Theologian and Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer believed that the arts (music, paintings, drama, movies, etc.) reflected the true inner philosophy and beliefs of a society. This being the case, it was not uncommon to find him lecturing in his Swiss L’Abri community not only on the teachings of Christ but on topics such as the metaphysics of the rock group Led Zeppelin.
There’s little doubt that Schaeffer was right. The arts move through our eye and ear gate and oftentimes engage us visually to consider philosophical, moral, and spiritual questions in ways that other mediums can’t.
The recently released movie “The Purge” was widely panned by theater critics, but nevertheless rose to be the top movie the week it opened. The film is set at a time in American history when unemployment is at its lowest level ever. Ditto for crime. On the surface, things couldn’t be better.
Why?
Because for one 12-hour period per year, all laws are suspended and humanity is allowed to carry out every act that it desires without consequence. “Tonight allows people a release for all the hatred and violence that they keep up inside them,” says the key protagonist in the movie, who is a man with a wife and two children. When questioned by his kids about why such a thing is allowed, the mother responds, “Just remember all the good that the purge does.”
When one of the children admits a man being pursued by a group of killers into their home during the 12-hour purge, the family faces the moral dilemma of whether to protect or eject him when their house is surrounded by the murderous mob who asks the family to sacrifice their visitor to the gang outside or die.
It’s natural for us to dismiss such situations as pure fiction and believe that human beings wouldn’t kill innocent people simply because the laws prohibiting murder were lifted. Certain crazed and lawless individuals, sure, but whole communities of people? Well, that just wouldn’t happen.
Or would it?
Fear Thy Neighbor
The book is now twelve years old, but the shock value it delivers is every bit as fresh today for those who haven’t heard the story. On July 10, 1941, half of the Polish town of Jebwabne murdered the other half who was Jewish. Of the 1,600 Jews that lived in the town, only about a dozen or so survived to tell the story that’s chronicled in Jan Gross’ book Neighbors.
Today, we’ve become somewhat desensitized to stories of the Holocaust. We try to tell ourselves that the persistent Nazi indoctrination of hatred resulted in brainwashed German military individuals who carried out atrocities that otherwise ‘normal’ people wouldn’t. Gross’ book shatters that kind of thinking.
Poles and Jews had been living peacefully side by side for many years in Jedwabne until the Nazis arrived in the town. Just after the German occupation, the question was asked whether it was now permitted to kill the Jews. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, half of the town turned on the other with the same type of murderous violence depicted in “The Purge”.
Some Jews were decapitated and their heads kicked around for fun. To escape their killers, Jewish mothers fled to a nearby pond and drowned their own children, but most were caught and burned alive in a large barn. Although the killings were coordinated by the town mayor, Gross says that townspeople were “free to improvise.”
Writing in a Newsweek article about the atrocity, George Will says it was not the German army who murdered half the town of Jedwabne, but that “the last faces seen by Jedwabne’s Jews were the familiar faces of neighbors.”[1]
But why did they do it?
Will’s answer is a disturbing one: “Why in Jedwabne did neighbors murder their neighbors? Because it was permitted. Because they could.”[2]
For the Good of Thy Neighbor (hood)
The moral philosophy espoused at the outset of “The Purge” is one of consequentialism: the moral rightness or wrongness of an action is determined solely by its end consequences. That type of utilitarian thinking (whatever delivers maximum happiness and minimal suffering to a society is good) is extremely disturbing when one actually thinks of it being universally imposed. This mindset says that, for example, torturing an innocent child is morally acceptable if it brings about an overarching good for society. Furthermore not only is it morally permissible, but morally obligatory.
“The Purge” isn’t the only movie to showcase this moral philosophy. Other films such as “The Watchmen” end promoting the same thing.
I think most would agree that consequentialism, when examined, proves to be morally bankrupt, but this raises the question of what moral framework people should use when interacting with their ‘neighbors’ and where such ethical standards originate. Are the actions depicted in “The Purge” and what happened in Jedwabne wrong? Is so, why?
