Information Related to "Right and Wrong - Who Decides?"
| Audio/Video |
Right & Wrong
Who Decides?
Are we equipped to decide right and wrong for ourselves?
The record of history isn't encouraging, so is it time we looked somewhere else?
by Roger Foster
The
recent U.S. presidential election focused attention on bitter divisions in society
over moral behavior and ethical values. The winner of the election, President George
W. Bush, has promised to change the tone of politics in Washington and institute
a new civility in government. The scandals of the Clinton years played a major role
in heightening passions over issues of moral and ethical standards.
At the heart of the current debate over morality lies a crucial question: Who has
the right to decide right from wrong?
The issues that so divided the United States during the recent election cycle are
real and dishearteningly deep.
They routinely dominate newspaper headlines and television news. For many, the issues
have become personal crusades. They have increasingly become litmus tests for those
who would hold public office or those who would vote for them.
In many cases these issues have divided families and even generations. They define
on the one hand what is politically correct and on the other what is deemed intolerant
or close-minded. They increasingly affect the lives of people all over the world.
Issues that dominate
What are some of the issues-matters of right and wrong-that divide us?
Abortion, homosexuality and homosexual rights usually top the lists. Other issues
relating to sex are always hot topics. Is adultery really wrong? Is promiscuity harmful?
What's the harm in lying about sex? After all, doesn't everybody do it? Surely a
person's private life has no bearing on his performance in public office or other
positions of trust-or so we are told.
Not far behind are drug use-including decriminalization or reduced penalties for
use, possession and distribution of illegal drugs.
Other distasteful matters regularly make the news. What exactly is pornography? What's
wrong with producing movies and television shows that glorify violence and illicit
sex, since that's what people pay to see?
What about music? Isn't most popular music simply a harmless way to let off steam
or a matter of freedom of speech? Is that still the case when music includes obscene
lyrics that promote shooting policemen, killing one's parents, suicide, drug use,
rape, sexual relations with minors, perverted sex and violence in general? (If you
think this sounds far-fetched, a music recording recently nominated as the album
of the year in the United States included many such elements among its obscenity-laced
lyrics.)
We hear arguments that laws have to change with the times. We're more enlightened
now, the reasoning goes, so we understand that things that used to be taboo-like
many of those listed above-really aren't so bad after all. We're regularly told that
such issues are simply a matter of personal choice, and no one has a right to impose
his standards and values on others.
Drawing lines on right and
wrong
Those who believe that human beings should have almost unlimited freedom to do as
they please are on one side of the debate. Those who believe in absolute standards
that define right from wrong are on the other. In between are many who accept, to
varying degrees, arguments from both viewpoints.
What is the solution to our dilemmas? The scope of the issues-and what makes something
right vs. what makes it wrong-can be daunting. Discerning right from wrong is a challenge
that reaches far beyond the realm of the physical sciences. The issues involved cannot
be measured in meters and millimeters or in tons and pounds.
Spiritualqualities-such as honor, respect and love-are the true standards
vital to this critical evaluation process.
We must consider the impact of our actions. All our actions have consequences, good
or bad. What are the long-term effects on our lives? How do consequences affect others?
How do they influence our relationships with family, friends, community and society
as a whole?
Virtually everyone recognizes that the needs of the individual must be tempered by
the needs of the larger community. Any effective judgment about what is right or
wrong needs to thoroughly balance the long-term value and consequences of our actions
against their value in satisfying our short-term needs, pleasures and desires.
We are capable of recognizing many of these critical issues and seeing the need to
address them. But are we able to effectively evaluate them so we reach conclusions
that will consistently benefit allpeople both now and for generations to come?
The evidence suggests we are not.
What guidelines should we use?
Our disagreements are vast. Our conclusions and solutions consistently fall short
of the ideal for several reasons.
Our primary weakness is our tendency to emphasize short-term personal gains
over long-term benefits. Our overriding desire is to satisfy our needs and wants
as quickly as possible. Understandably, this greatly clouds our judgment.
