Moral realism and our rights and liberties, part 3

November 1, 10:34 PMModesto Apologetics ExaminerMaryann Spikes

Previous Next

2 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Modesto Apologetics Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Are rights discovered according to the Golden Rule?

How do we distinguish man-made morality from true morality, and how can we use that moral truth to make the case for protecting the rights of every individual on the globe?  In part 1 of this series, we saw that our rights and liberties are either completely made up (anti-realism) or they are discovered moral truth (moral realism).  In part 2 we saw that universal moral indignation and the great agreement between the creeds of history's civilizations serve as clues to an intuitive hunger for true meaning which blind, changing nature cannot satisfy.  Here in part 3 we will examine how we pan out the genuine moral truth from the artificial, and use it to make a case for extending essential rights to every person.

A basic, three-part Moral Truth Litmus we can use to sift moral truth out from artificial morality, is 1) moral truth, like all truth, is discovered, not created, 2) moral truth answers how and why we should be and/or behave with others and self, 3) moral truth, like all truth, is true for all, or none.

1) Moral truth, like all truth, is discovered, not created.

The quickest way to narrow down our search for moral truth, is to discard those theories which do not claim to be moral truth.  Goodbye all forms of relativism.  Instead, we will look for a theory celebrating diversity so long as it acknowledges the true meaning for which every moral sense, every conscience, hungers.

2) Moral truth answers how and why we should be and/or behave with others and self.

All the theories in the field of Ethics place emphasis on the sort of character we should cultivate, the sort of conduct we should be doing, and/or the sort of consequences or end-goals for which we should be aiming.  Only one theory focuses on all three:  the Golden Rule (love others as self).  How we are affects what we do, and vice versa.  The Golden Rule says that the way we should be, what we should do, and the ultimate end for both being and doing, is love.  We are to do and be love, the true meaning for which we all hunger.  Not reason, not power--love.  Reason and power do not ultimately satisfy and are for the real, unchanging purpose of love.

3) Moral truth, like all truth, is true for all, or none.

The Golden Rule, love others as self, respects a basic similarity in essence between the self and the other, unlike the theories in Ethics which exalt the self/individual and abuse the other/group, or exalt the other/group and abuse the self/individual, or exalt reason or power and potentially abuse both self/individual and other/group.  Unless the Golden Rule corresponds to the aspect of reality which is unchanging, unless that aspect is a being who is perfect love, it is merely a nice idea, and there are no discovered rights--only man-made.  But, if it does correspond, if a loving God exists, the Golden Rule justifies loving every person as an equal with inalienable rights, leaving in tact and celebrating all aspects of culture which do not violate such rights.

That we hunger for true meaning, and that we find the Golden Rule in many cultures throughout history, indicates there is an unchanging, loving God to which such moral truth corresponds, and that we are not only justified in protecting the rights of all humans on the globe--we are also responsible to do so.