Of course not all of the Founders were equally enlightened with regard to human nature. Therefore some of them were less sensitive to human rights than others. But those who carried the most influence, who had power to speak for the entire group of leaders, were deeply concerned with and sensitive to innate rights. I suspect that is why they were men of such power. They posited the ultimate rights that should accrue to themselves as a result of their being creatures in nature and they also saw those rights theoretically accruing to others for the same reason.
Yet they lived in a culture informed by unenlightened notions regarding women and race. Putting the economic pressures of slavery aside, the Founders generally knew the races were essentially equal (women included), but they did not wish certain of these races to be leading parts of their particular associations.
It was a valid position because while humans may be biological equals, they are not all cultural equals. It is valid to discriminate on the basis of class, education, skills, bearing and culture. Some founders, perhaps most (certainly not all), may have confused race for these things, believing skills and bearing were linked to race, but the fact is, whether confused or not, they had a right to associate or disassociate with whomever they wished.
I do not fault them for forming discriminatory associations and then envisioning those associations being led only by those of their own general station. I fault them for structuring their associations on the backs of others and then forcing those others to live within the associations as inferior people, even denying them freedom to leave and form their own associations. What was also incomprehensibly immoral was their allowing social codes forbidding the free association of people, whatever their race. Nevertheless these wrongs were essentially established long before the Founders came along. By their day, the wrongs had become roundly accepted, though many people knew them to be wrong. Considering this climate of moral ignorance and dishonesty, I cannot help but give the Founders credit for at least knowing the wrongs were wrongs.
Hindsight morality is pretty easy, usually. It is the here and now morality, much less the future morality, that is the problem.
It is not the problem in the least. Dishonesty and ignorance, especially self-ignorance, are the problem. Morality sits ever before us, whispering to everyone precisely what ought and ought not be done. Many people are simply blind to it. The problem is that because leftists are blind and dishonest regarding it, they assume everyone else is blind and that it is impossible for anyone ever to see. They promote such ideas as “tolerance,” and they claim there are no absolutes, apparently unaware that their declarations here are themselves absolutes. The objectively apparent fact is, Hitler was wrong because there are indeed moral absolutes. He was wrong across all ages. He will always be wrong. His wrong is etched in the universe, in the cosmos, in the earth, in its trees, in the flesh of every human who has ever lived and who will ever live. His wrong will be wrong even when this world passes away.
Is there some oasis of morality that we see in the distance, yet cannot reach?
Natural Morality is no “oasis,” and it is not in the distance. It is very near you. In fact it is in your body-- in your nature and mine. This is not to say being moral is your behavioral tendency. It is to say your will to exist, brought alongside the equal will of others, dictates what is naturally moral.
Or, is it that we are all on a 'path to righteousness' where we, as a society, grow in our realization as to what is right and wrong.
People are not generally on a path to righteousness because they do not know what they are in nature. They are increasingly divided, even in their families. They are murdering their own children and entertaining the acceptance of sodomites in their societies. Savages are intentionally murdering innocent people with the approval of their heathen god. Crime increases and now spreads into their communities and they are increasingly becoming slaves to their senses, bringing to themselves greater amounts of heart-disease, debt, unwanted pregnancies, drug abuse, sex abuse, pornography, diabetes, divorce, depression and other pathologies. I see no general trend of communion among men, no increasing sense of unity around a stable set of convictions. To them, all is relative and often in conflict-- and that is acceptable to them. It is an absolute tenet to them that everyone should be “tolerant” of the views of others, except if those views reference the truth that is in their own flesh. As a result, heathens in their societies now actually think their folly is equal to the superior beliefs around them; and they sense no need to learn themselves better so that they might change.
In the day of the founders, women's suffrage was not only not an issue, it was pretty inconceivable.
That is because the founders did not think certain people should have control of their associations. We have a right to build a house and stipulate who may enter as guests. We may not agree with the Founders’ view, but it was valid. What was not valid, and is still not valid, is the foundation on which the association was built. It is immoral to deny the freedom of others. Freedom is a gift of nature. To see this, we need only posit a world wherein the lack of freedom (bondage) is treated as an innately human principle. We will see that in this case, the principle of humanity ceases to exist.
Equal rights for minorities was unheard of.
