Source of Morality

Last week, following the Democrat presidential debate, Glenn Beck called in to his radio show (he was out that day) to comment. He opined that what Bernie Sanders is proclaiming is what is moral. It isn’t what is really moral, but what people with a totally skewed worldview might think is moral.

That got me thinking. I’ve noticed, among friends who are non-religious but still decent people, they seek morality. They try being vegan—to avoid eating what was alive as an animal. They might volunteer with Habitat for Humanity. While rejecting God’s word as a way to a moral life, they nevertheless seek to be moral, finding their own definitions—and sometimes proselytizing their “discovered morality” to others who don’t yet agree with them.

I propose that it is normal for people to want to be good, to think of themselves as good. They can define that according to what God has revealed as good. But if they reject that, they leave a vacuum they must fill with something. Sometimes what they fill it with will align with what God tells us is good, sometimes neutral. Sometimes they’re just plain wrong.

Another thing necessary for figuring out what is moral is a standard, or authority. If God is not the authority, then the vacuum left is filled by something else: the person’s own gut feelings, the popular culture—or the government.

What we saw at the Democrat debate was morality as defined by those who think the authority is government. And it’s circular; government must do what the people think is moral, and the people must agree with government’s definitions of moral.

I thought it might be useful to draw a comparison between God’s definition of morality and the counterfeit Government-is-god version of morality. If we can trust that those who disagree with us want to be good and right, and we can use language that recognizes the search for morality, we might persuade away from the big-government ideas that lead inevitably to tyranny, poverty, and savagery—which moral people do not want.

This thought exercise in the chart isn’t yet how to word things to the lost morality thinkers, but it is on the way. If we can see the real next to the counterfeit, then maybe we can think of ways to lead others to the real.

God’s Revealed Morality	Government-as-god Morality
God is the authority of what is moral and good. He lets us know what that is, in written word that has been used and handed down for millennia, and agreed upon by civilizations.	Government is the authority of what is moral and good. What government says is good is different now than it was a decade ago, and will likely be quite different a decade from now.
God grants human beings inalienable rights.	Government grants human beings what it chooses, and removes those “rights” and privileges as it sees fit.
God grants us life, and determines timing of birth and death. God prohibits us from taking innocent life.	Government decides whose life is or is not worth protecting. Government places greater value on criminal life and possibly animal life than it does innocent unborn human life or innocent elderly or infirm.
God is no respecter of persons; i.e., He invites all races and nations of people to come unto Him and follow His law in order to live their best life.	Government chooses whom to favor, and may favor one ethnicity or gender or class over another as it chooses.
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; God gives mankind the resources and responsibilities to live well on the earth, allowing His children to prosper from their work and effort.	Government insists that man is a danger to the earth, and should curtail any activities or enterprises that the government deems to be dangerous to the environment, even if those restrictions unduly harm the poor, or prevent inventions that could solve cleanliness issues.
God plans for each child to be raised by a loving mother and father, to teach the child God’s morality and bring him/her up to be productive and contributing to society, so parents have the sacred right and responsibility to see to the care and upbringing of their children.	Government claims to know what is best for children; it will insist on government institutions for inculcating government ideas, and will override parental rights as it chooses.
God is concerned about economic inequality if some of his children are starving and in need while others fail to care and offer help, because voluntary helping, individual to individual, can help both the giver and the receiver.	Government is concerned about economic inequality regardless of cause, and takes by force from some to give to others, as it sees fit, regardless of how this might harm both the giver and the receiver.
God allows, and considers it a responsibility, to defend self, family, and home. So good citizens have a right to arm themselves.	Government claims that citizens should not be allowed to own weapons, because some people might use them improperly.
God requires allegiance to Him first, followed by family, community, and government.	Government requires allegiance to government first, followed by community as higher government allows, then family as government dictates, and to religion as far as government is willing to tolerate.
God joined our first parents in marriage and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth—to care for their offspring and bring them up to adulthood in love and security.	Government decides that marriage is a current agreement between any two people in a sexual relationship, without any connection to permanence, exclusivity, or parenting; and government may decide on a different definition at any time in the future, regardless of the effect on families and children.
God expects His children to respect property ownership, to care for what is theirs, but never to take what is not theirs.	Government decides who owns what, and whether to allow ownership to continue, or to confiscate from a current owner to claim for government or to bestow on a new owner.
When God asks for charity, it is one person freely giving something he has, or his time, attention, or work to benefit another of God’s children.	When government asks for charity, it is coerced by taxation, confiscation, or regulation and requirement.
God’s laws are short and simple: there are ten clearly worded basic requirements respecting God, family, life, honesty, and property ownership, plus some advisory details about how to implement them. He has made them relatively easy to understand and obey. He will judge fairly and mercifully.	Government’s laws are lengthy, complex, unintelligible, and often obscure, so as to make them almost impossible to obey, which gives government the power to prosecute at will almost anyone it might target. Government may judge arbitrarily and inconsistently.