Although atheism has tried to provide moral groundings apart from a transcendent Creator, some atheists admit that it requires too much heavy lifting. One is atheist Kai Nielsen who wrote,
We have been unable to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that really rational persons need not be egotists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you here is not a pleasant one for me and reflection on this actually depresses me. Pure, practical reason even with the good knowledge of the facts will not take you to morality.[3]
Why Love Thy Neighbor?
So what will take you to morality? Why should someone objectively love their neighbor vs. kill him/her if they can?
Understand that under a purely naturalistic worldview there are no such things as human equality or objective moral values and duties. Survival of the fittest and elimination of inferiors plus emotive mob rule for the determination of ever changing moral laws is all that you truly have at your disposal. This doesn’t mean an atheist can’t live a moral life, but it does mean there is no objective grounding for right and wrong.
By contrast, the Christian worldview brings to the table the facts of an omnibenevolent Creator who created intrinsically valuable beings in His moral image so that they instinctively know His moral Law. From the Creator’s very nature flows an immutable moral framework that grounds objective moral values and duties and sets the never changing standard for the oughtness in life.
Rather than condoning a “purge” that carries out violence and evil without consequence, God offers a new life to those who ask Him; one that alters the selfish and sinful longings of the heart to a singular desire that genuinely wants to live by God’s Law.
And just what is it that God asks of us?
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”(Matt. 22:37–40).
There’s no doubt in my mind that adhering to such a standard eliminates the possibilities of future Jedwabne’s and assigns actions such as those depicted in “The Purge” to their rightful place of fiction.
tildeb says
Although atheism has tried to provide moral groundings apart from a transcendent Creator..
No it hasn’t, any more than abstinence has tried to provide a sexual grounding for a new sexual position. Non belief in a god or gods does not make any moral claims at all. For that, there are many avenues… from philosophy to biology. Atheism lays claim to none of them (other than using reason and reality to inform claims made about it).
Understand that under a purely naturalistic worldview there are no such
things as human equality or objective moral values and duties.
A ‘naturalistic worldview’ means that ‘things’ must be composed of ‘stuff’, and that claiming there are ‘things’ without ‘stuff’ is a worldview that is nonsensical (because they are untestable, unverifiable claims about what exists in reality without allowing reality any means to arbitrate and adjudicate the claims independent of people who believe the claims to be true). Human equality, then, is not a ‘thing’ independent of people; it is a ethical standard of practice. Change the standard (for whatever reasons), change the ethics of a practice. Similarly, moral values are not ‘things’ independent of people, either; it is a moral standard for actions based on a sliding scale of what is considered right and wrong. Change the standard (for whatever reasons), change the moral positioning of an act. Ethics and morals are not ‘things’; they are entirely and wholly human constructs of standards.
Survival of the fittest and elimination of inferiors plus emotive mob
rule for the determination of ever changing moral laws is all that you
truly have at your disposal.
Really? Without belief in a god, we are suddenly bereft of all ethical and moral standards outside of theology? That’s like saying without the metric standard (and ignoring any and all other ways and means of measuring), we are suddenly bereft of any way to accurately measure comparative altitude! All air travelers have left is a sky red in tooth and claw! Survival of the fittest! Eliminate the inferiors! Mob rule! Yup, without a god-sanctioned metric system, this is all we have left.
Come on. This is just as silly for pretending mayhem and madness for our ability to determine comparative altitude as it is determining ethical and moral standards. The god-sanctioned part is just fluff used to cover up the real human-made standard in operation.
This doesn’t mean an atheist can’t live a moral life, but it does mean there is no objective grounding for right and wrong.
There isn’t any objective moral grounding you can point to that exists independent of your faith-based belief there is. There is no ‘stuff’ here for me to examine independently from you and your interpretation of it. There is a construct you have made that you’re trying to pass of as god-sanctioned and I’m not buying it for a second. Your defense is to reduce me and my ethical and moral standards to be less than yours not by merit but by proclaimed fiat that yours comes from an imaginary ‘god’ whereas mine comes from barbarity. Your fiat isn’t good enough to support your claim. In fact, it is empty of merit. All you’re doing here is creating victims who have suspect ethics and morals not based on evidence from reality but solely from your imagination.
