Antifreeze and Flavor

Morality

Nathan Richardson

In a previous post, “What Makes Me a ‘Me’?” I described two conflicting assumptions about the nature of self in psychology. The first paradigm, Self-interest, assumes that selfhood consists of separation from other selves; we are entirely separate and distinct individuals, not inextricably connected or related to each other in any inherent way. The second paradigm, Other-interest, assumes that the self’s existence is created by the existence of other selves, which the self distinguishes itself from. That is, I am intrinsically connected to others because a Self implies an Other which the Self is not.

This belief or lack of belief in inherent connectedness has implications in the way we conceive of morality. (The following discussion relies in part on a thesis by Renée Beckwith,1 and I am indebted to her for her insights.)

Self-interest

In the first paradigm, morality consists of remaining free. Therefore each person must be free to choose her own values, which they decide upon through conscious thought.

In this paradigm, agency and freedom are only possible in detachment and separation from other selves; any connections imply unchosen obligations, and would mean the self was being governed by people or forces outside itself. Thus, there can be no universal morality, because that would be an involuntary obligation, which would negate the possibility of self-governance or agency. Freedom is the ability to choose independently of any influence, including universal moral standards.

Therefore, in order to be free, every person must be able to choose her own morality. This is possible because each individual is a “universe unto himself,” an unconnected island of being that is only incidentally sharing space with other selves. Universal virtues are replaced with individual values. What is “good” depends on each individual person, and the ultimate “evil” is to do something that you don’t want to do.

Perhaps more interesting is the way people in this paradigm advocate discerning right and wrong. Since knowledge is based in detachment and objectivity, discerning for oneself what is right and wrong requires rational, conscious thought. “In this paradigm, thinking clearly precedes relating to others morally.”1

People in this paradigm approach morality like a gourmet chef. Like choosing from a buffet, your values are based on individual preferences. There is no one “good” standard for a good meal; we can eat anything as long as it tastes good. This attitude is reflected in comments we hear more and more these days, such as, “Well, that may be true for you, but that’s your truth. I have my own truth,” or, “That way of life may make you happy, but I’m just different. This way of life makes me happy.” Morality is reduced to a matter of taste, and any assertions of a universal standard are seen as antiquated at best, and oppressive at worst.

Other-interest

In the second paradigm, freedom consists of remaining moral. Our happiness is governed by universal virtues, which we discern often intuitively and through encounters with others’ needs.

In this paradigm, existence inherently necessitate connection to other selves. Thus, the nature and obligations of those connections (morality) precede and produce selfhood and agency, not the other way around. Since all selves are connected, there is a universal standard of right and wrong that all must honor and operate by. “It is impossible for the self to independently choose some individual morality apart from the other. In fact, … acting for the good of the other is what defines morality.”1 Morality means, at least in part, putting the needs of the other ahead of one’s own and forgetting the self. Evil consists of not honoring the relations that inherently bind us together.

However, those connections not only imply a universal obligation to be moral (disheartening news for someone in the first paradigm), they also mean that what is good for the other is good for all, and what brings one genuine joy enhances, not diminishes, the joy of all the others. Thus, being moral does not decrease freedom; it increases happiness and turns our relatedness into fulfillment.

This paradigm is much better at describing how people discern right and wrong in everyday life. Since there is a universal standard of right and wrong, we do not choose our own values through rational thought. Most of the time, when we do something that is right, we do so impulsively, because it just “felt right.” After the fact, we may be able to articulate why it was right, but usually the moral choice is first discerned intuitively, and only later rendered reasonable, after the fact.

People in this paradigm approach morality like a dietician. Flavorful foods are wonderful, but there are some basic nutrients that everyone needs, no matter who you are. If you never eat vegetables or fruit, you’re going to get sick. Likewise, there are some substances that will harm everyone. Drinking antifreeze is bad for everyone, even if you like the flavor, and even if you don’t know it’s a poison.