Fact and Opinion

I read a piece about moral relativism being inculcated into our children, “Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts,” by Justin McBrayer, a professor working in ethics and philosophy of religion. It got me thinking some of the big philosophical questions: What is truth? What is real? What is knowable?

I may not have suddenly come up with all the answers, but we probably can look at a few helpful definitions.

McBrayer’s piece dealt with what he found a troubling definition placed on the wall of his son’s school:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.

These definitions, he found, were ubiquitous online, and were provided by Common Core as a standard. [His piece provides links.] He was troubled because there’s an implication that facts are all provable, and anything unprovable must not be true. And anything believed is merely opinion, and therefore can be dismissed as not factual.

Is truth equivalent to proof? No. Truth is true whether we are aware of it or have yet proven it.

Is truth relative (i.e., changeable depending on perspective or perception)? No. Truth exists, and it is up to us to do our best to perceive it accurately. It is true that gravity is a force that works on my body whether I believe in gravity or not.

Gravity is a provable law. We use the laws of physics to perceive and measure it. I am persuaded that, while I can’t “see” gravity, it’s still there. It exists. I believe gravity pulls me earthward. So, since that is a statement of belief, is it fact or opinion? I am persuaded that gravity exists; that is my opinion. But it’s a considered, educated opinion, well supported. Regardless of my awareness or opinion, gravity is still working on me. If I jump off the roof, gravity will bring me to earth—fast and hard. I’d say that’s pretty real.

The definitions above imply an either/or arrangement. Something is either fact (provably true) or opinion (something not provably true). So can an opinion be true? And can a “fact” be untrue? Yes, for both. A “fact” might be stated as true, and then learned to be false. It was once thought to be a fact that the earth was the center of the universe, until Copernicus and Galileo more accurately described our solar system. In the 1980s, it was a supposed “fact” that the world was cooling, and then in the 2000s it was warming at an alarming rate—stated as “fact,” and given measurements, but opposed to conflicting measurements. Just because something is stated as fact, doesn’t mean it’s true.

This blog is made up of my opinions. But it is my intention, always, to clarify truth. I search for true principles, and then apply them. The Spherical Model is a way of looking at the interrelationships of politics, economics, and social behaviors, in an effort to find ways to attain freedom, prosperity, and civilization. That is a statement of fact. I invented the concept, so the definition of the Spherical Model is what I say it is. I control that fact.

The principles that lead to freedom, prosperity, and civilization exist, whether they are widely perceived or not, whether they are understood by anyone but me (or even by me). There are ways that lead to those good outcomes, because those good outcomes have been seen and identified at points in history, and people got there somehow. God knows the path. Knowing that path is knowing something true—a fact.

It is my opinion that I have discovered the right path, the right principles. There is a lot of evidence supporting my opinion. I am persuaded that the principles if applied among any people, nation, city, family, tribe, or organization will lead eventually to freedom, prosperity, and civilization—all ultimate Goods.

Are the Spherical Model principles wrong because they are my opinion? No. They may not yet be proven, but they are either true or untrue based on what God knows. I have attempted to know what God knows; I do that imperfectly, but chances are if I follow principles God has laid out for a happy life, I’m probably closely aligned with truth.

McBrayer’s concern was that, when weeding out fact from opinion, moral values always got sifted into the opinion category, with the implication that they can be disregarded as unknowable and probably not true. He listed some examples of opinion, and therefore not fact (not true):

—     Copying homework assignments is wrong.

