Should There Be An Absolute Moral Standard?

I was reading through Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae on the Regulation of Birth when I saw the following passage:

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

At first glance that may look like it actually makes sense, but let us try to break it down and tear it apart.

1. “Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.”

The key issue here is the term ‘moral law’, which unfortunately does not have a very definite definition:

Moral law is a system of guidelines for behavior. These guidelines may or may not be part of a religion, codified in written form, or legally enforceable. For some people moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being. For others, moral law is a set of universal rules that should apply to everyone.

Obviously the Church focuses on the “moral law is synonymous with the commands of a divine being” part, insisting not only that they are the sole recipient and interpreter of divine ‘revelation’, but that they actually hold the patent for morality. But what gives them the right to do so? Their claims are all hearsay and circular. And look at how their own ranks fared in terms of morality. Once the light of reason shines on the perceived moral authority of the Church, the things they so strongly denounce – contraceptives and free sex – become a matter of personal choice for the individual. Some may make less responsible choices than others, but the basis for what will be deemed ‘responsible’ is the careful collective reflection of an evolving society and not the absolute word of self-proclaimed leaders.

2. “Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman…”

Does wearing a condom mean that one has forgotten the reverence due to a woman? On the contrary, it shows the respect and care to the woman’s health and preferred reproductive status – even at the cost of reduced pleasure.

3. “…and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires…”

I think the women are more equipped to answer this. Does the Church really think that women are robots without their own sexual desires? Just like men, they too need to satisfy these desires every now and then to maintain emotional equilibrium. That’s what they mean when they tell someone acting bitchy that she needs to get laid.

4. “…no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.”

Is the mutual act of constantly satisfying each other’s sexual needs not a manifestation of care and affection between partners? And how can you surround her with care and affection if you need to avoid getting horny during the woman’s fertile period? When the wife is cooking his favorite dish, the husband will now hesitate to give her an affectionate hug from behind as an expression of gratefulness for the meal, because certain body parts might brush against each other and lead them to conceive another child – or break ‘moral law’ by using contraception.

In a diverse and evolving society, an absolute standard of morality simply doesn’t work. First, no matter how the Church claims that their laws were ‘revealed’ by God, this is actually hearsay and might as well be concocted by fallible men for their own agenda. Second, implementation is impossible to large populations, as even the leaders themselves bungle up.

Interestingly, we can observe another organizational approach from nature. Here is a passage from Michael Crichton’s novel Prey that explains how large numbers of the lower animals effectively achieve order and harmony without leaders telling them what to do:

Human beings expected to find a central command in any organization. States had governments. Corporations had CEOs. Schools had principals. Armies had generals. Human beings tended to believe that without central command, chaos would overwhelm the organization and nothing significant could be accomplished. From this standpoint, it was difficult to believe that extremely stupid creatures with brains smaller than pinheads were capable of construction projects more complicated than any human project. But in fact, they were.

African termites were a classic example. These insects made earthen castlelike mounds a hundred feet in diameter and thrusting spires twenty feet into the air. To appreciate their accomplishment, you had to imagine that if termites were the size of people, these mounds would be skyscrapers one mile high and five miles in diameter. And like a skyscraper, the termite mound had an intricate internal architecture to provide fresh air, remove excess CO2 and heat, and so on. Inside the structure were gardens to grow food, residences for royalty, and living space for as many as two million termites. No two mounds were exactly the same; each was individually constructed to suit the requirements and advantages of a particular site. All this was accomplished with no architect, no foreman, no central authority. Nor was a blueprint for construction encoded in the termite genes. Instead these huge creations were the result of relatively simple rules that the individual termites followed in relation to one another. (Rules like, “If you smell that another termite has been here, put a dirt pellet on this spot.”) Yet the outcome was arguably more complex than any human creation.

Most people watching a flock of birds or a school of fish assumed there was a leader, and that all the other animals followed the leader. That was because human beings, like most social mammals, had group leaders. But birds and fish had no leaders. Their groups weren’t organized that way. Careful study of flocking behavior—frame-by-frame video analysis—showed that, in fact, there was no leader. Birds and fish responded to a few simple stimuli among themselves, and the result was coordinated behavior. But nobody was controlling it. Nobody was leading it. Nobody was directing it. Nor were individual birds genetically programmed for flocking behavior. Flocking was not hard-wired. There was nothing in the bird brain that said, “When thus-and-such happens, start flocking.” On the contrary, flocking simply emerged within the group as a result of much simpler, low-level rules. Rules like, “Stay close to the birds nearest you, but don’t bump into them.” From those rules, the entire group flocked in smooth coordination.

