Moral Monsters: Deviants from Objective Morality

From a question on Quora:

If God the Father of life is All-Holy and objectively moral, then wouldn’t the definition of a true monster be anything that is subjectively moral and anti-life or anti-God?

I would start with a dictionary definition of monster. Most definitions are subjective. I like the definition from biology given on Dictionary.com because it implies a standard:

an animal or plant of abnormal form or structure, as from marked malformation or the absence of certain parts or organs; a grossly anomalous fetus or infant, especially one that is not viable.

We can apply this definition to morality. Monster: a personal being having a set of principles, thoughts, or behaviors, from lacking or deviating from objectively moral principles.

I wanted to say that a hypothetical person’s subjective morality could coincide with the objective morality that is based on God’s character. Such a person would not be a monster. However, basing morality on the wrong foundation, personal opinion, would make one a monster because ignoring objective morality requires rejecting God’s sovereignty; and rejecting God’s sovereignty is immoral. So it would be impossible to be subjectively moral without deviating from objective morality.

Is every person that is not objectively moral subjectively moral? One could say that because, if morals are not based on an objective standard, then they are based on a subjective one. Ah, but there are monsters who have no morals at all. They may have a personal code based on what is convenient, profitable, or pleasurable. That is emotional or pragmatic, not principled, so it would be incorrect to call it “morality.”

The grammar describes a true monster as subjectively moral and anti-life or as subjectively moral and anti-God. In this context, and requires that both be true. The construction implies that people who are pro-life but subjectively moral and people who are pro-God but subjectively moral are not monsters.

Furthermore, the anti-life and anti-God positions are subjective morals, so they are redundant. The phrase is like saying a motorcycle is not a car and tires or a car and bumpers when the tires and bumpers are part of the car.

Does it flow from If God the Father of life is All-Holy and objectively moral that subjective morality is monstrous? If objective morality is based on God’s character, specifically, His holiness, then the link that contrasts God’s holiness against subjective morality is indirect. That means that God’s holiness is background information rather than part of the premise.

It is necessary for objective morality to exist in order for subjective morality to be anomalous. There’s no such thing as an anomaly without such a thing as normal. It is also necessary that normality is desired or intended, which requires an agent who desires or assigns a goal or purpose. However, desire or intent, like God’s holiness, is not directly related to whether one meets the objective requirements.

So refining the original statement should include:

• Account for the worst monster, the amoral person.
• Restate anti-life or anti-God as examples of subjective morals (and perhaps be a bit more specific).
• Treat as background or trim information about God being holy (and imposing a requirement that His creatures be objectively moral.
• Use attitudes about God and the sacredness of life as examples rather than as requirements.

A better phrasing would be: God the Father of life requires of moral beings an objective morality based on His holy character. Since objective morality exists and is part of our original, intended design, a moral monster is any person who is amoral or subjectively moral. Examples of subjectively moral principles might include promoting atheism or non-medically-necessary abortion.

The elephant in the room includes a practical application of the definition.

Although some of us aspire to match our morality to God’s objective standard, we all retain subjective morals and fall short even of those. We are all moral monsters. None of us is born with the moral perfection intended in God's children. We are all spiritually deformed and spiritually non-viable. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. 

God took responsibility for allowing us to bring moral monstrosity into the world by providing for redemption at His own expense. If we recognize our monstrosity, agree that we have earned the consequences, and entrust ourselves solely to the One who redeems us from our moral debt, then God will begin the process of transforming us from monsters back into the works of art that He originally designed us to be. 

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. Feel free to use for non-remunerated purposes, but please remember to give credit where credit is due.

Weak God? No, Weak Argument.

Answering a question on Quora:

"Why is the Christian God so weak? He punishes those that don’t worship him for eternity."

The question assumes that punishing people who don’t worship Him shows that God is weak. Not just weak, but so weak. That is not only a non factual and a non sequitur, but it is also counter intuitive.

Suppose a criminal stands before a judge, charged with a lifetime of minor and major offenses. The list of charges might fill several volumes with fine print. One of the charges is contempt of court. Sentence has been pronounced: The criminal will serve a life sentence in prison.

Then the criminal’s lawyer goes to Quora and asks, “Why is the judge so weak? He punishes prisoners for life for contempt of court.”

Can you see how ridiculous the question’s assumptions are? The criminal is not sentenced for just one offense, but for a lifetime of offenses. The lawyer simplistically boils the volumes of charges down to a single charge — the one that happens to be an offense against the court — in order to embarrass the court. The intellectual dishonesty of the argument crosses into propaganda when posted or published. And many people who hate the court will be inclined to believe the lie and turn it into a meme, undermining others’ confidence in the court.

Suppose the judge wants to provide an opportunity for redemption to that criminal. “He cannot bear the punishment,” he reasons, “but I could, so I will take the punishment for him.” He steps down from the bench, removes his robe, and surrenders himself to the warden of the prison. Inside the prison, he is stripped, tortured, and beaten to death.

Fortunately, EMTs resuscitate the judge. (He’s just a human, after all, not both God and human.)

Back at the courthouse, the bailiff tells the prisoner, “The judge has taken your punishment for you. He died but was brought back to life. If you will admit your guilt and trust the judge’s actions on your behalf, you may go free.”

A humble person would follow the bailiff’s advice and spend the rest of his life doing reforming his life out of gratitude.

But this prisoner refuses to admit his guilt. Or he refuses to accept that the judge suffered in his place and was brought back to life. “Yeah, right!” he says. “What a bunch of lies! What I did wasn’t that bad.”

The way of escaping the sentence was provided, and he refuses it — adding yet another offense, this time, an offense against himself.

Having the power to punish is not weakness, and having the character to enforce justice is not weakness. To the contrary, having the character to allow people to make their own choices in life rather than turning them into puppets shows strength. And taking the ultimate burden to rescue others from a fate that they cannot bear, knowing that most will refuse it? That shows unimaginable strength.

No, weakness is refusing to acknowledge one’s moral failings, refusing to set aside pride and false intellectual arrogance, refusing to accept that one is dependent on someone greater for redemption and guidance.

Refraining from accelerated sentencing of enemies who mock you, patiently waiting for them to become more reasonable and honest with themselves, shows quite a bit of strength, too, I think.

Copyright 2020, Richard Wheeler. In the case that posting this on Quora makes copyrighting unenforceable, I ask that users at least give credit where credit is due. I don't mind if somebody uses it for non-commercial use, anyway.