—     Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.

—     All men are created equal.

—     It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.

—     It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.

—     Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

—     Drug dealers belong in prison.

Some of these just might be true. They might even be provably true or false (vegetarian health, for example). But because they are “value judgments,” students are taught to discount them. Which makes it seem reasonable to cheat on homework (if you want to), curse in school (if you want to), subjugate other people (if you want to), give in to tyranny (if you want to), drink alcohol while underage (if you want to), or deal drugs without going to prisons (if you want to).

It is a value judgment that life is sacred. It is my opinion that beheading another human because he doesn’t belong to my religion is morally wrong. God knows whether that is true or not. But every civilized people in history—and all of the people on earth today except a radical few—believe killing innocent people is wrong. We punish for it. It’s a capital offense. Does our morality-free generation know whether murder is right or wrong?

It’s a problem when you raise a generation that believes there are no moral absolutes. You can’t get civilization without a critical mass willingly living moral lives. How can that happen if they don’t know what is moral, and don’t even know that morality is real?

What about honesty. We require truth telling in court; perjury is punishable. Should it be? People in a civilized society believe so. But if someone is raised to believe truth, or reality, is just something in your head, it can be whatever you think it is. “It depends on what the meaning of is is.” “I didn’t have sex with that woman.” “If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your plan.” “I didn’t set up an illegal private email server starting the day I took office as Secretary of State in order to hide correspondence from public record; I was just trying to make things convenient.” “Four Americans were killed in Benghazi because of outrage caused by an obscure internet video.”  

As Horace Mann said, “What the church has been for medieval man, the public school must become for democratic and rational man. God will be replaced by the concept of the public good…. The common schools… shall create a more far-seeing intelligence and a pure morality than has ever existed among communities of men” ( Klicka, The Right Choice—Home Schooling, p. 32).

So if the morality-castrating definition of fact and opinion is provided through the public schools, that is an attempt to form a new “morality”—one that is whatever government says it is, among a populous unable to think through the reasons government might be wrong. It’s not about building a better society; it’s about building power over a weaker people. (Yet another reason to homeschool.)

I keep an old dictionary[1] around, definitely pre-Common Core. So I looked up fact and opinion there, to know what it meant while I was growing up:

Fact: a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; reality; actuality; truth

Opinion: a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one’s own mind

So, a fact is true, whether we know it or not; measurement or perception is not required. An opinion is true as far as we can ascertain. Both are attempts at understanding what is real, what is true. If you can see fallacies in a person’s support of their opinion, then discount it if you like. But throwing out an opinion just because it isn’t viewable or measurable jettisons an astounding amount of truth.

Truth exists separate from us. Seeking truth is a work for a lifetime. It takes a good mind, and a good heart, and spiritual strength to know truth. Seeking God is more likely to lead to truth than leaving out the Omniscient One and going at it on our own.

“The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words,

light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one.”[2]

---

[1] Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition, Simon and Schuster, © 1982.

[2] Doctrine and Covenants 93:36-37.

Defending the Boy Scouts, Part I

Last week the national leaders of Boy Scouts of America considered whether to alter their long-standing position to exclude those involved in homosexual behavior from leadership and membership. The decision was put off until a future meeting in May.

When it came up, I was a little surprised. The fight against the Scouts has been quiet for some years, since a 2000 Supreme Court ruling in their favor, that a private organization is allowed to exclude a person from membership when “the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints,” a right validated through the Constitution’s First Amendment freedom of assembly clause.

I wasn’t aware of the most recent pressure—which is purportedly to eliminate discrimination but in reality is intended to destroy the organization. I’m a little late for writing about last Wednesday’s vote, but I’m ahead of time for the May vote.

The method of pressure is to remove a large percentage of business donations, which have helped the organization function as a non-profit for over a century. The discrimination argument, while it may appeal to surface-thinkers, means that an organization—any organization—must be what outsiders, rather than members, say it must be. This may be better understood with a comparison. 