Discussion

This reminder of universal morality can help us avoid a mistake made sometimes within the Church. Sometimes we talk as though our knowledge of the gospel is what causes sin to be harmful or to not bring lasting joy. For example, I’ve heard people respond to concerns about general immorality in the world by saying things like, “Well, they’ve never learned about chastity. It’s wrong for us because we’ve made covenants, but they haven’t made those same covenants.” Whether they know isn’t the point; sexual immorality will hurt people’s spirits whether they were taught chastity or not. We’re more accountable because of our knowledge, to be sure, but our knowledge of right and wrong is not what makes sin harmful. The nature of sin is what makes sin harmful. Sin will bring needless misery whether a person knows it or not; a correct understanding of sin’s nature helps us avoid it.



Notes

1. Renée Beckwith, “Exploring Maternal Ambivalence: Comparing Findings with Two Opposing Paradigms of Intent,” master’s thesis (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University, 2003).

2. For example, an otherwise wonderful object lesson on JennySmith.net has a problematic explanation:

We point out that the other friends seemed to get great pleasure from their [sins] but that doing the same things can be a “bitter” experience when we know better. Things that work for their friends who are “non-believing” or “non-knowing” won’t work for them if it goes against their standards—we know pornography is sin, and so when we “taste” it, it tastes bad; we feel guilty.

The author is right that a knowledge of sin makes it a more bitter experience. But the explanation implies that one solution might be to lower our standards, or to not share the gospel so that others can continue enjoying sin.

12 comments

  1. I enjoyed reading this and will absorb this into my world view. Morality arises from our relationships. And we are never un-related, so there is always going to be some morality.

  2. Nathan,

    At one level, I totally agree with you. But there are some nuances that need to be spelled out regarding the “Other Interest” paradigm.

    Since all selves are connected, there is a universal standard of right and wrong that all must honor and operate by.

    This is the quote that is perhaps the most problematic. I don’t see how connectivity logically implies universal morality. It might, but only depending on how we are connected. Even then, it depends on what is meant by “universal standard.”

    At a certain level, your reasoning follows, I think. We all are children of God and thus have similar relations to Him and each other in a basic sense. So, it certainly may follow that there are universal patterns for living. But only very general ones, I would argue. This is because our relationships with each other really are not all the same. I am a husband to one person and a stranger to another. If it means anything to be a husband, then it means that a different kind of action is involved (different morality, if you will) for me in that relationship. Would this be the same for any husband with any wife? Perhaps in a general sense, but I don’t think so. We all have different experiences and thus have different relationships with others. All meaningful actions are made within the grit and grime of this messy relational matrix. I cannot look for a universal way to be honest or kind or courageous or humble, at least in terms of the particulars with particular people. Yes, there may be general patterns, but don’t we often say that it is the small and simple things that matter most?

    Moreover, we don’t all relate to God in the same way. This is not simply a matter of individual preference, it is a matter of God’s will. Some He invites to labor in the vineyard early, some He invites later. It certainly would not be correct to say that one who comes earlier is more correct than one who is not.

    Thus, when we are talking about certain actions that have to do with our covenants, it may be that some actions are wrong for those under covenant but not wrong at all for those who are not. Think in terms of an actual father, who makes an agreement with one child that he will buy him a bicycle if he mows the lawn all summer, but not with another child. Is the other child wrong, then, for not mowing the lawn? Now, to be sure, there are certain universal moral standards (such as chastity) that inhere from our relationships with God and with others (though, as you recognize, the particulars may differ in terms of accountability). But what makes me worry is when Latter-day Saints will say the same thing about something like drinking alcohol, and I don’t think this follows. Unless Jesus was wrong.

  3. Dennis,

    I hope that Nathan won’t mind if I say that these are issues he and I discussed before he posted this, and I think he probably agrees with you—many nuances were left out with the purpose of keeping the post short.

    There are activities, I’m sure you will agree, that are harmful regardless of the particular agreements we’ve made with God. For example, gluttony, I’m sure you’ll agree, is damaging to our bodies and spirits, regardless of what covenants we’ve made with God. A person’s ability to form healthy relationships is impaired when they engage in infidelity, regardless of their relationship with God.