That is not entirely true. Jefferson was very clear that blacks had rights equal to all other men. He simply thought those rights should be exercised amongst people whose culture and station were, in his view, compatible. Of course Jefferson was demonstrably incorrect regarding the capacity of blacks. Even when confronted with the superior works of blacks such as Benjamin Banneker and Phillis Wheatley, he could not escape his racist upbringing, refusing to believe such works were possible from blacks. Nevertheless, reading his Notes, I suspect that had he actually been in the company of such people, to see them work-- had he been physically and intellectually confronted with people like the Emeagwalis or the millions of blacks who now clearly and commonly function with capability equal to or surpassing that of most whites, his views on race would have changed. He was simply ignorant. But unlike most people on this issue, Jefferson actually admitted his ignorance. He held his view here, of course, but he questioned whether it was accurate.
Native Americans were seen as godless, evil, and bloodthirsty… The 'morality of the day' tolerated this state of what we recognize today as immorality.
The morality of the day recognized no such thing. Humans were simply ignorant and, unlike Jefferson, they didn’t know it. This is a condition that persists to this day; and it is why you have legalized the literal murder of children and now push for the forced acceptance of homosexuality.
So, the question is, are we in the same situation? How can we be sure that our current view of morality is that pristine one that our founding fathers saw in the distance?
We may not know the complete moral code of nature, but we certainly know some of it. The Founders codified some of it and referred to it as the basis of American existence. From their example and that of many others, we see that to discover nature’s moral code we must continually study who and what we are fundamentally, biologically, and then protect the existence of what we find, including that upon which our existence objectively depends. Since others are our biological equals, we must never infringe upon the right in others to protect their own existence.
Why this emphasis on biological identity? The emphasis is due to the fact that biological identity is the only identity that is objective-- that humans may together reasonably conclude exists. Between us we have no objective means to determine that religious beliefs are universally true. So religion in itself is unsuitable as natural law for all. Moral law in nature must be essentially defined by and grounded in nature. Where humans are concerned, morality is bound by human biology.
One problem is that different peoples and cultures have a different view of morality.
Different cultures have different degrees of moral ignorance. But to be sure, morality is as fixed as our bodies. You may think our bodies evolve, but your view is pure religion, from my vantagepoint utter speculation, since you have no objective and empirical evidence proving it. Religion, atheist or otherwise, is insufficient to form natural moral law for all.
Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, and think it is immoral to do so.
Jews and Muslims are ignorant here – and clearly so because there is nothing inherently anti-human with intentionally eating pork. Of course intentionally eating too much pork is immoral, but that says nothing about eating pork itself.
Christians believe that working on Sundays is disrespectful of the Lord.
You commit an error here. Unlike the Jewish and Islamic beliefs to which you have referred, this Christian belief is one that stretches beyond nature, seeking to inform us of what is moral in spiritual realms that are inaccessible to you (but not to me).
We may objectively evaluate the ignorance of Jews and Muslims with regard to eating pork. We simply need eat bacon once, and, when all things are told, we will find ourselves preserved, not destroyed, even promoted, since the pork can be used by our biology as fuel. In nature, there is just no proof at all that anything immoral takes place by eating pork.
Contrariwise, we may not refer to objective biology to evaluate whether it is disrespectful to the Lord to work on Sundays. The question is one answerable only by means that extend beyond nature. Now, because I have these extra-natural means, I know of a certainty that the Christian belief here is true and that those who argue to the contrary are quite wrong.
Vegans believe that eating meat is immoral.
This belief can be objectively evaluated in our material realm. By referring to our biology, we find eating meat as a principle is not inherently anti-us. Vegans are objectively ignorant.
Everyone's got their own opinion.
But not all of these opinions are equal. You commit error when you compare Christianity, which in this case extends morality beyond nature, with heathen beliefs that can be objectively evaluated here in nature. Try to choose Christian moral beliefs that are nature-bound to make your case.
So, is morality the sum of these beliefs?
Absolutely not. If trapped in the natural world, as you are, then morality is what I have described above. It is objectively all you have in this world. You may refer to hinduism, christianity, islam and other hogwash to fill out your moral code, but if those belief systems do not reflect our biology, they are just magic and are therefore unworthy of being forced on anyone else by law. If their moral decrees do reflect biology, then they are unnecessary because the moral conclusions they teach are derivable from biology alone. We may completely toss away religion and refer only to biology to find what is truly moral here in nature.
But we must be willing to be consistent. Natural morality is not in itself attached to anything but itself. It is a closed system and it does not compel much of what you now empty-headedly take for granted as a result of religion. Natural morality dictates that I have absolutely no innate obligation to you, save not to infringe upon your rights. If you are about to die and I perceive helping you lacks a benefit to me, then my letting you die causes no moral infringement at all. As far as I am concerned, your worth increases only inasmuch as you present a benefit to me.
