery was a natural and accepted practice, and it would have been very hard for you to be able to find anybody who thought there was anything wrong with it. Today, the idea of slavery is totally unacceptable and abhorrent. This is a radical change in people's perceptions, and it indicates a fundamental shift in what humans have considered moral. Throughout history, we as human beings have continuously redefined what constitutes morality.
You can't impose morality on other people. Morality is personal. Everyone learns morality when they're young, from their early environment. Most people learn that you should play nice and not take other kids' toys. But if you grow up without a good sense of morality, then our country has laws to keep you in line. These laws are enforced, and they really are the best we can do.
With 75-85% of the country believing in God, (and 99.9% of prison inmates believing in some sort of religion), you can't blame atheists for the crime rate. It's not our fault. We don't make the Christians commit crimes. Maybe you should blame crime on the confusion caused by the biblical system of morality... that all sins are of equal value, and that all crimes can be completely wiped away by repenting and accepting Christ. For example, do you recall Carla Faye Tucker? Our Protestant society teaches us that it's okay to ram a pick-ax through someone's chest, you can still get into heaven. But if you think the wrong way, and don't believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky, then you are doomed to eternal torture..
We owe it to ourselves to express just how we arrive at our ethical decisions. What principles guide us? How does it all work? In this article I will set forth what I believe to be a rational and objective system of morality, and I will attempt to explain how this system works. This framework, called the Principle of Life Ownership, was formulated by Michael Scott Earl. He discusses this system in his tape series, "Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You." This system is universal, and useful in nearly every situation, to help you understand ethics. It is not moral anarchy— in fact it is far from it. You will see that it is more effective than the Christian system of morality, and can completely replace it.
Essentially, this system is based upon the realization that I own my own life. It is mine. Mine to do with as I wish. I have freedom to act in any way I choose. And since I assume this freedom for myself, I assume that you have it as well. But freedom does have it’s limitations. I’ll get to those later. The main advantage of such a system is that it is an objective system, a system grounded in the real world, but it allows you the freedom to make rational choices. This moral system operates within a framework of a few fundamental assumptions. These assumptions are:
1) START WITH A PERSONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNCERTAINTY
Socrates once said, “The only thing I know for certain is that I do not know anything.” Certainly Socrates was more honest than most people. I will change one thing about his comment— I do think we can be certain of our own existence. In other words, I know that I exist. And you know that you exist. I do think there are some things that can be known for sure. But we need to be careful not to boast of certainty when there is none.So the first step in this system is to acknowledge the unknown. This is simply an act of intellectual honesty. When confronted with questions about the existence of god and life after death, we need to have the courage to say, “I don’t know.” For thousands of years uncertainty has been perceived as an enemy of religious thought. But uncertainty does not need to be looked at as an enemy. Every moment of our lives presents us with a new uncertainty. We need not shy away from the unknown. We can embrace it and learn from it.
Because we are certain of nothing beyond our own existence, we need to make a basic assumption about the world around us. Specifically, we need to assume that the universe does not exist in our minds only, but that it is an objective reality that exists independent of us. The assumption of an objective reality is important because it establishes an environment in which all of your actions have real-world consequences.
Here is where the system differs sharply from Christianity. Christians claim to have absolute knowledge of the existence of a god, and of an existence after death-- two questions that can only honestly be answered by saying "I don't know." But they claim total certainty on these issues. We can no more know of an afterlife than we can know, with absolute certainty, where we will be a year from now.
2) REALIZE THAT ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EQUAL
This principle asserts that other human beings are fundamentally no better or worse than I am. Accordingly, I have no greater right to exist than the next guy, and vice versa. The inherent worth of one human being is no greater than that of any other human being, regardless of one’s race, gender, income, place of birth, sexual orientation, or any other genetic quality.After we make the assumption that all humans are equal, rational morality can begin to take on some real meaning. And that’s because rational morality is based on a sort of universal human empathy. When I realize that all other people’s lives have the same value to them that mine has to me, it is possible for me to recognize meaningful standards of moral behavior.
