You might wonder as to what I mean by this above statement.Well,just to elaborate on this title .As someone in the IT industry the word ‘deprecated’ often refers to technical functionalities that are no longer being used,because the developers have developed something better and faster so that the old ones are no longer required,well it seems like a good thing in the world of technology but unfortunately I find that such a mind-set is already creeping in our moral framework which I find appalling and contradictory and I’ll explain as to why I think so.
GK Chesterton once said ” Don’t take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up in the first place”
In other words he was saying that one should’t remove a value system as something redundant and out-dated without knowing why it was established in the first place.
The world today has instant access to information both authentic to the not-so authentic and the ones that are absolute non-sense and this access though has many advantages unfortunately has its flip-side too.
The definition of ‘Morality’ is no longer left to the sages and the philosophers anymore,why should they have the special privilege of defining what’s right for someone? “It’s my life and I have the right to define what’s right and wrong as per my convenience and why should I adhere to something just because it’s being handed down to me” one might say ,sounds like a fair argument isn’t ? But there’s a fundamental flaw in this point of view.
Let’s consider a hypothetical situation here and say there are two such individuals A & B who strongly believe that there is so such thing as an absolute moral law by which one should abide by and are totally convinced by it and have this below conversation
Note:Both believe every individual has his/her right to define their own morality
Person A: ” I think I can do anything and everything as long as I don’t kill another individual, and I wouldn’t mind cheating or stealing”
Person B :”Nah ,I think I can do anything and everything as long as I’m not hurt in any way even if I that should mean I can kill anyone for no reason( and chuckles)
A gets shocked at B’s answer and starts arguing with B and they both end up in a brawl and B finally kills A with a knife he had.
Now how do I look at this as a judge .If I’m someone who thinks morality is relative and boils down to one’s individual choices,then I can’t pronounce him guilty since he was right in his own right and conscience and even A admitted that each person has the girth to define his own good and evil,and as per his statement B can’t be judged because A gave him the choice to choose his own standards.
If I were to pronounce him ‘Not guilty’ wouldn’t you call me unjust and unfair ? Why ,is it because deep down in our conscience we believe in and adhere to a moral code of ethics and morality? Where do relativity come in the picture.
Let me take it even further. One might say sex before and outside of marriage if fine as long as two consenting individuals are fine with it (even though the spouse isn’t aware of it) common it’s my own life and I can’t be bounded by so-called boundaries of an out-dated institute called marriage,if I say morality is relative and person-centered how do I look at it,should I leave it and say “it’s none of my business” !
But what if this is happening to someone(the spouse who’s being cheated) I know and care about ,would I still be silent.But even I care on what basis would I fight against if I’m someone who believes in relative morality.
The truth is I can’t fight against until I call a spade ‘A spade’ and make an absolute moral statement.
The Bottom-line : Truth is not relative and posits an ‘absolute moral law’
If there is an absolute moral law then there must be an absolute law giver.
The law giver must be an absolute entity who transcends all human boundaries and entities .
I call that absolute moral giver as ‘GOD’ in whom I believe in strongly and in whom I find meaning and purpose!