Morality: Christian vs. Humanist

Many times, I hear the claim: the only possible basis for morality is the perfect set of rules given to imperfect humanity by the perfect God. I don't believe this claim, made to me often by Christians who believe they have access to those perfect moral principals. I want to examine the nature of the Christian moral system, and find out if it is truly superior to any other possible system of choosing between "right" and wrong.

Christian Morals

Imagine this scenario:

You're out on a date, having a really good time. Not only do you enjoy the company of your date, but you start thinking about getting into bed together. I mean by the end of the evening, you are really feeling hot and bothered. And from what you can tell, you lucky person, your date is also feeling the same.

So - you both have a decision to make. My understanding of the Christian attitude here is that right choice to make is determined by an absolute set of rules, given to humans by God. Specifically, these two people should ideally decide not to indulge their lust for each other, as this is one of the things forbidden by the absolute morality given by God. My impression of what Christians think of as the decision-making process is this:

Step 1: I want to get in bed with my date.
Step 2: Is this a good idea?
Step 3: God has said no one should have sex unless they're married - that makes it a sin.
Step 4: I really need a cold shower!

This is a simple process, easy to understand, and no mistakes can be made, right? Well...

The problem of morality is a little more complex than this. The issue of abortion is a prime example of attempting to solve complex problems with simple rules. What should one do, for example, if a woman with a chronic heart condition, who is waiting for a donor heart, gets pregnant. According to the doctor, the woman most likely won't survive to deliver the baby, due to the physical stress of the pregnancy. Is an abortion the right thing to do? Mind you, the woman was aware that becoming pregnant would be extremely hazardous, and she had used birth control measures diligently. Being in her early 20's, her hope had been to stay fertile and be able to become pregnant after receiving a new, healthy heart. Unfortunately for her, the birth control measures failed. This scenario actually happened, and was in the news recently, in Texas (if memory serves correctly). The doctor wanted to perform an abortion in order to save the mother's life, but a second physician prevented this from happening, because his estimation was that there was only a 40% chance the mother would die. Suddenly, we get into a situation where it's not so easy or clear-cut as to what is "right."

Now, let's look a little more closely at some other aspects of the process of deciding what's right and wrong. First of all, we are told by Christians that the perfect rules to live by are contained in the Christian Bible. The strange thing about this situation is that there's a lot of disagreement among Christians as to what this set of rules actually is, and what it means. For instance, completely following all the laws set down in the Torah would be impossible in the modern world - otherwise, we'd be forcing rape victims to marry their attackers, stoning disobedient children to death, and carrying out all sorts of other horrible actions in the name of "morality." The end result here is that we end up throwing out much of the laws in the Torah in practical terms, in spite of the fact the New Testament states that the laws shall not pass away.

The central theme of the whole Bible is one of a conflict between good and evil, between God and human nature. We are told that we would be living in heaven with God if it weren't for sin. But what is sin? One dictionary has this definition:

Transgression of the law of God; disobedience of the divine command; any violation of God's will, either in purpose or conduct; moral deficiency in the character; iniquity; as, sins of omission and sins of commission.

So this is a pretty broad concept, and the Bible makes it even broader, saying that sin is a natural condition of humanity - you don't have to do anything to be seen as sinful, it's just the way you're created. So it is assumed that no matter what you do or think or say, it is defined as morally wrong.

In the Christian view, then, morality is not a set of rules of how to act. No matter what actions a person does, no matter what choices he makes in the course of his life, the end result is existence outside the realm of morality, and according to Christian beliefs, the person ends up in hell - a subject for another essay. In order to become a moral person, one must find a way to be forgiven for the moral error (sin) of being born. This is done, according to Christians, by becomming Christian. This is done by acknowledging one's sins and asking for forgiveness and asking Christ to take charge of your life. From that point on, Christians believe that they can be defines as "good" people and that they have no sin to worry about. In other words, no matter what they do, they believe that their actions will have no effect on their ability to enter heaven.

This set of beliefs has many problems. First, it is confusing, because the idea of morality should be primarily concerned with a person's actions. I hear often that the act of turning one's life over to Christ is the key - once that is truly done, no immoral actions are possible. I think this concept is extremely suspicious, in light of the "sinless" actions attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, such as ordering followers to hate and abandon their families, encouraging self-mutilation, showing disreaspect and contempt for his mother and siblings, and so forth. Secondly, the confusion gets deeper when one realizes that even if the event of becoming a "true Christian" is rare, the people who only think they're becoming good, moral people who will be automatically forgiven for all actions become a major danger to those around them. Without some sort of self-control mechanism in their minds, the potential for extremely heinous acts is actually increased when joining a Christian church. The horrible history of religious violence in Christian Europe attests to this concept all to clearly, regardless of the actual state of the souls of the criminals.

Humanist Morality

I have stated, in the ethics section of my initial essay on philosophy, that I think the most basic statement of a code of good behavior can be boiled down to two sentences:

Now, getting back to the first scenario I listed in the previous section, a heavy date scene. Your first thought in considering the possibility of sex should be "will this harm my partner?" We all know the potential problems of sexual activity - the dangers of diseases, the possibility of pregnancy, and a whole bag full of emotional problems. Thinking things like this through rationally at a time like this is not normally possible, so any rational person will do their thinking before this stage. If the thinking hasn't been done, the safest course is to head for that cold shower.

The second statement is also very germaine here. Suppose both parties agree that sex will not harm them, and it will be, in fact, pleasurable? The obvious thing to do is to proceed with the decision, but to do so only after making sure the possible down sides of doing so are taken into account. To be specific in this scenario - use a condom! If one isn't available, there are options (I won't go into details; there will be NO essay on this!), and it would be in the best interest of all if they were used.

Looking at the second scenario, the decision is still a difficult one. I personally consider myself pro-life, in that when a woman is pregnant, I would encourage her to carry the baby to term, and if necessary, put the child up for adoption. Of course, this is said keeping in mind that there is a great demand in our nation for healthy babies to adopt. But this situation is far from simple. There's a very frightening possibility that the mother (and therefore the baby) will die. There are dangers in nearly every possible course of action I cann imagine. Thinking through this scenario with the limited information I have on this, I would judge it safest to ensure the mother's life and proceed with the abortion.

Does this harm a member of my society? Yes, it kills a potential new member, it causes trauma to the mother and other family members, and it offends many people outside the immediate family. However, it does less harm to the society than if the mother died before childbirth, and less harm than if the child was born and caused its mother's death.

In this respect, I think this would be in the best interest of the family, and the community in general. Is it a perfect solution? No - we didn't get to have out cake and eat it, too. It is a hard decision. However, it is a decision that can be made, without reference to the Bible (which has no real advice on something like this that I've seen), and there's no need to invoke the punishment-reward concept often employed by Christian moralists.

Conclusion

Morality is a major part of the life of humanity, because we are a social species. It is an essential part of our survival skills to be able to live in harmony with each other and with the world. In this short essay, I have compared the ideas of morality from just two points of view - those of the Christan and the Humanist. I don't pretend that I have covered either point in the greatest detail possible. I do believe I have hit the main points that were necessary with some accuracy. In considering the matter logically, I think it's clear that Christian morality, because it completely detaches a person's actions from the question of good and evil, is a very poor system. The concepts of justice, ethics, and the common good must be linked inextricably with a person's actions, if they are to have any possible meaning to our lives.