One
of the things that I see with some regularity on Facebook is
that morals are absolute and that subjective or relativistic morals
lead to immorality. So I thought I'd try a little thought experiment.
BTW,
just because we're going into Nazi Germany circa 1940 this isn't a
'Godwin' okay?
Picture the scene,
it's the height of the Second World War and thousands are being
killed in London as the Blitz nears its peak with German bombs
raining down almost nightly and increasing rumours of an invasion. So
the Allies devise a plan in hopes of expediting a conclusion to the
conflict.
They will send a
man undercover into Germany to spy upon the Nazi's and send back
plans, giving the Allies that important advantage. He must succeed,
otherwise thousands more will die.
Our
spy, let's call him Tommy, is dropped behind enemy lines in France.
Dressed as an SS Officer as cover he manages to make his way to the
German border but is stopped by a superior officer. Asked where he is
going, Tommy explains he's been recalled to HQ and presents the
forged papers he has been supplied with. Remember this bit.
Getting
into Germany, Tommy is travelling along the road when he is
confronted by another superior officer. This officer is more
suspicious of the paperwork, something doesn't seem right and, before
the officer can raise the alarm, Tommy draws his dagger and slits his
throat, killing him. Remember this bit, too.
Hiding out, Tommy
runs low on rations, he had to drop his supplies to make a faster
getaway having killed the officer. Hungry and without money, Tommy
notices some food through an open window and, seeing nobody is
around, grabs it all and takes off. Remember this.
Tired and in need
of sleep, Tommy takes refuge in a church where the priest is
sympathetic to our spy's mission, the church also has several Jewish
refugees hidden in the crypt. The next day the Nazi's storm the
church en masse to search it and Tommy, thinking on his feet, quickly
merges himself into the soldiers to avoid detection.
At
this point let's play the Christian game of claiming the Nazis were
atheists, contrary to historic evidence. You'll see why in a moment.
The Nazis find the priest and the Jews hiding in the crypt and drag
them outside to the nearby field. Here, the commanding officer orders
the soldiers, which include Tommy, to deface the church, write
anti-Christian and anti-God graffiti and to mock and jeer the priest
and his beliefs. Remember this bit.
Tommy's
mission is too important to jeopardize by attempting to escape so
what is he to do when the commanding officer orders the troops to
draw their weapons and shoot all of the prisoners? He raises his
rifle, takes aim and, closing his eyes, pulls the trigger. A
prisoner, a young boy, falls dead. Remember this bit.
Tommy later
manages to get away from the troops, making his way to the Berlin
Resistance where he can liaise with his contact. Gathering the
necessary intelligence he is able to feed back the details for the
Axis invasion plan, allowing the Allies time to prepare and
eventually turning the tide of the war and bringing it to a faster
end. Mission accomplished.
Now let's just
recap.
•
Tommy
lies to the officer at the border.
•
Tommy
kills the second officer, albeit in self defence.
•
Tommy
steals food.
•
Tommy
blasphemes Christ and God, including desecrating a church.
•
Tommy
murders an innocent, unarmed child.
Now most people
would hopefully argue that these events, although at times tragic,
are a necessary evil given the importance of Tommy's mission and the
aim of saving countless other innocent lives. This means that the
lies, theft, blasphemy and murders committed are not
immoral because they were done for the greater good.
If one were to
claim that morals are absolute one would have to argue that Tommy
should have admitted he was a spy to the border guard, admit the
papers were forgeries and subsequently either got shot as a spy or
spent the rest of a protracted war in a concentration camp whilst
unnecessary innocent people died. Because that was the moral thing
to do.
Not quite so easy
to argue for moral absolutism when it's actually put into practise,
is it!
Very crisp and well articulated. I've had more arguments with alleged sophisticated theists on this issue than any other. They often parrot that I have no objective standard by which to judge whether an action be moral or not.
ReplyDeleteVery nice peice, I fully agree.
ReplyDeleteAnd as a partial response to what Rob said, I have often been told the same thing. My question is always "How do you know the absolute morals you ascribe to are actually moral? How can you judge morality if you have no moral standard of your own?"