A treatise on morlity, God, and murder

15 July 2014

·      If God exists, is murder immoral?

·      Can those who do not believe in God be highly moral people?

·      Can people who practice different religions agree about how to resolve a moral disagreement?

In order to answer these questions, I need to fully understand each part of the question.  While reading the questions, several other questions come to the front:

1.     Does God exist?

2.     What exactly is murder?

3.     What does Moral mean?

4.     Can morality be based on other criterion than the belief in God?

5.     On that premise, can persons with differing religious belief resolve a moral dispute?

The new questions develop a new path of understanding by first delving into what a moral is.  A moral is defined as a societal code of conduct based on religious, familial, or societal standards applied to individual behavior, over the course of time (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/).  In this definition the existence of God is not contemplated, nor is it necessary, to answer the question.  In our world there are societies of individuals that have developed vastly different moral standards.  In the USA, for example, morality tends to be based on a religious platform and applied to all persons in the form of Laws.  In the USA it is illegal to “murder” someone though as yet I have not defined the term, therefore, by default it is immoral.  If one were to take a more Eastern view, it might be discovered that what we as a society find objectionable, is perfectly in-line with their culture and customs and therefore, not immoral.  So morality has no specific meaning other than that it is the cultural norm or custom as applied to individual behavior over time.

The second phase of the question comes to whether God exists. This question has plagued scholars for centuries and is not likely to be resolved any time soon.  In that light, one should look to their own belief structure to decide for themselves if God exists.  For this essay, I will illustrate both viewpoints.   Utilizing that method of breakdown and examination, I will determine what a moral is to me and how fluid the decisions can be based on the context of a given situation.

For the third part of the question, I will think about what murder is and how the term came to be what we as a people have come to believe it means.  Taking the life of another is a very big decision and should not be done lightly.  There are many conditions where the taking of a life would be necessary to ensure the safety of my family or myself.  Is it morally acceptable?  I think it really depends on the circumstance.  Would I lie in wait in a park for a jogger to kill?  Likely, I would not.  Would I kill the person trying to kill the jogger?  Probably so…but why would the second scenario be okay when the first is not? 

We learned earlier that morality is an artificial construct of societal learning applied to similar situations. Due to the herd mentality of humanity, I believe that morality can be a useful tool if exercised in the proper context.  In the above scenario of the jogger in the park, it would be morally wrong to kill the jogger but not the mugger.  In that case, I have seen that the jogger is in danger, looked to my morals for guidance and reacted in a way that would be societally acceptable.  But is it morally acceptable?  In my own mind, I would feel remorse for killing anyone—deserved or not.  I would not, however, feel the killing as unjust.  My reasons have nothing to do with legality or even a sense of right or wrong, but rather have a root in my religious viewpoint.  I am not a Christian.  I do not believe in the God of the Bible.  Do I have a moral code?  Yes, I do.  My moral code is based in the natural cycle of life and what it means to be human.  I believe that if all creatures do no harm to others, except when a reaction is required to counter the action of another, which would result in harm to my self, or family, then it is just.  My belief is that all things deserve to live and exist in a natural balance.  To be more precise, good and evil, light and dark, happy and sad all need to co-exist in balance.  I cannot fault the lion for killing the antelope as it is in his nature to kill the antelope to feed himself and his pride.  

Perspective and reasoning separate humanity from animals.  Perspective is the way a situation or event is seen, judged and reacted to or not, based on the experience of the perceiver.  Reasoning is the decision to react or not to a perceived event or situation.  If I do this, then that will happen—based on past experience.  With this information, we then can logically decide if the reaction is warranted by the action.

Assuming that I am Pagan, Buddhist, or any other non-Christian religion and you are Christian, can we resolve a moral dilemma?  I believe we can.  Morality, we said, is a societal structure based on cultural norms and that morality is independent of the existence of the belief, or lack thereof, in God.  Leaving religion out of the equation results in utilization of our perception and reasoning to help us make the moral call.  By relying on past experiences, in our perception, (learned individually and via a group) we can decide if a reaction to a situation is moral or not.  For example, we are in Mexico where it is customary to pay-off a police officer to prevent arrest.  In the United States it is not only immoral but also illegal.  In Mexico, bribes are a cultural norm.  Based on the context of the situation, bribery would not be immoral if I were in Mexico, it would be expected. 

The last apple to fall from the tree of discussion is the one of murder.  What is murder?  In Western culture, murder is perceived as the causing of the death of another either directly or indirectly.  In some Eastern cultures, the causing of a death is not always murder.  Recently in the news, we have heard of women in the Middle East that have been executed for adopting western views on education, civil rights, ownership, and adultery.  Not only is it not immoral that they kill their family member, honor demands that they do.  Traditionally speaking, murder is not as cut and dry as it seems.  Moral dilemma such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and brain death have all resulted in moral conflict.  Some feel that abortion is the killing of a human before it is born others feel that the fetus is nothing more than a parasitic cell structure until it is able to exist outside the host.  Euthanasia in some cultures (Japan specifically) is considered a way to regain family honor by removing, honorably, the cause of the dishonor.  Assisted suicide and right to die advocates claim that it is our basic right to decide whether we live or die and no person or jurisdiction has the right to dictate otherwise.  We all know of cases where the patient is brain dead but still biologically functioning.  Do we allow them to starve or do we keep feeding the living corpse forever?  What does your moral compass say?

The answer to the original question therefore becomes convoluted and distorted by reason and intellect.  I personally do not believe in God, but I do have a deity.  Do I think murder is immoral?  Not always.  There can be a rational reason to commit murder (in the defined sense) just as there are reasonable arguments for or against just about anything that is generally considered immoral.  The question of whether it is immoral to murder becomes why did the murder take place?  Was the murdered trying to murder the murderer?  Did the killer perceive danger to himself or his family?  Did the killer believe in God?

The topic of morality is very broad and cannot possibly be covered conclusively in a short paper essay.  However, a general idea can be gleaned from our past experiences and our group-learned lessons.  The question of God will likely never be answered (unless you believe in life after death, then maybe).  The question of murder becomes a question of context and perception vs. learned behaviors.   The will of the many usually usurp the rights of the few as has been demonstrated many times in human history—both recent and distant.  Sometimes it is the right thing to do, sometimes not.