Christianity presents a far superior morality than that found in nature. It extends nature unlike any other system. In it, I am compelled to help you regardless of my perceptions of your worth. Indeed, it commands me as an individual, to help you even if you are aiming to harm me. The basis for this looms very far above mere biology. No other extra-natural system comes even close to it. But since it is inaccessible to you, it cannot be forced as a point of law, precisely as your evolution and other like trash.
What if [beliefs] contradict?
If belief systems contradict biological nature, they are objectively immoral (murder, for example, is objectively immoral because as a principle it denies human identity). On the other hand if a belief system does not contradict biological nature, then it is materially unnecessary because biological nature tells us the truth without it. Christianity is truly unnecessary where natural life is concerned because all of nature is perishing. What Christianity does is allows perishing people to escape the condemnation of all nature to find intimacy with God. No other belief system offers this.
Those trapped in nature cannot possibly understand this. The only morality they truly have between them is the morality offered them by nature. There is, for example, no objective and apparent reason in natural morality declaring that I must help every starving person who appears unable to help me.
As we've established ad nauseum, I do not see homosexuality as immoral, but you apparently do.
Homosexuality can be objectively evaluated and found contrary to human biological nature.
So, what is the 'ultimate' morality?
This depends upon your frame of reference. Since you are trapped here in nature, morality for you is found only here in nature, specifically in your body. That is the only thing that is objectively common between you and all other humans. You may claim islam, christianity and heathen belief systems like these as sources of morality, but you have no objective basis to force them on anyone else.
Unlike you, I am not bound here in nature – at least not purely. When I appear harsh to you, I appeal to your morality. But when I am loving, I appeal to the only means by which humans may escape natural morality to find intimacy with God. To you, it is literal nonsense – magic. So then I tend to leave us both to deal with issues by means of the natural world and its harsh morality. In dealing with you I cannot legitimately appeal purely to higher Christian morality because you are hopelessly ignorant of it. But I can legitimately appeal to natural morality because though weak and perishing, it is objectively us.
This is why I believe that morality, which I believe does not exist in a vaccuum or an 'ultimate state', evolves. As we understand the world, and the differing viewpoints of those in it, we synthesize our view of morality.
Morality does not evolve because your flesh does not evolve (you cannot appeal to evolutionist religion here). It will always be objectively wrong in nature to do as Hitler did. Else, the principle of humanity vanishes.
In America in years past, interracial marriage was seen as immoral and illegal. Today, it is accepted. An evolution of our outlook on morality.
Society simply became less ignorant here. Nature has nevertheless demonstrated the naturally moral truth of interracial marriage since the beginning of human kind. You are the product of interracial marriage. So am I and every single human who has ever existed and who ever will exist. Interracial marriage is us. To see this natural truth you must empty your mind of flawed thinking about race and see race as nature “sees” it. In truth, every human is a race unto himself since each human differs from all others. To forbid human marriage simply because of the superficial differences (when nature obviously permits biological marriage between humans despite these differences) is to act contrary to human biological identity. This is precisely why the ban on interracial marriage was immoral. It is also why people commit a logical error when they refer to the former ban on interracial marriage to advocate current support for homosexual marriage. Homosexuality, unlike interracial marriage, is objectively contrary to human biological identity. A black guy and white gal are logically One Human Thing, capable of perpetuating itself. They form a logical life. That is not true of two guys.
Some say that morality is an absolute. I don't see how that can be, given that society changes and evolves, and faces new issues with each generation.
Morality is absolute. It will always be wrong to do as Hitler did. It will never be biologically correct. The principle of Hitler’s view and the principle of human identity are mutually exclusive.
We may have a 'sense' of morality, when things feel 'right' or 'wrong', but as far as their being a single set of rules that pin down the moving morality target, I'm not seeing it.
Not to offend, but this is because you are ignorant. Merely because you are not ‘seeing it’ does not mean it is not right in your face whispering to you. You will never see it because you have already decided in your mind that it does not exist. If you cannot see the clear moral truth objectively available to you here in nature, you cannot possibly see the higher moral truth extending from nature through Christ and into God.
Especially when you see the clashing morality of different groups that all seem to think that THEIR concept of morality is an absolute.
You are not seeing clashing morality here. You are seeing clashing ignorance. Most people are like you, Kevin. They ‘don’t see it’ and yet, like you, they make declarations of what is true and then begin to enforce them upon others. When they do that, they ruffle a lot of folks. That is what you see in the conflicts. There are no legitimate “moralities” that are in conflict. There is moral ignorance.
I will agree that Jefferson and many of the founding fathers were very wise. My assertion is that they were wise not because they were moral, but because they recognized that the definition of exactly what is moral is not immutable.
There is just no evidence that they saw morality as shifting. And you can’t refer to the Constitution to support your point. |