T-shirt from Rudy's Barbecue in Houston, TX

A favorite restaurant feature here in Texas is the barbecue place. I don’t know what this means elsewhere, but here it means slow-cooked smoked brisket and pulled pork, sliced up and weighed in front of you, and handed to you in paper dishes that you carry to seat-yourself trestle tables, where you lay it out on sheets of paper you tore off as your own personal tablecloth. There are no plates. Plastic forks and knives are optional. Typically you put the meat of choice on slices of bread and pour on some secret recipe barbecue sauce. Our family’s favorite such place is Rudy’s, which is set up like a truck-stop gas station with the restaurant instead of a mini-mart. The sauce (regular Rudy’s Sause and Sissy Sause varieties) are so good that extended family members request that we ship it to them as Christmas gifts. Rudy’s sells T-shirts that say, “I didn’t claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables.”

In other words, this is a place with a certain belief and lifestyle.

Suppose someone comes in and sees the success of Rudy’s and wants to expand. It’s a chain, so it’s conceivable someone could want to have the opportunity to manage a new franchise. But suppose this potential new manager has a different philosophy: “I like everything you do here at Rudy’s; it really works. And clearly it’s profitable. I want all that. But I’m really troubled by all this death to animals. I think we need a kinder, gentler Rudy’s that caters to the vegetarian Texan.”

I expect the head honchos at Rudy’s would laugh in the guy's face and say "No; that isn’t possible. You can’t successfully feed people Texas barbecue without meat."

Suppose, in our hypothetical, there’s some pressure put on the organization by PETA; protesters come and picket in front of the restaurants and harass customers, discouraging the usual customers from going inside and spending their money on the meat they want. What should Rudy’s do?

Well, for one thing, stay in Texas, where meat eaters are likely to scoff at the protesters and go get their meat anyway. So loss of funding doesn’t translate as well to this metaphor. But let’s take a look at the motives of the change agents. They claim to admire the success of the original organization. They want to continue the success—but they want to take away the main reason for the success: really good meat served up pure and simple.

That’s what’s happening with the Boy Scouts. People outside the organization say they admire the outcome, the building of boys into men of strong morals and integrity. They want to keep getting that result—except that, instead of all that emphasis on morality and integrity, they want to emphasize “tolerance,” particularly tolerance of sexual immorality, instead.

You can’t have a successful barbecued meat restaurant by insisting that the eating of meat is immoral. You can’t have a successful organization to help parents raise boys to moral men by insisting that having a standard of sexual morality is immoral.

You know that if Rudy’s were to give in to the vegetarian potential manager, the business would fail. That is a given. Also know that, if the Boy Scouts were to cave and accept homosexual behavior as equivalent to married heterosexual behavior, the Boy Scouts would fail in their mission. That is also a given.

The simple question for the change pushers is this: why don’t you form your own organization that appeals to those who share your beliefs? Why walk into an organization you don’t share beliefs with and insist they adjust to your beliefs?

The real answer to that is that they do not simply want to slightly adjust an existing organization, which they believe would be an improvement for all the world; they want to destroy that organization. Not everyone has that ultimate goal. Some are simply listening to the talking points and following along with the crowd. But if you look at the requirements for civilization, and you look at the adherence to those civilizing principles within the organization, you can identify where BSA lands on the Spherical Model. People who dwell only in the southern hemisphere of the spherical model choose control of others, and they choose savagery. They do no love civilization, so there is no reason to assume their motives are pure.

In Part II we’ll look at the evidence that leads to this conclusion.

Words on Civilization

I’m still gathering the data for the final part of the piece on devaluing marriage—on what happens nearer to home in the US when families no longer serve their purpose for civilization. 

For today, just a few civilization related quotes. 

"Adore God. Reverence and cherish your parents. Love your neighbor as yourself, and your country more than yourself. Be just. Be true. Murmur not at the ways of Providence."— President Thomas Jefferson

"There is no more lovely, friendly, and charming relationship,
communion, or company than a good marriage."— Martin Luther

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same—Ronald Reagan

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."—John Adams

"One man with integrity is a majority."— Thomas Jefferson

We must have no carelessness in our dealings with public property or the expenditure of public money. Such a condition is characteristic either of an undeveloped people, or of a decadent civilization. America is neither.—Calvin Coolidge