Compounding the problem is our tendency to view experiences-both personal and historical-from
vastly different perspectives. These different perspectives toward problems and solutions
underscore our need for a different reference point, for unbiased and comprehensive
guidance in finding long-term solutions.
Who is qualified to give guidance about right and wrong? Unless a Supreme Being exists
who reveals the true answers to questions of right and wrong, we have nowhere to
turn for such guidance. So let's consider the alternative.
If there is no eternal truth, then all questions of right and wrong are merely
a matter of preference. Nothing is intrinsically evil. We are free to choose the
standards we prefer and decide which ones should be optional. We are free to determine
our own rules and systems for enforcing them, and we can change the rules and systems
however and whenever we please to fit our current desires and preferences.
Therefore, if we disagree with any aspect of the established order we could, with
no pangs of conscience, challenge it-even with force-should we have the conviction,
power and means to do so. If we can recruit enough supporters we can establish our
own system of law-or lawlessness-as we please. After all, if we can decide for ourselves
what is right or wrong, who would have the right to judge our decisions and actions?
Should we become really ambitious, we can attempt to confront all who have differing
views and impose our preferences on them. Obviously, if nothing is inherently wrong,
there would exist no actual limits, no real restraints that we would be obligated
to recognize. We would determine what is right and whether to impose it on those
who are weaker and, in our view, less perceptive. We would be the sole judges of
good and evil. The will of the strongest would prevail.
If this scenario seems hauntingly familiar, it's no wonder. It was just such reasoning
that led Adolf Hitler to launch World War II. He convinced himself and his followers
that he knew what was best for mankind. He believed he should decide which humans
were superior and worthy of life and who, being inferior, should be exterminated
for the good of the race. He believed he should determine right from wrong. His goal
was to impose his perceptions of an ideal world, a 1,000-year reich, on all
of humanity-or at least on all he deemed fit to survive.
If you were the judge of right and wrong for the world, would your values and standards
be superior to those of Hitler? If so, why? On what authority? What would give you
the right to lift your beliefs above his?
Facing an uncomfortable reality
Those who reject the belief that God exists and that He reveals standards of behavior
generally refuse to face up to the sobering implications of the view that man is
the sole arbiter of right and wrong. They hold the opinion that humans are progressively
evolving into naturally more ethical beings. They contend that human nature is fundamentally
good. Therefore, according to them, we have valid reason to trust our collective
judgment.
But there's a problem with this view: It doesn't correspond to reality.
In the last century humanity has been repeatedly threatened by the likes of Hitler
in Europe, Pol Pot in Asia, Saddam Hussein in the Middle East and Slobodan Milosevic
in the Balkans, to name only a few. Force, not reason, was required to prevent these
despots from imposing their disastrous views of right and wrong on even more victims.
The number of armed conflicts and their corresponding butchery in the supposedly
progressive 20th century alone were staggering. Plenty of strongmen and would-be
dictators remain on the scene. The truth is that clever tyrants gain power and wreak
havoc even in our enlightened world. The evidence suggests no end is in sight.
The only societies that last for a significant time are those that require accountability
by a system of law (or traditions that have the effect of law). Such societies expect
everyone to meet common standards of behavior or face punishment.
Law defines obligations (what is right) and unacceptable behavior (what is wrong)
for civilized societies. The majority of human beings have proved unable to resolve
their differences and conflicts with each other without a clearly defined and enforceable
system based on basic standards. So this brings us back to our original question:
Who should determine standards of what is acceptable and unacceptable?
Although the situation is rapidly changing, for years the foundation of many Western
nations' legal code was the Bible (see "One Nation-Under God?," page 8).
In its pages one claiming to be the Creator of mankind asserts that He alone has
the right to establish the rules for our behavior. He alone understands man's spectrum
of needs and problems. He alone can set the standards and establish the laws
that define right and wrong, that help us understand long-term consequences of our
actions.
God's view, according to the Scriptures, is that truth can be defined, that eternal
truth does exist. Only He fully comprehends that truth and can accurately
communicate it to us. Only He understands the distinctions between right and wrong
and where our choices lead. Only He clearly reveals the distinctions to us.