I believe that most people are basically good. Christians will tell you that we're all sinners-- that no one is righteous... no, not one. They may even say that we're all "totally depraved". Well, I don't buy this. People are essentially decent. This is a belief of mine, based upon the people I know and what I know about human nature. While I think it is true that most people primarily look out for their own interests, I think that most folks don’t want to intentionally cause pain and harm to others, and want to do the right thing. Try to picture everyone you know, and I think you’ll agree with me that most people are basically good. Criminals are the exception, not the rule. How many hardened criminals do you know? I think that the crime that is glorified on television and in movies has exaggerated how people perceive criminals.
For our ethical system to work, we also must assume that the most important thing we value is human life. Human life— this life that we are living now— is the ultimate value to us. Nothing else comes before it. If you place something else above human life in terms of value, then this is not a system that will work for you. In the Christian system, human life is not valued most-- the value placed on the will of God is far above the value that is placed on human life. Furthermore, the belief in a heavenly afterlife completely devalues this temporary mortal life. Consider this: imagine you were to live, say, one hundred years. That's a long lifespan by current standards. But compare that to an eternity in heaven. Multiply that lifespan by a million-- that only gives you a mere one hundred million years: nothing compared to eternity. A measly blink of an eye. What Christian would not eagerly sacrifice this brief mortal life in a righteous cause, if they thought it would give them a guaranteed ticket to heaven?
There are certain things that all of us value. We as human beings all value our own lives, our property, and the people who are close to us. We become deeply attached to all of these. These concerns represent universal values-- they are all valuable simply because of the experience of being human, not because an invisible man implanted these ideas in us.
THE PRINCIPLE OF LIFE OWNERSHIP
I own my own life. I can do whatever I want to with it. This is a right that I take for myself. No one has a right to take my life away from me— all of it, or any portion of it— without my CONSENT. No one may diminish the quantity— or the quality— of my life. To be consistent, I also extend this right to everyone else, because all people are fundamentally equal. Everyone has the right to his or her own life.Whether or not it is acceptable to kill another person suddenly becomes perfectly clear. Let’s say a person will live a hundred years. To kill that person at age fifty would be to steal the fifty years that remain to him. Do you have the right to take someone else’s life away? No, because that life did not belong to you. It belongs to them. When is it acceptable to kill someone else? When they are trying to take your life, or the life of someone else.
Simply saying: “Thou shalt not kill” is not enough. Talk about situational ethics! Why aren't we supposed to kill? Because of the intrinsic value of human life? The bible says no such thing. In fact, the bible has many stories that provide proof that there is no inherent value at all in human life. Consider the story of Uzzah, for example. This man watched as the Ark of the Covenant, the box carrying the Ten Commandments, started tipping over and falling off an ox-drawn cart. He reached out to keep it from falling, and the fact that he touched it angered God so much that God struck Uzzah dead on the spot. What is the bible teaching us about the value of human life? Now, multiply that tragedy by 50,070, because that's the number of Chosen People that God killed for merely looking into the Ark when it was opened in front of them. And there are many more examples like this. After reading the bible, it becomes clear that human life carries no inherent value in the Judeo-Christian system. The reason we aren't supposed to kill, according to the bible, is that God says so. Period. When He instructs you to kill, then it's perfectly moral, even if the people you are supposed to kill are women and children. This is pure Moral Relativism... because what is moral in one time and place isn't what is moral in a different time and place. The Christian system is based upon Moral Relativism, the exact thing that they accuse us atheists of embracing, even though they think that their system is based upon Moral Objectivism.
Within the framework of rational morality, killing another human being— except out of self-defense— would be the ultimate violation of the Principle of Life Ownership. Unlike the Christian system, we know why it's immoral, and that reason never changes. Exceptions are not made for our friends, and the guilty cannot get off scott free just because they 'repent'.