    I think there are two extremes: one is that God “invented” morality, and thus actions are only wrong if we’ve made promises to God not to do them; the other is that our unique relationship with God has no bearing on right or wrong. This second extreme manifests itself when people try to “justify” every one of God’s commandments, assuming that God wouldn’t forbid something unless there was an inherent evil in it.

    One way I like to think of it is this: The fact that we are in moral obligation is a universal fact, and is general in all contexts, inherent in our existence, an inescapable feature of any kind of relationship with others. The particulars of that moral obligation, the form it takes, changes from circumstance to circumstance and from relation to relation. So, we have a universal morality in the fact that morality is inescapable; but it is difficult to generalize particular rules of conduct to all situations.

  4. Dennis: It certainly may follow that there are universal patterns for living. But only very general ones, I would argue. This is because our relationships with each other really are not all the same.

    Yep, I totally agree. The length of the post only allowed me to assert that a universal standard exists, but there wasn’t time to address its nature or extent. I agree that what morality requires of one person will differ from another person depending on many variables, and covenants is one of them. The idea I was contesting is total moral relativity.

    I also agree with Jeff about the two extremes. Heavenly Father makes it pretty clear that sometimes the reasons behind his commandments are temporary, related to current circumstances, and not necessarily universally-applicable principles. With some of the practices of the law of Moses, you can see the eternal principle behind them (build a railing around your second-story porch so kids don’t fall off). But with other practices, like some of the dietary laws, the Lord candidly says that the main reason is just to make Israel different, just to make them stand out (Lev. 20:24–26). I doubt there’s an eternal principle behind not eating bats.

  5. Nice discussion, Gentlemen. I wish I could write as well as you three. Nathan, I love the title of the post. As you wrote about how the concept of freedom differs in each paradigm, I couldn’t help but think of the scripture: “and the truth shall make you free.” It’s a bit ironic that, generally speaking, those that endorse the first paradigm are more selfish, and at the same time profess a belief in caring about others. In a weird way, they think that the way to a utopia (for lack of a better word) is that we all embrace this first paradigm of freedom. In actuality, this first paradigm is complete selfishness and can only result in sadness, confusion, and emptiness.

  6. That scripture was on my mind a lot as I wrote these, too, Aaron. It really does seem to say that freedom has less to do with increasing our options as it does with perceiving reality accurately. When we do, our external circumstances are less able to constrain our happiness. Happiness, the condition that really matters, has almost nothing to do with our external circumstances, it seems.

  7. So, which of the two perspectives would you say God has?

    Is he Self-interested? If we believe that God is the author of moral law, then this post would seem to say that he is self-interested. And yet, I can hardly imagine a being more interested in the welfare of others.

    Is he then Other-interested? If so, then this post would seem to say that God cannot be an author of his own morality, but must instead merely be a proponent of universal moral laws that precede his divinity and by which he his himself bound.

    The tenor of this post and the earlier ones in this series make me think that you find Self-interest to be fallacious. As far as the existence of subjective morality is concerned, I am inclined to agree (though with the caveats mentioned in earlier comments, of course).

    But is subjective morality fallacious for God? Is he, like us, bound to some degree by objective, universal moral laws? And if not, then how can the idea of subjective morality really be fallacious at all?

  8. I think, Wesley, you make good points. The philosopher Emmanuel Levinas I think may be helpful reading here. He believes that we, as an identity, exist only in relationship with other people, and that relationship is inherently one of ethical obligation. The fact that we are in obligation to the Other is not a fact that we invent, but inherent in any relationship we can possibly have with the Other. I believe there are various ways to fulfill that obligation, and the particulars of that obligation may differ from relationship to relationship.

    I’ll be addressing this more in a later post. The difference I would like to stress is this: It is in our relationship with God that we experience moral obligation to Him, and thus it is to Him that we are accountable. He may alter the nature of our relationship with Him, thus change the particulars of the moral demands we are obligated to respond to. Thus, there may be times when God says “kill” and times when He says “thou shalt not kill,” and thus in a very real sense is the giver of moral law. Thus, while God is not the “inventor” of ethical obligation (in that it isn’t arbitrary, and resides inherently in any relationship), we are ultimately accountable to Him, not to some impersonal moral law.