A flock of birds with a population of thousands will move as if it were a single organism, with virtually no collision between birds. Now imagine if there was a single leader, a dozen generals, and a few hundred lieutenants all chirping out orders on how fast to fly and what direction to take. Even if these birds were equipped with GPS and radios to track and communicate with the individual members, such attempts at centralized command will only result in a fatal breakup of the formation.

As for morality, look at where the attempts at establishing an absolute moral standard have brought us. Overpopulation and poverty are an inescapable reality, and so is the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. All because of a letter deemed absolute and infallible, written by a pope more than four decades ago. And I guess this leads us to ask: Should there be an absolute moral standard, and should moral authority be centralized?

28 comments

  1. May I join the discussion? I don't think there is a truly absolute morality, if what we are talking about is morality that exists outside humanity. It's like art: can something be called "art" if there is no one to assign it the value of "art"? Can something be "art" in and of itself? I don't think so.

    Same with morality. "Good" and "evil" are concepts that have evolved with society, concepts that the collective have more or less deemed as beneficial or detrimental to the whole. Of course this is not perfect (as all things rarely are) since cultural and especially religious variances between people make some parts of the collective resistant or slower to accept the current prevailing morality (take note that I'm not saying that the current prevailing morality is "good" or "bad", it just is. The morality of morality, that's a whole different discussion).

    Morality is relative in space and time. There is the morality of the individual, the morality of a culture in a geographic area, and the morality collectively accepted (more or less) by humanity as a whole, ALL IN A PARTICULAR MOMENT IN TIME. These moralities all change as time progresses, as readily attested to by history.

    So even though my emotions say that raping and killing a child for kicks is absolutely "bad" anywhere in the universe at any point in time, I accept that without humanity to assign it that value, its "badness" is not intrinsic.

  2. "As for morality, look at where the attempts at establishing an absolute moral standard have brought us. Overpopulation and poverty are an inescapable reality, and so is the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases."

    Is it the morality or the immorality that brought us overpopulation, poverty, and std's?

      • iresponsible reproduction, poverty, and std's are brought about, in their very source, by lack of morality. those three that you mention can all be traced back from lack of charity.

        how can an effort or an attempt to stay faithful and obedient to the natural law be the source of the consequences of disregard for such law?

        • Okay then, let me put it this way. Overpopulation and STDs can be prevented by either abstinence or the proper use of condoms. Agreed so far? Now which one is more practical to implement? A solution that is virtually impossible to implement cannot be an effective solution – no matter how good it looks on paper. Do you really believe that enough people would buy into this abstinence crap to result in a significant reduction in population growth and STDs? Man is horny by nature, and the church arbitrarily calling this horniness 'immoral' and against 'natural law' does not change man's nature.

          However, the church keeps insisting that only abstinence is allowed by their 'moral law', asserting not only that they are the sole recipient and interpreter of divine ‘revelation’ but that they actually hold the patent for morality. But what gives them the right to do so? Their claims are all hearsay and circular, and they cannot even police their own ranks. How can they expect to reform entire nations? They are asking not only the impractical, but also the impossible – at the cost of overpopulation and the spread of STDs.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpTokfdfV_w

          • The problem with that line of thinking is putting in the same line both the population growth and STD as if they are to be categorized as one and the same. there is much to consider about the reality of the problem that our country is facing and oversimplifying things does not only reflect an attitude of disregard to a deeper understanding and recognition of the real cause of the problems…as if the use of contraceptions alone will "reform entire nations".

            it cannot be helped but reading through strongly verifies a heavier weight on the attempt of discrediting the Church rather than possessing a genuine concern for the human condition.

          • //there is much to consider about the reality of the problem that our country is facing and oversimplifying things does not only reflect an attitude of disregard to a deeper understanding and recognition of the real cause of the problems//

            I totally agree. Now, aren't we also oversimplifying when we say that the real cause of the problem is man's disobedience to the Church's arbitrary moral laws?

  3. Hmmm. Your right.

    But what I mean for several evil acts like rape, murder, slander, rape, child abuse, slavery & etc. In the past most of these are relative. But now we made them firm standards of morality – it is wrong to do them – We made it an absolute morality.

    I'm talking about how morality evolved from relative to absolute.

    • We may now have an absolute stand on malum in se crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, robbery, etc., but we don't have an absolute stand on what constitutes right or wrong. To drive my point, how can you say that the above-mentioned crimes are mala in se – "wrong or evil in itself" regardless of existing laws? Is it because they cause direct or immediate harm to person or property? But what about penal executions? Don't they cause direct, immediate, and fatal harm to a person?