Consider the first murder ever recorded in the bible... after Cain killed Abel, God kicked Cain out of the Garden of Eden. But Cain complained to God that people would want to harm him, no matter where he went. So, God placed a mark on Cain, so that no one would ever hurt him because of his crime. Well, isn't that nice? Cain gets to murder his brother, and then go unpunished, and unpunishable. Bible-believing Christians believe that by repenting of your sins and accepting Jesus as your personal savior washes away your crimes, and allows you to get into heaven -- no matter how horrible your crimes were. Take Jeffery Dahmer, for example. While he was in prison for killing 17 people (and eating some of them), he became a Born-Again Christian. Then he was killed by another inmate. I have spoken to Christians who are perfectly fine with the idea that Dahmer is in heaven now.
Remember the case of lying? Is it always wrong to lie? Sometimes it is, when it violates the Principle of Life Ownership.
Here is another case to illustrate the application of the Principle. Let's pretend you are living in Germany in 1941. You are hiding a Jewish family in your basement. One night, you hear a loud knock on your door. It’s a troop of Nazi soldiers. They're going door to door looking for Jews, and they ask you if there are any of them in your house. What should you tell them? What will happen to the Jewish family? According to the Principle of Life Ownership, there is no question that the only moral choice is to tell a big, fat lie. You are defending the Jewish family’s right to own their own lives. It is perfectly clear.
Is it wrong to lie? Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on the situation. Does this mean we change our morality with each and every new situation? No, it does not. The behavior isn't based on our morality, the principle is. The behavior can change, but the principle NEVER changes. The Principle of Life Ownership is what our behavior is based upon, and it is something we can adhere to, no matter what the situation is.
Why is stealing wrong? Let’s say you want a new car. You work hard, save your money for a year, and buy that car. To earn the money, you have to trade hours of your life for money. That car cost you a portion of your life. If someone steals the car, then the thief has stolen however many hours it took you to earn the money to buy that car. The thief has, in a very real sense, stolen a portion of your life. You could have spent that time doing something else instead of working— so the thief has also robbed you of some of the quality of your life too. Stealing is wrong because it violates the Principle of Life Ownership.
"Consent" is a very important component in this system. It is permission from someone who owns his or her own life. Consent is the difference between lovemaking and rape. Between employment and slavery. Between charity and theft. Behavior that is perfectly moral in one case becomes completely immoral without the consent of the person whose life it is. In our interactions with others, the consent of the people involved makes all the difference. Think about any ethical situation you want to. How can you apply the Principle of Life Ownership? The Principle can tell you when an action is moral, and when an action is immoral.
Under this system, it is plainly obvious that what you think can never be immoral. Actions are immoral, not beliefs. Actions between consenting adults are not immoral. Only actions done against someone's will, and that diminish the quantity or quality of other people's lives, is immoral.
THE PLATINUM RULE
A practical, positive side of the Principle of Life Ownership is what is known as the Platinum Rule. You are probably already aware of the Golden Rule, as stated by Jesus: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is a very good rule. But we are going to do Jesus one step better. The Platinum Rule states: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." This is a subtle but important difference, one you should think about in your daily dealings with people, and your interpersonal relationships. This approach does take more work on your part. It requires that you find out what the other person wants. What you might want to have done to you might not be the same thing as someone else might want to have done to them.The Christian system of morality is not as real, as solid, or as universal as the Principle of Life Ownership, which works the same in all places, in all times, and with all people. Slavery is wrong now for the same reason it was wrong 200 years ago, and 3000 years ago— it is the theft of human life. In Christianity, slavery was once acceptable, but now is not-- and we're not even sure why! The Principle of Life Ownership does not change for different times, and makes no excuses for different social conditions. With this system of rational morality we exist inside an objective reality, and we can act within it and make a difference. Recognizing our potential to make a difference in this world lends a very real sense of purpose to our lives. Purpose is a reason you give yourself for your existence. We each have our own purpose, and the search for a purpose is something we must all go through. Within a rational framework you acquaint yourself with the real world around you and you recognize your ability to act and to make a difference. And therein will be your purpose.
Read this article many times. Visit ReasonWorks.com, and purchase the Bible Stories Your Parents Never Taught You tape series. Try to understand the Principle of Life Ownership. Put it into practice right away. Share it with other people. It is something that the world needs. Imagine if everyone on earth practiced it.