A moral philosophy has pervaded our culture that is (or should be) disturbing. It comes to us dressed in what appear to be enlightened thought and words, but anyone who thinks even slightly deeply about it can see that it is the exact opposite. It is in fact, hopelessly primitive. It is the philosophy which equates the natural with the moral. If something is natural it cannot be prohibited and if we desire something, we must necessarily have a right to it.
This is no more noble than it is novel. We, living in the post-modern age, tend to turn up our noses at those who came before, scoffing at their backward and binding sense of morality. Indeed, we believe ourselves to have transcended and transformed what has come before us into something better when in reality, we have most decidedly descended, not into anything new or inspiring, but into the most base manner of thinking. In so doing, we make ourselves to be nothing more than creatures of instinct, indistinguishable from the animals.
There is indeed something very attractive about this line of thought and it is not hard to figure out what it is. It is easy and it gets us exactly what we want. Morality dictated by something other than our instincts is almost never convenient and rarely in line with our desires. Doing the right thing is, more often than not, very hard and very costly.
Of course, there is the glaring argument that if it isn’t right, then it would not be so ingrained in our nature to desire it. We are, after all, “born this way.” But what does that have to do with morality? With truth? Since when is “what is” the same thing as “what ought to be.” I find no necessary link between the two. In fact, I am more deeply convicted that there is much about what is, in the world and within myself, that really ought not to be. I was born selfish, but does that mean that my selfishness must be condoned, even celebrated as good? If all that counts is what comes naturally and what I desire, then anything, anything goes. Let us think past the ends of our noses and realize that if we make natural instinct the sole basis of our morality, we have not merely revised moral law, we have abolished it.
We must be careful to remember that what has set humans apart from all other living beings is our sense of a moral law and our conviction that this law should govern nature and not the other way around. What has made the human experience beautiful and meaningful is our unique ability to perform very difficult and very costly moral acts: to die in the place of another, to remain faithful to our spouse until death, or to tell the truth at great cost. These are the acts we celebrate and admire and yet they are anything but natural. In fact, they go completely against nature. They are, in the sense that they go beyond nature, supernatural. And it is this ability to think beyond and act in spite of our natural desires that makes us uniquely human and makes our humanness meaningful.
4 thoughts on “Natural Does Not Make Moral”
Well said Emily!
I liked the comment about what makes the human experience beautiful. What goes beyond nature is supernatural. Thanks Emily!
[…] Article written by Emily Suzanne: https://emilysuzanne11.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/natural-does-not-make-moral/ […]
Nor does “supernatural” make moral. Moral objectivists are in the same subjective boat in which they like to place moral relativists.