Since humans have begun
debating philosophical ideas, the question of the origin of man’s morality has
been raised and passionately debated. Although there are slight variations on
occasion, the two sides generally tend to propose that either, a) man is basically
good, or b) man is basically evil. Philosopher and revolutionist Jean-Jacques
Rousseau was of the belief that the nature of man was “decent, tame, moral, and
benevolent.” Although it is an avidly disputed
topic, using logic and reasoning, we can arrive at the possible conclusion that
Rousseau was mistaken in his assessment, for without having a clear moral basis
(such as his view did not), we cannot properly define morality in the first
place, much less assign it to the entire human race.
Rousseau and his
followers argued that only when feeling oppressed and endangered by an
institution or government are humans ever violent, evil, and immoral. An obvious flaw in this ideology is all the evidence otherwise:
all of the countless stories of completely unthreatened humans committing acts
of treachery and barbarism. Napoleon Bonaparte, a revolutionary similar to
Rousseau, battled his way out of the shackles of governmental oppression in
France, only to establish a tyrannical rule arguably more oppressive than the
first. Adolf Hitler, the infamous German dictator
during World War II, was considered by many to be an embodiment of pure evil
because of the mass genocides committed at his command. During his tyranny, he
was not a man oppressed by the government, but rather was a man reinforcing and
campaigning Darwin’s theories of Evolution and “the survival of the fittest.” In essence, rather than being the oppressed, both men were the oppressors. What Rousseau seemed to
overlook was that an “evil government” - such as his ideology required for the
conception of evil - would have to be composed, organized, and enforced by evil
men who were not under the same subjugation as was the oppressed citizen. He
blamed the causer of human wickedness on a human-controlled apparatus, which
does not hold up under logical scrutiny. Rousseau also stated that another
possible cause for making man become evil is “punishment for disobedient acts.” We are then forced to wonder: If man is naturally
benevolent and moral, what acts of disobedience would he be committing in the
first place?
If we decided to examine
the argument from a strictly secular, psychological view in which we used
explicitly observable science, we could easily see another example of evidence
against Rousseau’s view that man is innately moral. Sigmund Freud, perhaps one
of the most well-known psychologists of all time, first proposed the now
widely-accepted idea of the “psychoanalytic theory” based on his observations
of humanity. Freud divided the personality structure into three components:
the id, the ego, and the superego. According to his theory, all humans are born
with the id, which is the primitive, selfish, immoral component of the
personality; the superego, the morality component, has to be taught. In other
words, Freud observed that from birth, man is inherently immoral and selfish,
and morality is a real part of the personality, but it does not come naturally
to anyone. Though the observations of one man can be argued and possibly
thwarted, his ideas suggest that the innate evil nature of man is not a
strictly religious idea, but that it is a scientific view as well.
The problem with using
philosophy and psychology to arrive at any conclusion regarding morality is
that humans debating the morality of man can argue indefinitely and
inconclusively, but they are all equally unqualified to determine the existence
or predisposition of morality, because, should Freud be correct and mankind
naturally possess from birth an evil and selfish desire, we as humans do not
then have the credibility to determine our own goodness. If our morals came
from ourselves, they would all be relative, and they would all be different,
therefore it would render the word “morals” completely meaningless. For
example, if a person decided it was morally right for him or her to murder
someone, he or she could do so and still claim to possess morals. Surely such a
judgment should not and cannot be made by those who would be so directly
affected by the outcome, for it would be like a guilty man being the judge of
his own trial. Without a consistent moral basis, the idea of morality loses its
meaning, and with it, its significance.
Therefore, in order to
refute the idea of inherent morality with authority, we must determine who or
what is the deciding factor; who has the authority to regulate anything
regarding morality. Since we require a moral foundation in order to discuss or
define morality, we could logically go to the most widely-accepted moral
foundation there is: the Holy Bible. On this moral foundation our
forefathers laid the groundwork for the United States of America; and during the years 1760 to 1805, the Holy Bible was the most commonly referred-to
source in American political works. Although many believe the Bible to
be mythical, we must suggest that if the Holy Book and other spiritual books
are not credible sources regarding morality, the first question on the goodness
of man is rendered meaningless, for without the belief in the Greatest Good
(God), any other goods do not have a clear definition, thus they cannot be
debated. If, however, the Bible is true and accurate, it would logically follow
that a book on morality written by a God of perfection would have more
credibility on the topic of man’s goodness than would a conceivably self-centered
human. Thus, using logic and reasoning, we can conclude that the Bible is
likely one of – if not the – best authority on matters of morality, for without
a moral basis, we would have no idea what the words “good,” or “moral” meant in
the first place.
Since we have examined
Rousseau’s view of the supposed inherent goodness of mankind and exposed its
logical instability, we must therefore consider the alternative, that man is
inherently evil, which is not difficult to see in the world around us. Since we are discussing the concepts of goodness
and wickedness, it would be illogical to dismiss the only rational authority on
the subject. The foundation of morality for millions of people, the Holy Bible, states in the book of Ecclesiastes, “Surely there is not a righteous
man on earth who does good and never sins” (7:20). And again in Romans:
As it is written, “There is none righteous,
no, not one; there is no one who understands; no one seeks after God. All have
turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even
one…they use their tongues to deceive…their mouth is full of curses and
bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed innocent blood…there is no fear of God
before their eyes. (3:10-12)
We see a clear
commonality throughout scriptures of the theme of mankind’s wickedness. The
whole purpose of the Holy Bible, in fact, is based on the wickedness of man,
for in the book, Christ offers redemption and salvation, both of which would be
completely unnecessary were we all born naturally upright and decent.
Although the debate of
whether or not man is basically good will likely remain a core argument among
philosophers and theologians, we can see that the question of man’s inherent
goodness cannot be legitimately debated without a proper foundation for terms
such as “good,” or “morality.” Trying to argue about morals if we do not truly
believe in their origin would be like a man talking about humanity who did not
believe in the existence of conception, or a man arguing about leaves who did
not believe in the existence of plants. To claim to believe in something
without believing in its origin is a sign of illogical and indolent thinking. If we debate truth, we must determine and ascertain
what the Ultimate Truth is; if we debate love, we must decide where ultimate
love comes from; if we debate pain, we must know where pain comes from; and if
we debate morality, we must understand where morality comes from. The origin of
something will determine its foundation. The foundation will give us
credibility and authority. Authority will reward us with reasonable and logical
discussions.
Therefore it is not a requirement to believe that the Bible is true, however if we do not believe in the origin of morality, we cannot believe in morality in the least, for we have denied its essence. And if we do not believe in the existence of morality, we cannot truly debate it. Perhaps a good question would be: If goodness does not come from a good God, and we have no other moral basis besides our own minds, how can we ever be sure at all what morality is? How can we ever be moral if we do not even know what it means?
