Do we have a moral compass?

My dad wrote the following email today. I thought it was worth sharing with everyone


Is the absence of a morale compass which guides right and wrong behavior, bankrupting our society?  Does morality come from an outside force, or does it come from within us?  In other words, is their an objective set of rules governing our behavior of right and wrong decisions or does morality come from our personal preferences?  In think the answer is “yes” to the above question.  Most of us feel a sense of right and wrong because we just feel it.  It’s like we feel pain.  No one had to teach it to us, we just know it’s there when we experience it.  However, when it suits our best interest, we fall back on our human character and change objective morality to subjective morality.  We find convenient ways to that might not be acceptable to our own sense of right and wrong by changing moral issues to benign issues that sidestep morality.

Let’s look at a morale rule.  Is torturing and murdering an innocent child ever acceptable?  Would there ever be an instance where one could justify such behavior?  If you don’t feel that this type of behavior under any circumstance is morally reprehensible, then I’d advise you to seek help.  There is no middle ground on this moral rule.  It’s simply not acceptable and I believe you wouldn’t find anyone, who’s not crazy, who wouldn’t agree with it.  If it’s morally unacceptable to every kill an innocent child, how is it acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?  From the perspective of those who have been able to morally justify abortion, they’ve dehumanized the unborn baby to a fetus, that they’ve determined is not alive and therefore it is not murder.    It is interesting to note however, that if these non-human fetus’s were left alone, they would turn into babies.  The question is “when”? To those who favor abortion, its when the child either leaves the womb or the arbitrary deadline set in the law.  To those who feel life begins at conception, abortion is considered an act of murder.  Both groups generally feel murdering of an innocent child is immoral. Those who believe abortion is a woman’s right to choose, say abortion is the “Law of the Land” therefore, it must be OK, justified, and moral.   Therefore, the act of murder, equally abhorrent to both sides, has be replaced by the expression, “the right to choose.”

A question does arise as a result of redefining when life begins, the law of the land, and choice.  Does the law of the land decide what is and isn’t moral?  The law seems to have totally confused the issue of when life begins.  If a pregnant woman is brutally murdered and her unborn child is pronounced dead as a result of taking the mother’s life, how many murders have occurred, according to the law?  The general answer according to the majority of the states, is 2, the life of the mother and the unborn child.  So, if two murders occur, that must mean that the fetus is viable when it is taken by someone other than the mother.  Therefore, murder of an unborn child is morally reprehensible when a 3rd party does it, but not when the child’s own mother decides to have it done.  When stated in this way, does it seem morally correct for a mother to choose to abort her pregnancy because it’s better for her life and convenient for her current circumstances?  Does her right to choose bypass what’s right? Likewise, would it be equally morally wrong for 20 people to stand around watching and taking no action against the killer when he brutally murders the mother and therefore kills the unborn child?  While they may not be guilty of a crime, I don’t think anyone would say their inaction was anything but immoral.  There’s just something inside us that makes this type inaction wrong.  We feel it just like we feel pain.  It’s just there and we know it.  If watching an innocent person being murdered and just letting it happen is not illegal, does the law of the land determine what’s truly right or wrong?  It was legal for the Germans to take the property of the Jews, enslave them, beat them, then exterminate them.  Was it morally correct?  We just know that it wasn’t, because it’s just there inside of us.  What we do know, is that it was a matter of personal preference to commit these atrocities against the Jews.  But, it was justifiable to the Germans to rid the Jews from this earth because they weren’t pure.  Those who participated, took the stance that it must be OK because their culture accepted it.  When a woman chooses to abort her child, do you think she does it without feeling guilt? Do you think that she feels something in the back of her mind that says, this might not be morally right? Or, does she simply think that It’s OK because the Law says so?

I’m not God, so he is the only one who determines what is and isn’t morally correct.  Something tells me that he’s not thinking abortion is a right of choice, but an act of murder.  Of course, without a moral base from which to start, the acts will continue despite what’s truly right or wrong.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: