What Is a “Moral Universe?”

What Is a “Moral Universe?”

In my immediately preceding blog essay here I talked about God, being, and goodness and equated them. I also argued that without that equation, this cannot really be a “moral universe” except in the sense (if one can say it seriously and with a straight face) that everything is as it should be (or everything simply “is what it is”).

In my experience, many people, both Christians and non-Christians, do not really understand what is meant by “moral universe.” It does not mean a universe in which everything is as it should be or that everything simply “is what it is” without moral judgment. At least those are not what I mean by “moral universe.”

To me, a “moral universe” is one in which “right and wrong,” “good and bad” are true and useful concepts and mean more than “I like that” or “I don’t like that” or “my people, my tribe, like that” or “my people, my tribe, don’t like that.” And it means one in which right and wrong are really opposites and not just two sides of the same being (as in some popular culture).

In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, without a “good God” such as I described in my immediately preceding essay here, this cannot be a moral universe in my sense of the term.

Let me explain again and in more depth what I mean by “moral universe.” (Excuse me while I say that I have great trouble understanding why anyone means anything else by “moral universe,” but I acknowledge many do mean something else by the phrase.)

First, though, the usual and necessary disclaimer:

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

A “moral universe” is one in which some dispositions toward being are universally and absolutely wrong and others are universally and absolutely right—regardless of what people think. In other words, we are (or should be) attempting to discover right and wrong rather than creating right and wrong.

Now, of course, I set aside as irrelevant to “moral universe” many matters of taste and preference. My preference for pizza over broccoli is not relevant to whether this is a moral universe—unless I impose my preference on others by coercion or deception.

But what makes coercion and deception wrong? Nothing, unless this is a moral universe. I only think coercion and deception are wrong (in the way I mean “wrong”) because I believe this is a moral universe. Coercion and deception have always been wrong and are everywhere wrong unless a greater good requires them in a particular situation. What greater good might require them?

First, love. But why love? Only because God is good and that means God is love and expects us to love, too. What is love? Benevolence toward being (Jonathan Edwards).

Second, justice. But why justice? Only because God is good and that means God is love and expects us to love, too, and justice is an expression of love under the conditions of a broken world. “Justice is the closest approximation to love under the conditions of sin” (Reinhold Niebuhr).

Third, love and justice may require coercion and/or deception in extreme situations such as Europe in the early 1940s when many Christians and other “righteous gentiles” hid Jews at great risk. Some of them had to lie about it when the SS or Gestapo came to their houses. Dietrich Bonhoeffer had to join a conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. At least he believed he had to. Love and justice required it even though, in normal circumstances, killing would be wrong. (See his explanations in Ethics—a collection of his writings about Christian ethics edited after his death by his friend and student Eberhard Bethge.)

But now I want to step back from going too deeply into the “weeds” (details) of the meaning of “moral universe.” Stepping back to the main point: “moral universe” simply means there is a moral code embedded in the cosmos that makes some dispositions toward being objectively and even absolutely wrong—even if nobody thinks of them as wrong. They are wrong; they just are—always. Our discovery and determination of the “wrongness” of particular acts sometimes depends on taking circumstances into account. But the point is—we (human beings) do not invent or create “right” and “wrong” but discover them.

In other words, because God is our creator and our humanity is oriented toward God’s being by God’s design, people ought always to act lovingly (with benevolence toward being). Fleshing that out in specific cases is a difficult but important task. It is what we call Christian ethics.

Back to the main question and point…. This is a “moral universe” only if being and goodness go inextricably together and being has an eternal and transcendent reservoir and source. And that reservoir and source must be goodness itself meaning a disposition of benevolence toward being. Otherwise “moral universe” means something less that does not rise to the power that it has with theism for moral judgment and even progress toward the good.

This intuition, which I believe is not merely a dream or wish, was simply assumed by the founders of the American republic. They were all theists. I do not claim as some do that they were all Christians. But having read many scholarly books about them (e.g., Founding Faith: Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America by Steven Waldman) I stand firmly convinced that the founders of the American republic all assumed a theistic foundation and frame of reference (world and life perspective) as they created it.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).