      By the way, this is the legal definition of malum in se:

      "malum in se (mal-uhm in say) adv. Latin referring to an act that is “wrong in itself,” in its very nature being illegal because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created by statute, which are “malum prohibitum.” Example: murder, rape, burglary, and robbery are malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most “white collar crimes” are malum prohibitum."

      As I have written in my article Malum In Se (https://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/02/02/malum-in-se/):

      "It appears that malum in se is not absolutely objective after all but that which is considered generally wrong by a civilized society, and one of its differences with malum prohibitum (“wrong because prohibited”) is that civilized societies may sometimes disagree on what should be malum prohibitum, but not malum in se; no civilized society today condones murder, rape, kidnapping, theft, and robbery. And so when it comes to the death penalty, civilized societies simply haven’t agreed on this one, or at least not yet. (Same with abortion; civilized societies still do not have a general concensus as to whether or not a fetus can be called a person.)"

  4. I agree with the statement of Michael Bartolo. There is an absolute morality. The problem is the determination of the standard. Where can we based that standard or find that standard. Most people don't bother to look for it; they just accept what the majority accepted like religion or any organization or political organization without any questions. If you question it. My answer is this: The standard is REALITY–the reality of the nature of man, the reality of the nature of things you find in existence.

    • Hmmm the death penalty. A very tricky one 🙂 I'm not for it personally.

      Ok. I admit it there are certain things that are still relative today. But how can you justify it, by punishing an immoral act with another immoral act, which is killing. That is my problem with death penalty. Although I wouldn't deny the benefits will it give to the victims of the immoral act.

      For me it is still immoral. But most of society will agree upon in it's beneficial effect for the justice system. Therefore it's still relative.

      But I wouldn't say that in the case of "murder", would a society see any benefit from it? Would we agree on it as a relative act? I couldn't imagine it if that is the case. Murder is wrong and we made that morality absolute.

      Imagine this. I'm walking down a street suddenly I witnessed a murder. Would I ponder and think about it if what I saw is good or bad? Of course not. I would instinctively know what I saw is wrong. That's the effect of having an absolute moral.

  5. Morality is really naturally absolute. Even in the ancient times. The problem is people back then don't treat morality as we treat it today.

    In the past they treat morality and immorality relative. It really depends on their necessity. For example, slavery. Back then it is beneficial for a slaver to own slaves. And that's all there is for them. What about the slave? Is it beneficial for the slave to be a slave? And not to mention slavery is forced by the slaver. Is that good? Of course not. That's why we learned and made an absolute morality that slavery is bad. It is now instinctively for us. We don't have to agree upon it if slavery is bad.

    On the instant man formed organized societies morality is always been there. And I'm glad we have came a long way from our barbaric past.

    We made morality absolute not a divine supreme being. That's a human achievement.

  6. I believe in an absolute morality. Good is good, bad is bad.

    But society made it absolute, we made it standard. Our morality evolved from past moral codes of early civilizations where we instinctively know something whether it is good or bad. Morality progressed and is way better than in the past.

    Morality came from us. It is collective.

    We are more deemed to form a society where we didn't kill each other or steal from one another. Of course who would want to live in a society where murder is a relative action.

    • Ah, perhaps I should have made it clear that I was talking about sexual morality and not malum in se crimes like murder.

      Also, when you said that "Morality progressed and is way better than in the past", isn't that tantamount to saying that morality isn't absolute? 🙂

      As for your statement, "Morality came from us. It is collective", I totally agree. Moral authority should not be centralized, much less by the Vatican.

      • Well, what I meant about that is morality developed. From a relative point of view in the past morality became absolute now because we made collective standards of it.

        For me the morals we have now are absolute compare to the moral code back in the past.

    • I believe we must not confuse absolute morality and objective morality. When we say that "there is such as thing as good, and what is good for one is good for all", what we are saying is that morality is objective, not necessarily that it is absolute. When we say that morality is absolute, not only are we saying that it is fixed for all eternity, we are also saying that moral truths stand in stark opposition to the truths of the human condition and the truths of science, that moral truths are in a realm of their own, perhaps playing golf and having tea with the verities of mathematics (which are absolute).

      I believe we can achieve a feasible, scientific and objective morality, but absolute morality are in my opinion mere fantasy held by those who want certainty in moral matters. Not that I am accusing you of believing in the fantastic, only that I believe that you should reconsider your use of the word "absolute".

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here