The Immorality of Human Morals

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?