Robin Schumacher says
“No it hasn’t”
Then you’d better tell that to Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape) and other atheists who have written extensively on the subject.
“it is a moral standard for actions based on a sliding scale of what is considered right and wrong. Change the standard (for whatever reasons), change the moral positioning of an act. Ethics and morals are not ‘things’; they are entirely and wholly human constructs of standards.”
I see. So based on your sliding scale it could slide to rape being morally OK and justified? Further, if they are simply human constructs, who sets the standard and how is that done? Why is a Hitler wrong with his standards and you’re right with yours? Why shouldn’t I wrong you as long as it benefits me?
“Really? Without belief in a god, we are suddenly bereft of all ethical and moral standards outside of theology?”
You did’t read the sentence. What you’re left with is ever changing standards and never any true ability to objectively ground anything. Reread how you defined morals/standards and see if you haven’t agreed to that with your words already.
“There isn’t any objective moral grounding you can point to that exists independent of your faith-based belief there is”
Of course I can. If God exists, then He is the standard and His nature provides the standard. The arguments for God’s existence, His revelation, and the built-in “oughtness” in our lives is much more than mere imagination.
tildeb says
The moral landscape Harris describes is how to promote human well-being by using science to measure effectiveness. He recognizes that human morality is based on biology but affected, influenced, and developed by interacting with the environment. This means we have the ability to choose a standard that best achieves a worthwhile goal (subject to compelling reasons and evidence from reality) rather than relying on the testimonials of illiterate goat herders from several millennia ago to guide us. And you already do exactly this when you parse scripture and decide which bits should be allocated to what you presume by fiat is an ‘objective standard’ and which bits to disregard entirely because they rub your moral sense he wrong way. Into this cloudy interpretative mess of scripture, you then claim his ‘nature’ proves the standard you yourself have selected by way of ‘revelation’ and built-in ‘oughtness’! How very, very convenient for you to have this pipeline to a god unassailable to reason, criticism, revision, and evaluation! What’s even more concerning is that you apparently sense no danger with your assumption. At least mine uses stated goals, compelling reasons for them, and reality to arbitrate effects for evaluation. Mine is open to criticism, review, revision and achieving measurable results. Yours is closed to anything other than your interpretation, yet is supposedly less relativistic than my own. I think you’re quite confused about what that term means.
Robin Schumacher says
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think I’m confused at all in these matters. For example, with Sam Harris, he admits that in his ‘moral landscape’ that is defined by the ‘flourishing of conscious creatures’, it’s possible for rapists and murderers to ‘flourish’. Hence, his moral theory collapses. That’s pretty clear.
Further, without God, you’re left with either the universe, culture, or the individual to decide moral standards. Since amoral matter/energy can’t give what it doesn’t have (morality), it’s out. Culture is out too, unless you think that a culture that burns living widows along with their dead husbands as they do in various countries is morally OK. And hopefully I don’t have to tell you what a disaster individualized morality is.
So please, take you pick of the options above and let me know how it holds up under philosophical examination. Again, things are pretty clear.
Lastly, Christianity is completely open to reason, criticism, and evaluation as it’s always been. That’s sort of what we’re doing here isn’t it?
tildeb says
Robin, at the risk of creating a straw man, I understand that you claim an ‘objective’ moral standard comes from your god. This makes no sense once we remove your demonstrable theological cherry picking of what constitutes this standard because we are left with a either a relativistic scripture (itself cherry picked into what we call the bible) that offers inconsistent moral guidance or interpreters like yourself who have formed over 40 thousand sects and denominations! (This is a clue about the trustworthiness of the methodology used to extract this ‘objective’ standard from scripture!)
It’s easy to claim that there is an objective moral standard and even easier to argue using logic and reason that it becomes available to those who believe in the same god as WL Craig. What is notoriously difficult is to link the cause – god – to the supposed effect – moral behaviour when this behaviour is all around us. It’s the same problem with the rain dance: it’s easy to claim the link exists but falls apart when examined in detail. unless and until you can demonstrate the link, you’ve got nothing ‘objective’ to work with. In fact, the details work directly against your claim, in that populations who profess non belief in your god seem to produce and promote higher rates of the same kind of pro-social, respectful moral behaviours sought after by the believers! It is against this reality that your insistence for the correctness of your contrary opinion seems to be most directly challenged and it now falls to you to explain how this is possible. And it is here where Harris’ advice is most appropriate: by dropping any religious claims, we can have a better conversation about how to best achieve a higher moral standard than the biblical farce.
Daniel Mann says
Robin, I love you summary statement: “Since amoral matter/energy can’t give what it doesn’t have (morality), it’s out.”
Tildeb, admittedly, I haven’t followed your entire discussion. Also admittedly, there exists the question for the theist, “Which moral absolutes.”
However, it seems that Robin’s case is otherwise. Rather than trying to prove that every piece of biblical moral teaching represents a moral absolute, he is merely attempting to question whether or not there is an adequate epistemological basis for objective moral absolutes apart from God. Without an immutable, universal all-wise and authoritative God, there exists no basis for immutable, universal and authoritative morals.
I think that if you are prepared to acknowledge this, then there is cause to go on to the step level – how we can know the absolute moral particulars. Without acknowledging this, there exists no common ground to even begin to discuss the rest.
tildeb says
Daniel, you write Without an immutable, universal all-wise and authoritative God, there
exists no basis for immutable, universal and authoritative morals.
Of course there is an alternative closer to home and quite accessible. It’s called biology.
Daniel Mann says
tildeb, I’m sure that I’m not telling you anything new, but biology (what is) cannot make the leap to what ought to be (morality).
tildeb says
The root word for morality is ‘moralitas’, a term used to describe behaviour and conduct. Biology- our species and others – can and does display behaviour attributed directly to ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ conduct. Your reliance on the notion of ‘ought’ to be synonymous with morality fails utterly to appreciate not just what the word means but the biological basis for how we demonstrate this meaning. Your pronouncement that biology cannot make the leap to what ought to be is flat out wrong.
Andrew Ryan says
“he is merely attempting to question whether or not there is an adequate epistemological basis for objective moral absolutes apart from God.”
And how does God provide that basis? Why would the existence of a God mean absolute morals exist?
Daniel Mann says
Without God, each one of us is truth, since there is nothing higher. Consequently, there is no higher standard to determine who is right and wrong. Without God, there is no objective critique we can make of racial cleansing, rape, or anything else.
Andrew Ryan says
Yes, you’re still explaining why without God there are NOT those things. You need to explain why WITH God there ARE those things.
In the hypothetical situation that a God said that racial cleansing or slavery was bad, why would that make those things objectively bad?
Daniel Mann says
Andrew, God enables us to believe in our intuitive feelings of outrage at rape, genocide and all forms of abuse. Without God, they are no more than chemical reactions; with God, they represent bridges to the Transcendent meaning and purpose.
Andrew Ryan says
What makes them meaningful? Why does God makes its meaning less arbitrary?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that I allow a God exists, and that he makes us think that, say, genocide and slavery is wrong – why does that actually make them WRONG? I mean, an all-powerful being could make me think that genocide and slavery were RIGHT if he wanted to, but you don’t think that wouldn’t actually make them right, do you? It would have no more meaning than a dog owner breeding and training dogs to behave a certain way.
At any rate, if my intuitive feelings makes me outraged at the sanctioning of slavery and genocide by God in the bible, does that mean I shouldn’t trust those feelings?
Also, if you’re saying that the wrongness of abuse depends on the existence of God, you’re placing a condition on its wrongness – that means by definition it isn’t objectively wrong.