    I don’t think I am doing this any justice at all, but I hope to flesh it out further in a future post. In the meantime, be patient. 🙂 The principle point is that the relativism rejected in the first paradigm is the idea that morality is arbitrary. Let’s see what Nathan says.

  9. Wes: The tenor of this post and the earlier ones in this series make me think that you find Self-interest to be fallacious.

    Yep, I think Self-interest, in a way, is Satan’s elaborate means of justifying sin to the intellect. But I don’t know all the ins and outs of the two currents; this series has been a summary or review in part because I’m still figuring it all out, too.

    So, which of the two perspectives would you say God has?

    I think Other-interest describes his ways much better.

    If so, then this post would seem to say that God cannot be an author of his own morality, but must instead merely be a proponent of universal moral laws that precede his divinity and by which he is himself bound.

    That is definitely the next question raised, and I’m not sure about the answer, or if I knew it, how to articulate it right. It’s a good question, one I’ve had for a long time.

    I do think, though, that if Heavenly Father is bound by laws higher than himself, they would be moral laws, related to joy and goodness, as opposed to physical laws, related to matter and motion. Why? Well, to be honest, it’s just how I feel. My heart just seems to tell me that its more important for the universe to be inherently good than inherently orderly.

    I wonder also (bear with me if this is really vague) if exaltation doesn’t somehow consist of a person becoming one and the same with a principle. I wonder if, at the point one becomes a god, he or she not only becomes totally good, but they become Goodness. I mean, they become indistinguishable from the principle, so much so that asking the question, “Is God a god because he commands good things, or are those things good because God commands them?” is redundant. The principle is a person. I dunno, that’s kind of out there, but it’s the only way I can think of to describe how it might be.

    I hope by thinking outloud like this to find more insight into that topic, though. Jeff’s answer has me curious. I’m also taking this question with me into my scripture and gospel study.

  10. Jeff: “It is in our relationship with God that we experience moral obligation to Him, and thus it is to Him that we are accountable. He may alter the nature of our relationship with Him, thus change the particulars of the moral demands we are obligated to respond to. Thus, there may be times when God says “kill” and times when He says “thou shalt not kill,” and thus in a very real sense is the giver of moral law. Thus, while God is not the “inventor” of ethical obligation (in that it isn’t arbitrary, and resides inherently in any relationship), we are ultimately accountable to Him, not to some impersonal moral law.”

    Well then, wouldn’t it be the case that God is also bound to and accountable to us? He’s in a relationship with us, after all. Wouldn’t he face moral obligations to us as an extension of that relationship in basically the same way we do to him?

    And, inasmuch as there is anything universal about the nature of man, wouldn’t God be bound by universal moral law? It wouldn’t be the kind of universal law that is decreed and that he must follow, but rather the kind of universal law that simply exists (like the laws of physics), and that can be understood and responded to. But he would nevertheless be bound by a universal moral law.

    Nathan: “I do think, though, that if Heavenly Father is bound by laws higher than himself, they would be moral laws, related to joy and goodness, as opposed to physical laws, related to matter and motion. Why? Well, to be honest, it’s just how I feel. My heart just seems to tell me that its more important for the universe to be inherently good than inherently orderly.”

    I wonder if he sees a difference between moral laws and physical laws, between goodness and order.

    I am inclined to believe that, in God’s eyes (for whom all things are spiritual), physical laws probably are moral laws, and they seem amoral only to us from our limited perspective. I am inclined to believe that he finds inherent order inherently good.

    Of course, as you know, I could be totally wrong.

    But if I’m right, then I think God would be bound by universal physical laws just as much as he is bound by any other universal moral laws.

  11. I am inclined to believe that, in God’s eyes (for whom all things are spiritual), physical laws probably are moral laws, and they seem amoral only to us from our limited perspective.

    That’s a great point, and I don’t know that you’re wrong. Every conclusion I have is suspect when it’s based on a limited mortal perspective. This is a question I think I will be chewing on for a while.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *