Benjamin Berry
Life Journey
GVSU
10/3/2006
Development of Morality
Morality has and continues to be an issue of great contention in the world at large and within small communities. It is what has caused division within social groups to the extent that brothers have fought against brothers defending their beliefs of right and wrong. This is true not because morality causes division, but because the individual’s knowledge of the world in regards to social interaction is finite. Thus, the development of one’s own understanding of what is moral is contingent upon what they believe (faith). To this rule, there is no exception. Even those who do not believe in morality do so upon a premise based on faith. In my personal pursuit of truth, I have found that I must depend upon a higher authority than my personal intuition or experience for a foundation to build off of if I am to ever align myself with a more transcending moral code than personal appeal.
How one defines morality is formed around the authority they accept (themselves, religion, government, ideologies, etc.). This begins at the early stages of life as individuals are driven by what they need as a reference for moral authority. Milton Ford suggests in Life Journey that in regard to infancy “We reach out to another person or persons for what comforts us and thus form the first relationships of our lives” (37). It is not a surprise that children view their parents as their guide to moral truths since they recognize them as their authority. This is a result of parents fulfilling a child’s most immediate necessities. However, as children develop and change through progressive stages they come to realize that moral authority entitles more than just providing for another’s needs.
The importance of consciously choosing one’s moral authority comes at different times in life for every person. Still, it is a choice that everyone makes. What each individual chooses to believe concerning their professed moral authority varies almost infinitesimally; however, in terms of broad categorizations of moral authority, there are many that are widely agreed upon and several that are prevalent. Some of these include moral relativism, science, and religion.
Henry David Thoreau, in his book Walden, suggests a form of moral relativism when he contends that what is “necessary of life” is to keep the fire burning within the human being. To this end, he suggests that food and shelter are absolutely essential to keep the warmth within man (Thoreau, 11). Beyond this, Thoreau holds that every other “necessity” is guarded by philosophy; “…to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates, a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity, and trust” (12-13). Thus, Thoreau’s moral authority is moral relativism under the guise of each individual being driven by personal, yet honest principles.
However wonderful and quaint a world like this might seem in the imagination of Thoreau, reality seems to suggest that everyone living by their own philosophy would result in a world of chaos. This is true because in moral relativism each individual is guarded by their own ideas of what is good. Much of what some individuals think is good is in fact bad for society.
In Contrast to Thoreau, John Dewey presents his theory on moral authority. In essence he suggests that the scientific theory can help individuals discover morality. His theory is that “…the chief good of man is good will”(43). He claims that motive and deed cannot be separated as two concepts independent of one another because one is the necessary condition of the other (Dewey, 43). Therefore, it is the opinion of those who choose science as the moral authority that through enough study and observation of effects and motives one can determine what is moral.
While Dewey is not a moral relativist his theory does suggest that morality changes in conjunction with the environment. While I do not have all of my beliefs worked out concerning morality, I definitely choose God and his example through Jesus as my moral authority. I believe that God acts directly in accordance with his nature. Thus, God is bound by who he is intrinsically and not by moral law outside of himself or by arbitrary rules which do not coincide with his nature. In essence, God has to do what is right and is not capable of doing wrong. As a result, I cannot adhere to the moral authorities presented by Thoreau or Dewey because, although they are very different, they both work off of the same premise that man is good enough to determine what is and is not moral in and of themselves.
I do not believe that any person on this earth is absolutely moral. This would suggest not only infinite knowledge, but also adherence to perfect wisdom and perfect moral action. Still, I believe that Christ being God in the flesh did exemplify perfect morality to humanity. He also gave humanity an option to receive what they cannot obtain. That is, each person has the option to receive forgiveness making them completely moral being in the eyes of God. Simply put, God is the one constant in a world that is constantly changing.
Dewey, John. Human Nature And Conduct. Henry Holt And Company. New York, New
York 1922.
Ford, Milton E. Life Journey: Literature and the Search for Meaning in the Stages of
Life. Greystone Estates Book. Grand Rapids, Michigan 2001.
Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. Beacon Press. Boston, Massachusetts 1997
