*
**
***
1
I remember in sixth grade in Texas, when Mrs. Davis and the other sixth grade teacher invited a well-known Baptist, hellfire-and-brimstone preacher to talk with both the two classes in that grade sitting all together in one room. (It was a little crowded.) This was during the 1953-54 year, if I'm counting correctly.
Frankly, I don't remember what Dr. Blake Smith said to us in his formal presentation, though it must have included references to the Bible. But I remember his follow-up question-and-answer period very well.
We all thought of a certain Richard as the smartest kid we knew. So it wasn't surprising when, being invited to ask questions, without hesitation Richard raised his hand.
He asked Dr. Smith, "How do I know the Bible is true?"
Even at that time that seemed an odd, but enormous question. From our perspective today, it seems like it would have been a dangerous one too, or at least a volatile issue.
But this fiery Baptist preacher gave an excellent answer:
"It depends," he said, "on what you mean by 'true'." And he went on to say some things about various meanings of "truth," which I found pretty interesting to think about.
I could be kidding myself from this almost-60 year distance, but I think Dr. Smith did say that all statements in the Bible might not have been "true" the way a statement like "In the summer Texas is hot" is true. But the statements in the Bible were true, he said, in one or more other ways.
In this piece, I'm definitely not interested in the Bible but in what it means to say X or Y is right or wrong (or good or bad). Can such a statement be true? That would seem to be an important question.
And, by the way, here's another relevant memory:
...In my college freshman literature class (in the Midwest) was a guy who always wore rumpled camouflage pants - with all those pockets on the legs - with a dark-colored tee shirt and a heavy, old green jacket. He had long, straggly hair and usually hadn't recently shaved.
We often had the opportunity to discuss the deep moral issues great literature raises. Our instructor was well known for two things: he was hard to please, and - a Classics professor by training - he taught by the Socratic method, asking leading questions as a way to help us reach what he considered the correct conclusions. He did that brilliantly.
Dr. Hornsby also made sure everyone in class participated, calling on specific individuals to answer his questions, whether a hand was raised or not. (By the way, after I spoke on occasion, he looked me over sadly and said, "Mr. 'Derrick,' that will not do," shaking his head.)
All of us in the class got used to the fact that when called upon, this scraggly-haired guy (who reminded us regularly that he was an atheist and a Marxist) started every answer he gave to the instructor's questions the same way. He invariably said: "Well, you know, you have to make an arbitrary value judgement..."
He was evidently in the process of internalizing the notion that no moral statement is based on fact. Morality has to be invented by the individual from whole cloth. Then, she or he will be really and personally responsible for living up to the standards thus arbitrarily created.
I later learned to recognize this as an "Existential" position. It is plausible, we should acknowledge, even though this fellow himself may have been a primarily comic figure.
3
4
It seems clear that none of the following moral statements can be proven false or true by scientific investigation:
- Profiting from the suffering of others is immoral
- One person should not seek to impose his or her values on others
- Treating others as you would want others to treat you is good
- Failing to abide by agreements you have made voluntarily is bad
- Providing for your family is the right thing to do
- Stealing someone else's property is wrong
...and so on, and so forth.
In other words, factual evidence does not exist to prove whether some action or intention or policy is moral or immoral, good or bad, right or wrong. We can discover whether or not an action is or is not legal, but can we prove by investigation whether the law in question is or is not moral? Until 1865, for example, slavery was legal in some of the United States, but most of us would say it was never moral, right?
We can also discover from evidence whether an action is efficient or inefficient, practical or impractical, hard or easy, satisfying or unfulfilling, even wise or unwise... but not whether it is right or wrong.
So, if by "true" we mean a statement can be proven or disproven by study of the facts, then moral statements - about what we should or should not do, or what is good or bad - cannot be "true."
5
Here are several other moral statements:
- To kill is forbidden
- To commit adultery is prohibited
- Taking for yourself another persons' property is taboo
- Lying about another person's actions is proscribed
- Failing to abide by agreements you have made voluntarily is immoral
- Treating others fairly is moral
- Telling the truth is right
- Profiting from the suffering of others is wrong
- Kindness to others is good
- Greed is bad
- You should not take credit for the accomplishments of others
- You should take responsibility for your own actions
...and so on, and so forth.
6 (to be continued)
We'll continue this thought process in Part Two...
***
**
*
