Revelation & Ethics
Posted by Wade on May 9th, 2006
Writing to his nephew about moral philosophy, Thomas Jefferson said the following: “He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.”
I like this quote, mostly because I agree with it. What I like most about it is Jefferson’s belief that morality, or what is right and wrong, is discoverable within one’s spiritual self and not necessarily through study or reason. I like that Jefferson believed a ploughman could understand morality better than a professor (as a general rule) because the ploughman has likely not been tainted by “artificial rules”. In a sense, I think it is fair to say Jefferson believed morality is given to us innately by God. That is, morality can be understood through self-reflection–because man’s spiritual nature will discern it. Furthermore, an understanding of morality will increase in depth if its self-evident principles are adhered to by the individual.
To me, Jefferson seems to have believed personal revelation is essential to an understanding of right and wrong. For purposes of this post, I would like to emphasize a critical factor of Jefferson’s belief: what is right and what is wrong depends on context. He spoke of “artificial rules”. I’m assuming these are rules espoused by men who believe in universality. Briefly, universality (the opposing philosophy to relativism) ascribes to the idea that what is right or wrong is universally right or wrong, i.e. if it’s wrong to kill, it is always wrong no matter the context etc. I don’t think Jefferson believed in either universality or relativism. Neither do I.
I believe in situational ethics. In other words, like Jefferson, I believe morality should be determined by context. To illustrate, everyone knows lying is “wrong” (see Lev. 19:11). But if I were a non-Jewish German hiding Jews in my home during WWII and Nazis came knocking on my door and asked if there were any Jews in my house, I would lie. In this context, my lie would not be wrong, it would be right. I could use many other examples, but I’m sure you get my point.
The most important thing for determining morality is revelation. Because what is right or wrong is determined by context, there is a necessity for revelation. We must be in-tune with what God would have us do in order to know what is right. The revelation I speak of is not earth-shattering theophony, rather the “still small voice”. And the more one listens to it, the greater one’s ability to see and understand right and wrong.
Joseph taught it thusly: “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted–by revelation adapted to the cicumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed” (TPJS, p. 256, emphasis added).
Well done! I found myself thinking ahead to what I might write in the comments, and then found you had said it yourself. I imagine you have thought about this a lot during the last couple of years.
Comment # 1 left by Eric on May 10th, 2006
I have thought about ethics and morality in general for some time now; it’s an interesting subject. I am always torn about how much to actually put into my posts because I never know whether the topic will be discussed enough to give me a chance to say everything I want to say in the thread. I used to write just a couple of paragraphs, but now I pretty much say what I want to say in the post. It’s a tricky thing.
Glad you like it.
Comment # 2 left by Wade on May 10th, 2006
Wade,
How far would you go in doing something “wrong” that the Spirit told you to do? Could you be like Nephi and kill Laban? (I know that’s more of a question a 12-year old would ask.
You’ve hit on one of the essences of revelation, and faith in revelation, because Heavenly Father often doesn’t tell us the “why” of something.
I once ignored a prompting because I thought “God would never tell me to do that, that must be Satan.” And by disobeying, it messed up the next 18 years of my life, causing a lot of pain, and it will continue to have negative repercussions throughout my life.
To me, the key is not so much analyzing the situation to see if the revelation adheres to a higher law, but to recognize the voice first, and obey it, and then you can figure out why later.
Some essential part of our humanity is always wanting to know the “why.” But we too often use it as an excuse for fear and inaction.
Nephi was blessed with a patient explanation of why he should chop off Laban’s head. But aside from that, Nephi recognized the voice and knew it was the Holy Ghost, and not Satan.
I’m confident that Laman and Lemuel taunted Nephi as a murderer on the journey back to camp. And obviously, Lehi, as prophet and leader of the group, was entitled to revelation to confirm whether or not Nephi acted under the Lord’s direction in taking Laban’s life.
I’ve heard lots of justification stories of how/why Nephi was justified. Personally, I don’t think Nephi was justified at all except for one thing: God told him to do it. Those who don’t hold that one fact to be justification are lacking in faith and in basic understanding of the Supreme Being.
And it comes back to Nephi’s faith and understanding of how the Lord operates. The cynic would ask “Well how did Nephi know that was God talking to him? How could be be sure?” The answer is: He just knew. And he knew because he had developed the ability to listen and understand the voice of the Lord through the Spirit. He had hear the voice of the Lord before. That night was not the first time.
Comment # 3 left by Bookslinger on May 10th, 2006