 |
“Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss.” - Paradise Lost, 1667.
|
In the epic poem, Paradise Lost, John Milton reexamines the Genesis story of Adam and Eve along with an in-depth interpretation into Satan and his motive as the biblical events play out. What I find interesting is that, having grown up a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we are taught that the fall of Adam was God's plan all along, and that it was necessary for humans to fall in order to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth"; but in this version, as well as most mainstream Christian belief, the Fall of Man is considered a great tragedy that could have been avoided if our primordial ancestors would have only listened to God's commandment not to partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. In the latter interpretation, I find it strange that God seems to be so keen on keeping human beings ignorant and that such a punishment would be inflicted if we ever gained such basic understanding as right and wrong. In essence, we traded in blind obedience for choice and accountability. Whether or not these events are taken literally, figuratively, or fictionally, I believe there is value in the narrative, and lessons that can be applied to today in regards to agency and what it means to choose between good and evil.
Today I will be talking about that most controversial and even volatile of subjects: morality. By definition, morality is the principles of right or wrong behavior. They are our personal and societal guide lines that lead us in a wholesome direction for ourselves and for others. But what is the source of those principles? Is there an absolute moral authority, or is morality relative? I do not have the answer to that. Many religious minded people believe fervently that God dictates moral law, and it is by these commandments that we must follow. There is no empirical way to prove or disprove this belief, despite the heated debate that surrounds the issue. Instead, I will be focusing on something I think everyone can agree on, and that is the relativity of man's laws and the subjective form of morality that comes with it. This is apparent every time one turns on the news, scrolls through social media, or turns on talk radio in the car. The concept of good and evil can be almost entirely contradictory from person to person let alone from religion to religion or political party to party. Everyone has their own ideas of what is right based on environmental and social pressures such as parental teaching, school, peer influence, and spiritual belief. Even within the same religion I have found no complete uniformity in ideals. For instance, I have spoken to members of my church who feel evolution is an entirely made up concept inspired by Satan to lead away the children of God into damnation. I've also talked to members who believe evolution was a tool used by God to create life and mankind, and that a pre-Adamic people existed in which Adam and Eve were more so the first "chosen" man and woman of God. The church itself has no stance on the subject of evolution.
The concept of Utopia is nothing new. The perfect society is a dream that men and women have chased since time immemorial. The glaring problem with Utopia is that, to achieve the perfect society, one must enforce an absolute vision of morality. This would create a paradise to those who agree with those morals, but a nightmarish hell for those who think differently. At the end of the day, Utopia will always exclude or punish someone, restrict rights, privileges, and bind freedoms. This is why I believe Utopia is no more than a fantasy that is completely devoid of reality. The perfect world cannot exist for the benefit of everyone, and so Utopia will be lost over and over again every time someone tries to implement it.
Instead of chasing after false dreams and exalted imaginings, I think what we should really be focused on is creating the most cohesive society that we can. Let go of concepts of perfection, and focus on building a civilization that simply functions for the freedom and security of it's citizens, and respects the agency of all who are part of it. We can do this by irradiating laws that impede personal freedoms, and implementing laws that bolster and protect the right to choose, while also ensuring security from those who wish to cause harm. For example, legalizing recreational drugs and giving reign to the marketplace to compete on prices. Legalizing prostitution, but with strict government regulations in place for safe conduct and in-depth screening for sex workers to ensure it is their chosen profession. This, coupled with more severe consequences for sex trafficking and unauthorized drug dealing, would in effect destroy the black market on both industries as well as creating a spillway for this behavior to exist without causing harm. I'd like to add that I do not condone, or approve of either habits, but I will not push my personal morals onto others even if I feel it could be harmful to them personally. I take literally the passage in the Declaration of Independence that says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The pursuit of Happiness, being an important phrase because it implies personal interpretation as to what makes a person happy. I have no right to demand another person to live a certain moral code. The most I can do is invite them to live a better life by avoiding these things. We need to realize, as a global society, that the legal system should not be a weapon to enforce personal ethics, but simply as a tool to prevent interpersonal harm.
I could write an entire blog entry on the concept of harm and to what extent that ought to apply, but that will have to be for another day. For now, I hope I've conveyed an interesting point of view on morality and our application of it in our global civilization at large. Lastly, I would like to leave my readers with a conclusion to my perspective that may perhaps clarify everything into a succinct sentence: Let paradise and utopia remain in the realm of the Gods and the divine to divulge to us when they deem fit, but until that day comes for us mere mortals, let us create a world that ensures free will, and functions for all to the best of our ability.
Interesting concept of utopia. I think of the city of Enoch but also contrast it with Sodom and Gomorrah where both probably thought it was a utopia because they were surrounded with others who thought and acted like them. But also I think in the 3rd perspective of owning garden where the utopia to the owner would be one of abundant fruit and vegetables, and that of also the plants, but if it were over ran with weeds it would only be a utopia to the weeds. So if one consigns to the idea of an owner who assigns a purpose and a function to the garden then its ultimately not up to weeds or the plants to determine its outcome, since the owners will is entirely greater than the sum of wills from all of attendants in the garden dispite their own varying designs for the garden unless they align with the garden owner. However, if you consign to no owner then I believe the same process of purpose and function are assigned individually depending on their own experience or others experience they adopt, which will vary infinitely.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy of the gardener was something I established early in the post where I stated many believe that God dictates absolute morality, in which case you would be correct. However, to continue with the metaphor, we live in a world of weeds and plants where the gardener is not empirically known, and can only be understood through the extra sensory spiritual conformation. This is not to say the gardener doesn't exist, but that a collection of flora of differing types may not agree on the same thing, and so need to find common ground in which to create a tolerable existence for one another. Like I said, I'll leave utopia in God's hands.
DeleteI could agree that there isn't enough direct physical evidence to conclusively determine a God of the garden, but what about circumstantial evidence? The fact that a garden exists where everywhere else is a rocky field. One could argue that an infinite number of causes removed the rocks, built a fense, enriched the soil, sowed the seeds, and waters them on consistent cycles; however there is not any direct physical evidence to prove that theory either.
DeletePerhaps the physical evidence could be contained in a dimension beyond our current ability to precieve or that of our instruments to precieve? Since if there were a being that had the capacity to do those things then it's wholly beyond our ability to understand it because at the present we are incapable of producing the same results physically, theoretically, or otherwise.
Circumstantial evidence does not prove or disprove anything in purely scientific terms. It is simply unknown; similar to dark matter. We know dark matter exists, and we have hypotheses as to what it could be but because we cannot yet find a line of evidence that can be tested, put into a theorem and used to predict outcomes, we must leave it in the realm of the unknown until future discoveries. To attribute God to the creation of life because it is simply circumstantial doesn't provide actual evidence and only embodies him as the God of the unknown.
Delete