Is morality fixed or does it evolve? That may seem like a pretty esoteric question, but its implications are everywhere from a new spate of anti-trans laws being voted on across red-state America, to statue-toppling protests, to Momfluencers on Instagram talking about how timeouts are “traumatic.”
There’s no doubt that we’re living through a rapid change in social mores. In my lifetime we’ve gone from gay jokes on primetime TV to name tags featuring people’s pronouns. Some think our old ways were unjust and change can’t come quickly enough, while others either struggle with or completely refute the need for change.
In my estimation, Americans on both sides of the political spectrum hold mixed, and sometimes contradictory views on this topic. Many conservative Evangelicals claim moral absolutism, asserting that the Bible presents an unchanging, absolute view of morality but would also excuse both racist uncles and slave holding founding fathers as being “from a different time.”
The American left, on the other hand, tends to view consent and boundaries as definitive of right and wrong, relying more on Contractarianism—what’s right is that we make an agreement in how we will treat each other and then stick to that agreement. In this view, morality is relative—at least most of the time. But not when it comes to -isms: racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. This makes sense: almost no one would freely agree to be oppressed or discriminated against. But let’s take another example: two men who generally are good upstanding feminists, when they’re alone, make a sexist joke. Is that wrong? I think most Lefties I know would say yes, making sexist jokes is always wrong. And just like that, we’re back to moral absolutism.
Earlier this month, I railed against moral absolutism, but in doing further research, I’m less certain. Is it possible that some actions are ALWAYS wrong?
Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis would certainly say so. He claims there is a “law of nature” that all humans are inherently aware of. Humans generally agree on both the existence of right and wrong, and actions considered “wrong” are broadly similar across cultures, Lewis argues. Furthermore, he says, most of us recognize we do not live up to the standards we set for ourselves. The universality of these concepts, he argues, point to the existence of God as divine law-giver, and the need for Christ’s sacrifice to rectify the gap between what we ought to do and what we actually do. Lewis even goes so far as to say that undergoing a Christian transformation is necessary to living a moral life.
There are some big problems with this argument:
Morality may have some similarities across cultures, but there are many points of divergence that seem to undermine the idea of a single, universal “law of nature.”
We all know plenty of Christians who are assholes. Likewise, many good and moral people are not Christians. As reader Dennis pointed out, what about Gandhi?
How do we know if an action is wrong, let alone if it’s always wrong? Let’s look at two examples: drag shows and theft. The American Christian right is back on its bullshit talking about “Biblical” gender roles and the evils of drag, yadda yadda. Then they worship this guy:
Long hair? Check.
Dress? Check.
Mustache on fleek? Check.
(Is it just me, or is this white Jesus giving a little Conchita Wurst?)
The right has done a very poor job arguing that drag shows are immoral: an appeal to authority, at best. Let’s use some philosophy to examine the morality of drag.
From a Utilitarian perspective: drag shows bring many people joy and do not cause harm to anyone.
From the perspective of Virtue Ethics: drag performers often display the virtues of courage, wit, and truthfulness in self-expression.
Kant would ask, “What if everyone performed in drag? Would society fall apart?” I mean, possibly? But what a way to go!
Theft, on the other hand, seems like a prime candidate for being an “always wrong” action, partly because it is defined as the violation of a contract between two people. Theft is taking something that belongs to someone else without their permission. I may “steal” french fries off my husband’s plate, but this isn’t true theft because we have an implicit agreement that I will “try” all of his takeout and he will eat my leftovers, unless they go into the fridge, then ownership reverts back to me.
As I’ve revisited the ten commandments, I’ve noticed that most are laid out either as a contract between God and people, or between one person and another. This feels like an important distinction, though we may choose whether or not we personally want to enter into these contracts.
But, of course, life is always more complicated than a list of rules. Here comes what I’ve dubbed the “Jean Val Jean” problem. For those of you who like neither old French novels nor Broadway, Jean Val Jean was imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread for his nephew, who was starving to death. In this case, was Val Jean wrong to steal?
I think yes. Yes, it was wrong, and yes, it was better than standing by while a child starved to death. Life sometimes only presents us with bad options. In these cases, choosing the least wrong option is best we can do. Jean Val Jean lived in a corrupt society where petty theft was the best he could do. It behooves us to remember this when we judge other people’s actions as right or wrong—something can be wrong and still the best option. So there’s another point for moral absolutism.
Then again, Contractarianism fits with Jesus’ ethos of “love thy neighbor” pretty well. How do you show others love? You get to know them and find out how they like to be cared for, and you do it. Instead of prescribing a set of behaviors—thou shalt do this, not that—it asks us to collaborate on a range of acceptable behaviors. BUT BUT BUT, some moral rules can be viewed as a shortcut to a contract. It would be very tedious to have to negotiate every specific behavior with each new acquaintance. (“Are you okay with lying? How about adultery?”)
So, I don’t know if morality is fixed or evolving. I guess, probably both? And the last test case I’ll bring into this already very long blog post is gossip. Dr. Eve Ewing made the point in the latest episode of podcast “Normal Gossip” (which is the best podcast, BTW) that gossiping is a way groups establish moral norms. Hence the delight that is Reddit’s “Am I the Asshole?”
This month I set out to answer question: how do we figure out right from wrong? And I’m not sure I’ve come to anything definitive, but I do have some methods for making that determination. When it comes to philosophy, I’m not sure there is one correct answer. Maybe that striving after goodness is the whole point.
Journaling/Discussion Questions:
What do you think: are certain actions implicitly right or wrong? Which ones?
Do you think moral rules are more similar or more different across cultures?
Who is your favorite drag queen?