One Flesh
Chapter Nine
What is Morality? Why?
We read and hear much these days about morality and family values, but very few souls are brave enough to actually attempt to define either. Remember the story about the early Hawaiians. They were certain that whenever the minister talked about adultery, he was talking about a type of adultery someone else practiced-certainly not them. I remember the sentiments of a dear close relative of mine whose life had not been all that exemplary. In her last few days she came to the philosophical conclusion that only murderers went to hell, because, although the list of her admitted transgressions was long, murder was not among them.
Recently, I was counseling a young person who was entangled in the drug scene. I asked, "Do you know the difference between right and wrong." "Sure," she replied, "wrong is when you have a bad trip and right is when you have a good one." Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident but is, rather, all too typical of many young (and some not so young) persons today.
One of the main purposes of civilization is to establish a working code of morality for those who live in its environment. This moral code should be based on the wisdom and experience of all those who have gone before. If society required each individual to start from scratch and create his or her own code, thousands of years of human advancement might as well be poured down the drain; anarchy would soon reign and we might, like our distant ancestors, be in the market for a cave.
But, in rebuttal to codes, some young people ask, "Why should I be expected to conform to a code that seems to have been made only for the advantage of someone else?" It has been claimed that the rich and powerful used to teach industry to the poor so they would work hard to make the rich richer and they also used to teach the poor honesty so they wouldn't attempt to steal from the rich. While this was often said tongue in cheek, who can deny there was no truth in the concept?
On the subject of rules and who makes them, I am reminded of the answer of a Catholic woman who, when asked why she didn't follow the Pope's regulations regarding contraception, replied, "He does not play the game, therefore, he has no right to make the rules."
While morals and rules of social conduct are recommended by all rational adults, there is often a controversy between what those who attempt to set the standards and those whom they feel are obligated to follow them. For decades, our national Congress was a prime example of this disparity by passing law after law encumbering the public, but exempting themselves from these same laws. Only recently have they been shamed into changing this travesty.
With such public examples as Congress and a President, who admits to being an unrepentant libertine, can we really expect our nation's youth to respect whatever moral pronouncements come from the leaders of our nation? This "do as I tell you, not as I do" attitude is no longer valid (if it ever was) for our youth today. They have a desperate need for a real morality. A morality based on truth and logic. A morality that is so obviously right that it seems pure folly not to live it.
Where are we to find such a morality and who has the right to set the standards for it? Perhaps the best insight into an answer to this question is in Benjamin Franklin's aphorism that affirms, "A thing is not harmful because it is a sin; it is a sin because it is harmful." All true morality must be based on this premise; that is, only that which is injurious or harmful to ourselves or others is to be considered a sin.
If there is no harm, there can be no sin. Admittedly, there may be harm that we do not, or will not, acknowledge. In this case there may be sin that we have ignored by our selective blindness. We trust, as our readers become more in harmony with the One Flesh concept, they will be able to free themselves from the social and psychological blinders that allow such a situation to manifest.
Since only that which is harmful is sinful, it is incumbent on every individual who desires to live according to the Laws of the Creator to learn to ascertain what does and what does not constitute and cause harm. It should be obvious, to all rational people, that this effort to understand the nature of injury should be a basic requirement of all true morality. A morality not based on what others tell us is right, but one determined by the underlying character of the injury itself.
An important part of determining the possibility of sin has to do with the intent of the action that may have caused the original injury. We can create harm, to ourselves or to others, either innocently or through premeditation on our part. Although the injury is the same in either case, the sin would be far greater in the case of premeditation.
If we harm someone unintentionally, but, with a little more care might have been able to prevent the injury, there would be sin, but of a much lesser degree than if we had created the injury purposely. However, even if there is no intent to harm, there still exists the consequences of the injury itself and restitution must be made before we are Karmicaly free.
In some instances, we may do that which we sincerely believe to be to the benefit of another only to discover, later, that our actions caused harm. In some of these cases we could be completely sinless in the matter, while in others we may have some responsibility. Let me present some examples of these possibilities in an effort to illustrate the basis for this new and practical morality.