Let's compare what He has to say to some of the current trends in our supposedly
enlightened human thinking.
The secular view of right and
wrong
The human perspective is that we can discover all things for ourselves. Through trial
and error, discussion and compromise, we will eventually be able to agree on a just
and fair set of principles that define moral behavior and right and wrong.
That this has never happened, and we are no closer together in our views today than
in the past, doesn't seem to diminish our high opinion of our own abilities. Some
among us are always eager to assure us that a breakthrough is just around the corner,
that humanity is on the brink of an era of understanding and cooperation.
So let's examine the reality of where we are. Since the biblical perspective is represented
as divine truth, let's consider how leading academic and philosophical thinkers
view the very idea of truth.
In The Varnished Truth: Truth Telling and Deceiving in Ordinary Life(1993),
David Nyberg, professor of philosophy of education at the State University of New
York, Buffalo, promotes the view that all truth is relative. He believes it is essential
that we accept and regularly practice alternatives to being fully truthful. He makes
statements such as: "Sometimes the truth does not set you free; it destroys
the sense of freedom that hope provides" and "To live decently with one
another, we do not need moral purity, we need discretion."
Professor Nyberg views deceit and self-deception, if discreetly used, as valuable
contributors to social stability. He favors creative omissions of truth over blatant
lies to achieve his notion of beneficial deception. But he has no objection to "white
lies" if they achieve what he would consider a compassionate or noble result.
In Truth in Context: An Essay on Pluralism and Objectivity (1998), Michael
Lynch, assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Mississippi, promotes
a middle-of-the-road approach to truth. His argument is that truths may be relative,
but our concept of truth doesn't have to be. Mr. Lynch, however, finds little support
for his moderate views among his peers.
Sissela Bok, in Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life (1989), examines
the growing debate over public and private morality and addresses the prevalence
of lying and deception in law, family, medicine and government. She courageously
takes our modern society to task for allowing "little white lies" to be
accepted as normal behavior, challenging us to examine the effects of lying
on individuals,relationships and society.
These views reflect the division and diversity in philosophical circles over fundamental
issues of right and wrong. But they don't answer the big questions: Is truth definable?
What is the basis for standards that would distinguish right from wrong?
Our best thinkers and scholars cannot agree. So where do we find the answers?
The biblical perspective
The Bible presents the view that truth is definable, and basic truths are
eternal. The authors of all the books of the Bible wrote that judgments about
right and wrong should all be based on the true and accurate judgments
of God. David, king and prophet in ancient Israel, well expressed this biblical point
of view: "The entirety of Your word is truth, and every one of Your
righteous judgments endures forever" (Psalm 119:160, emphasis added throughout).
Jesus Christ expressed the same conviction. Shortly before He was crucified He prayed
for those who would faithfully follow Him: "They are not of the world, just
as I am not of the world. Sanctify them (set them apart from the rest of the world)
by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have
sent them into the world.
And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth"
(John 17:16-19).
When Jesus was on trial for His life, Roman governor Pontius Pilate asked Him if
He were indeed a king as was rumored. Jesus responded: "You say that I am a
king. For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the
truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice." Pilate's
jaded response was, "What is truth?" (John 18:37-38, New Revised Standard
Version).
Modern cynicism about whether it is possible for truth to be both defined and eternally
consistent is not new. Those who have lacked faith in the Scriptures have long struggled
with the impossibility of human beings arriving at consistent and useful views of
right and wrong. Our perpetually conflicting perspectives are enough to cause any
thinking person-except one fully trusting the Creator God-to despair of humanity's
ability to discover standards and values that are just and applicable to all human
beings.
Like it or not, we need God as the arbiter of the controversy. Unless God exists
and reveals the basis for our standards and values, we have nowhere to turn for guidance.
There simply exists no credible evidence that humanity as a whole is any better now
than in the past. Even though our knowledge has dramatically increased in relation
to past centuries, our inhumanity toward our fellowman also has markedly increased
in the past century.
It is time we faced the facts and quit hiding behind a vain hope that we are on the
brink of enlightenment through our
own efforts.
A book of principles
The Bible claims to be God's revelation to mankind. But what is the Bible? What does
it teach about God's expectations of human beings?
More than on anything else, the Bible is built on principles. Jesus explained
that everything God's prophets wrote as His revelation falls under two great, overriding
principles. "Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question ..., 'Teacher,
which is the great commandment in the law?' Jesus said to him, '"You shall love
the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind."
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: "You shall
love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments hang all the Law
and the Prophets'" (Matthew 22:35-40).
All questions about relationship standards and values fall into these two categories.
They reflect our attitudes and actions toward God and each other.
The author of the book of Hebrews explained to the early Christians: "For though
by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the
first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not
solid food. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word
of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full
age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern
both good and evil" (Hebrews 5:12-14).
Discernment comes from understanding how to wisely and appropriately apply the timeless
laws and principles God has revealed. The Bible contains many commands and sample
judgments, all revealed to us through God's prophets. Those commands and judgments
reveal how God thinks. They teach us His perspective, His point of view. Those
who trust God respect and emulate His thinking and perspective. In so doing
they gain wisdom and learn to apply biblical principles wisely.
Misunderstanding the Bible
It's important that we grasp the concept of biblical revelation. Many objections
to the Bible as man's standard for determining right from wrong are based on a misunderstanding
of the purpose of the Scriptures. Arguments about the Bible's "absolute standards"
are often misleading. The Bible does set certain absolute guidelines. But that is
not the whole story.
For example, many Jewish people have long believed that the perspective of law adopted
by Western nations does not do justice to the part of the Bible that is called the
Law-the Torah (especially the first five books of the Bible written by Moses). Torah
means "teachings" in xHebrew. It implies guidelines for the right way
to live. It was written as the basis for righteous discernment.
Many of the laws of the Bible fall into the category of what can be called "case
law"? that is, they are examples of how
God judged particular cases or situations so appointed judges could rightly discern
the principles that should be applied to similar cases.
Since the Scriptures reveal many principles pertaining to righteousness, godly
judgments are supposed to take into con-sideration all principles applicable to the
situation. This calls for wisdom based on thorough knowledge and understanding
of the Scriptures.
Therefore, wisely applying the Scriptures requires much more than merely checking
a list of absolute or inflexible statutes, as some have incorrectly perceived. It
requires those who would be skilled in discerning right from wrong to "grow
up in all things into Him who is the head-Christ"-whose understanding and judgment
in righteousness serve as our example (Ephesians 4:15). That is why the apostle Paul
wrote, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who
does not need tox be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth"
(2Timothy 2:15, New International Version).
The book of Proverbs tells us where and how to seek out the kind of wisdom that will
help us live a way of life beneficial to all: "My son, if you receive my words,
and treasure my commands within you, so that you incline your ear to wisdom, and
apply your heart to understanding; yes, if you cry out for discernment, and lift
up your voice for understanding, if you seek her as silver, and search for her as
for hidden treasures; then you will understand the fear of the LORD, and find the
knowledge of God.
"For the LORD gives wisdom; from His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
He stores up sound wisdom for the upright; He is a shield to those who walk uprightly;
He guards the paths of justice, and preserves the way of His saints. Then you will
understand righteousness and justice, equity and every good path. When wisdom enters
your heart, and knowledge is pleasant to your soul, discretion will preserve you;
understanding will keep you, to deliver you from the way of evil ..." (Proverbs 2:1-12).
The ultimate question
None of this advice from the Bible makes any sense, however, unless God exists. If
we are to believe that God is the final determiner of right and wrong, we need to
be assured that His existence is not just a figment of religious people's imagination.
|
Recommended Reading Does God exist? Can you
know for sure? Be sure to request your free copy of |
© 2001-2022
United Church of God, an International Association
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "Right and Wrong - Who Decides?"
Other Articles by Roger Foster
Origin of article "Right and Wrong - Who Decides?"
Keywords: right and wrong standards of right and wrong
Morality: