Relative to time and place

Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply ‘modern standards’ for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives--indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame.

But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?

Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.

Dr. William Lane Craig

****************************************

That was just three paragraphs of a long thesis by Dr. William Lane Craig, which I had to read for my Philosophy of Religion course. Basically, we were going through the various arguments to support the belief regarding the existence of God and one of those arguments was that God certainly has to exist since God is the source of morality. Hence, since morality exists then God definitely has to exist.

Hence, also, we know what is right and what is wrong because God ‘tells’ us what is right and what is wrong (or implants in us the notion of right and wrong) and if there were no God then we would not know what is right and what is wrong. (Note: this is just one of the various arguments that theists use to support the view that God exists).

In my essay, I disagreed with this 'popular' view based on the argument that right and wrong are relative to time and place and are dynamic, not static. In other words, the definition of right and wrong changes over time and over regions. There would certainly be a very long list of examples to emphasis this point but let us take just a few. Slavery would be one example. At one time slavery was considered right anywhere in the world. Today, slavery is considered wrong, but only is some parts of the world.

Do you know that as recent as just before Merdeka slavery still existed in Malaya? I am not going to go into details lest I embarrass certain members of the Royal Family but just let me summarise it by saying that many of my ‘adopted cousins’ would be considered slaves by western standards (and I emphasis ‘western standards’)?

In fact, J.W.W. Birch, the first British Resident of Perak, was killed in Pasir Salak on 2nd November 1875 because of his opposition to slavery. Birch had attempted to ban slave trading in Perak and the slave traders, basically the elite of the Perak ruling hierarchy, got rid of him.

It took another 100 years before slavery really ended and I was already around to see it before it ended. No doubt this is never discussed (for obvious reasons) and Malaysians generally are not aware of this scourge. And it was not just the Malays who were guilty of this; let me assure you of that.

The point I want to make, though, is that slavery, which is considered wrong, would only be wrong depending on the time and place you happened to be living in. So, are you sure that wrong is wrong? Could it not actually be right? And does right become wrong only because you happen to live in a certain region and in a certain time and that if you lived somewhere else and in another time this would be right rather than wrong?

Hence, my conclusion in the essay which I wrote was that right and wrong is relative. And since it is relative, how can morality come from God? If morality came from God then it would not change over time and region. It would be static, not dynamic. So, if you use morality to argue the existence of God, then God cannot exist because morality does not exist.

Now, when I say 'morality does not exist' I mean it in the sense that what is moral to one person may be immoral to another. Having four wives would be considered immoral, as would be the case for keeping mistresses. But that would only be immoral now, and in western society. In Muslim countries, for example, that is not immoral. So, again, time and place decides what is moral and what is immoral.

Take the definition of children, as another example. A couple of hundreds of years ago, ‘children’ were those who had not reached puberty yet (or girls who are yet to get their period). In 1212, tens of thousands of boys and girls aged 9-13 were sent to the Crusades. (Read ‘La croisade des enfants’ [The Children's Crusade] 1896, by Marcel Schwob).

Today, these 9-13-year old boys and girls are considered children but back then they were adults and old enough to be sent to fight against the Muslims. Incidentally, none of them returned home.

Hence even the definition of children changed over time and place and today sex with a 13-year old girl is considered a crime (immoral) because at 13 she is classified as still a child. In the past, though, at 13, a girl was not only old enough to get married but also old enough (moral) to be sent to war and to die for Christ.

But times have changed. Today we no longer use religion’s definition of adult to classify children as adults. Today we use man-made laws and not God’s law to define adults as those above 18 while those below 18 are considered still children -- although in the past a girl of 18 would be considerer too old and her chances of getting a husband at that age would be reduced drastically.

I am okay with that, though. I realise that slavery is now no-go and adults would legally be those above 18 (even though slavery is still legal in Islam). No longer can we use old standards and yardsticks. All those old values used to determine morality need to be discarded in favour of modern standards.

My only question is why is this limited to just some things? In the past, children of 13 were considered adults and at the same time children had to follow the religion of their parents. If they did not they would be killed as apostates. Apostasy, in short, was punishable by death.

Today, we ban the practice of classifying 13-year olds as adults. You need to be 18 to be an adult (in England, you can't even buy cigarettes and liquor). But we do not ban the practice of forcing children to follow the religion of their parents. Children must follow the religion of their parents or would otherwise be punished.

Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply ‘modern standards’ for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow).

So, when you say this is right or that is wrong, or this is moral and that is immoral, whose standard are you applying? My standard? Your standard? Society’s standard? Religious standard? Western standard? Constitutional standard? Which one?

You argue one point using one standard and another point using a different standard. You decide right and wrong and moral and immoral using what you believe to be right/moral or wrong/immoral. And you expect me to lead my life according to the standards you have drawn up.

If we wish to set certain standards and pass a law that 13 is no longer the age of consent and that an adult is someone who is 18 that is acceptable to me. In fact, that may be good. We redefine right/wrong and moral/immoral. But we should not stop there. There are many other so-called wrongs and immoralities that also need to be addressed.

And one such ‘old value’ that is just as outdated as classifying 13-year olds as adults is to use religious values to interfere in how I wish to lead my life. That is as outdated as sending 9-13 year olds to die in a war or to get them married off before they reach 15-16 and thus become too old to get married.