Assume there is a medical procedure, in which a physician is skilled and experienced, but which recent investigation has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to be of no intrinsic value. The physician could be guilty of a sin if he knew of the research, but continued to use the procedure. On the other hand, he would not be held responsible for any harm done by this procedure prior to his becoming aware of the new research.
Whatever the physician's intent, there still may be damage to his patients from this procedure (this is true even if the procedure did not hurt them directly, but only prevented them from receiving treatment elsewhere that might have helped). If the doctor, in his heart, honestly felt that the procedure was a real benefit to his patients, he could not be held morally responsible for any damage prior to the investigation, but could be responsible under the Divine Law for all damage done after he knew the results of the investigation.
If, on the other hand, the doctor felt in his heart all along that the procedure was suspect, but very lucrative and this was his main motivating force for using it, he could very likely be held responsible under the Divine Law for all the damage done to his patients both before and after the new research.
As you see, this "morality" thing can be quite complicated, but, then, this is the nature of human life. Remember the words of Jesus, "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."-Matthew 5:28. This statement is one of the most cogent in forming a new modern morality. It informs us that it is not only the adverse act for which we are responsible but even the adverse thought that leads up to the act. We are not only to be judged under the Divine Law by our actions, but also by our intentions and motives. Thus, the sin of two doctors, both using the procedure mentioned above, would be different if one truly felt in his heart that the procedure was of great benefit to his patients, while the other considered it mainly as a way to unjustly increase his income.
In the final analysis, true morality is the combined understanding of human knowledge, wisdom and intuition as to what is harmful or injurious to ourselves or others. In this way, true morality allows us to pass down from generation to generation the wisdom of what is harmful and what is not, so that each new generation does not have to "start from scratch" to determine for itself what is destructive and what is beneficial in our world. Admittedly, each new generation will look with a jaundiced eye at the moral teachings of the past but, after a little experience in the "real world," the wisest among them will quickly come to appreciate the good and useful lessons that previous generations learned from life and then put these to constructive use in their lives.
Are There Absolutes?
This question has been asked for thousands of years and, for many, today's answers are no better than those of centuries past. There are absolutes, but they are not necessarily the ones that most people expect to find. Creation is not stagnant. It is constantly developing and changing. However, the Laws underlying these changes do not, in themselves, change. This is the paradox. Change is everywhere, but the factors that cause that change never do, or can, change, since they comprise the Divine Law, the true universal absolute.
All the authentic prophets of God have taught the same basic truths and morals tenets, though in a form that would be best adapted for the people to whom they came to minister. These truths are nothing more than the orderly Laws of our being. These Laws are neither good nor bad they simply are. If we work in harmony with them, we prosper; if we work at cross purposes with them, we suffer, it's just that simple.
True morality attempts to harmonize man with these universal laws of his being. All so-called morality, that is not based on this fact, is only "educated morality" and holds little to benefit mankind on its sporadic efforts at advancement.
One factor that is almost always present in educated morality is that it is designed to be advantageous to some group who desires others to obey the "laws" they lay down. Others, not ourselves, usually benefit disproportionately from our having to obey such rules and regulations. This is never true of real morality; real morality always benefits most those who follow the Law. The youth of today are not entirely wrong in looking askance at some of the educated morality their elders desire to place on them.
What Is True and What Is Educated Morality?
The character of all true morality is that it follows the natural flow of human physiological events. Let us examine an inflammatory example in today's world-homosexuality. The Bible calls it an "abomination" and those who were discovered practicing it, were stoned or cast out of the tribe. Why? Was this true morality or only educated morality pursued to give some group in the tribe an unfair advantage?
In order for the human race to evolve and perpetuate itself there must be a union (a One Flesh union, we trust) between male and female to create and nurture new generations. This is a physiological fact of universal life and as the Creator declared, "It is good." Under the laws of our being, that which is good benefits all and the more of this goodness, the better for the world. Let us think of honesty, integrity and love as examples of this goodness that can only improved by increase.
Under these same Universal Laws, everything that is must be either good or harmful. All thought, action or activity must work either to the betterment of mankind or to its ultimate destruction. No middle ground can exist in God's universal plan.
With these Laws in mind when we examine homosexuality, we arrive at some interesting conclusions. If homosexuality is truly good, it should recommend itself to the entire population. If it is truly good, such universal homosexuality should help advance mankind in every way. But would it? Would it not, instead, bring a quietus to the human race itself in one generation? If homosexuality is not universally applicable as good (as is heterosexuality), must it not then be destructive, since everything must be either one or the other?
Therefore, true morality, not educated morality, teaches us that homosexuality is not a moral (because impractical for species perpetuity) life-style. This is not to say that we condemn the homosexual as a person, but we must condemn the practice of this perversion as an immoral act because it is harmful to the person and to the advancement of the human race as it is now constituted. Remember the admonition of God for each species to reproduce "after its own kind." This dictum the homosexual life-style cannot follow.
We are told that those who live together outside the bonds of legal marriage are "living in sin," while those who are married, no matter what the circumstances of that marriage, are not living in sin. Is this a matter of true morality or of educated morality? It all depends on the situation. God has his own definition of marriage. Early man mated for thousands of years before someone decided to make it "legal." Did all these people live in sin? And who gave certain men, either from Church or State, the power to say which unions are "legal" and, therefore, not sinful and which are not? What we usually refer to as a "legal" marriage is only a man-made state, not one derived from the Universal Laws of God.
On the other hand, there are some very good reasons for having legal marriages. They provide legality to heirs and protection for both the wife and the children from the caprices of an irresponsible husband. They are an outward indication that the husband is able and willing to accept the responsibilities, and the consequences, of the marriage bed.
But, let's offer some examples that may show the morality or lack of it in each of these instances. Let us take a couple who love each other very much but, for various reasons, it is impractical, or even impossible, for them to marry. They lead an exemplary life and bring into the world several children who make them proud. As far as God is concerned, they are as married as if the knot had been tied by the Pope himself. On the other hand, let us take a couple who married because they felt they could gain an advantage in such a union. Perhaps, he was drawn to her beauty and she to his wealth. They have little in common and, as soon as the bloom is worn off, they are miserable with each other but remain together for the sake of propriety. You tell me, where is the real morality in these examples and which is the "educated" form?
Summary
There are some pseudomystics who have taught that the entire law of the universe is, "Do what thou wilt." In some small measure they are correct; mankind has been given free will by his Creator. However, with this gift also came this caveat, "You may do as you will but you will be held responsible for all you do." This is what real morality is about. Morality does not tell us what we must do, but it should tell us what results we will encounter if we break the Law. The decision is then up to us.
The greatest pleasure possible on this earth is to be experienced by obeying the Laws of God. It is His world and that is the way He designed it to function. To have built it any other way would have been unthinkable to Him. Therefore, the ultimate purpose of true morality is to bring to men and women the greatest good and pleasure possible on this Earth by instructing them in the Laws of their being.
This being true, why would any rational being deliberately attempt to circumvent true morality and these Divine Laws? The answer is: Because of a lack of understanding or a desire for those things we have not yet earned. Perhaps this last is the most important. Under Laws of true morality, every privilege carries with it an equal responsibility. As this responsibility is accepted and fulfilled, new and greater privileges come to the individual. This is the nature of all human growth and development. Failure to understand and accept this fact is one of the major causes of all human degeneration and destructiveness-not to mention unhappiness.
Any attempt to purloin that which one has not earned or to do that for which one is not prepared is not only doomed to failure but is the golden key to all that is negative and destructive in human existence. This is particularly true in the matter of human sexuality. The desire for the pleasures and benefits of the One Flesh union, without a willingness to accept the attendant responsibilities, is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, moral mistake made by mankind.