Yeah I know it's been awhile since I write anything. I'm suppose to keep this journal updated for my personal faith. Perhaps it's going downhill to the extent that I don't even bother convincing myself that I'll end up like Job anymore.
Having said that, I've promised myself to take up the challenge of refuting the proposition that there is objective morality and the ontology of it being God. So here it goes...
Just a little recap... The arguments for objective morality is simple. Since we all have some sort of uniformity in terms of our acceptance as to what is deemed "moral" or "immoral", there must be some guiding hands. For example, we do not act like mother nature, devouring each other, or go simply by the rules of survival of the fittest in a savage way like animals. If this premise is true, then there must be a "source" for the acceptance. The ontology, as explained in detail in my previous, must be from God if the first premise is true.
Hence, logically, in order to refute the latter proposition, the only way is to refute the first premise.
Is there any other way to explain the uniform norm of morality? Is there a better explanation as to why we do not act like animals when it comes to searching for necessities like food, shelter or mating partners?
The explanation to all these aren't new. In fact, I've borrowed the explanation from the title of today's post -- The Concept of Law by H.L.A. Hart
Hart explained that in a primitive society, if a group of people gather, sociologically there will be a leader where the rest follow. Rules and Customs will slowly be adopted from habits and behaviors. These will then turn into laws.
Why do humans adopt rules and customs instead of behaving savagely like animals? The reason is simple. Every living thing has a defence mechanism. Stronger animals have extraordinary strength, while some protect themselves using shells or by camouflage. If a lion has beastly strength, the only way to defend itself against nature's cruelty such as hunger and the need for reproduction is to use such strength.
Fortunately, humans have the most powerful defence mechanism among animals. We are intelligent. In many ways, if we were to rely on brute strength, we will lose out to intelligent people for wants of survival. An old lady can kill a young healthy man with a gun or by stabbing him while he's a sleep.
With such defence mechanism, it is only natural that we defend ourselves against each other creating rules and laws to abide to. In many ways, we ARE like savage animals. We just execute it in an intelligent manner. The intelligent will overwhelm and overpower the weak with knowledge.
Survival for food, shelter and mating partner is done using our intelligence. Capitalism IS our way of executing that animal-like-savage.
I don't have to expand and elaborate further as the Concept of Law has already done a good job on that. My final thoughts are rather reassuring that I'm not wrong in choosing the path I'm walking now. Even if I believe in the existence of God, I believe He has created a flawed world. If He does no mistakes, there will not be Noah's ark. He will not have to "reset" the world during that time.
There is no escaping of liability when He is in fact the ontology of every existence. If God is a prideful God that cannot accept His own flaw, I would rather not spend eternity with Him. In fact, I'm prepared to go to hell because unfortunately I'm merely a creation living in His flawed world.
At the very least, I am able to tell myself that I exist and I am true to myself.
