The Church Justifies the Moral Ought

Groups must be identified by their collective goals, or purposes. This is how groups function, otherwise, their is no reason for groups to exist.
 Individuals, on the other hand, don't have to have a reason to exist, as the individual is to be the "end" in himself. The individual  must have the right to life and liberty, otherwise, his life is not his own. He becomes the slave to a "moral oughtness".
Therefore, while groups, such as the Church may demand "moral oughts", they must give room for individual choice, otherwise the "moral ought" has lost any values to it's "moral oughtness". Choice is the determinitive "end" of moral value. The individual must make the choice about moral value, not the Church.

A few posts ago, I wrote on the issue of abortion. I challenged my friend's post about "pro-life" on the basis of evolution. Evolution does not grant that life begins at conception, but at choice. Choice is the determinitive "end" of morality. The individual must choose how he will live his life. Will he obey the laws of his land, as a abiding and peaceful citizen, or will he become a criminal, a renagade? The "pro life" movement says that a person who chooses abortion has "sinned" against God, irregardless of what has been considered lawful according to the Constitution. So, the "Pro-Life Movement" has a "moral demand" over and above the legal requirements of Constitutional government.

Laws are what define moral behavior in a given society. Not every group will adhere to the same standards. But, in a liberal society, choice must be free association of chosen groups that uphold the individuals chosen values. Churches understand "the law" in their doctrines and their standards of behavior that supercede Constitutional government. This helps define the Church over against the Constiutional government..

The conservative church holds to a morality based on deontological ethics, meaning that "God's law" is to be upheld because it is "God's law".  What is considered "good" is what God wills, not good in itself. Humans, then, are ends to "God's will". "Good" is not defined by universal consensus, but by "sacred texts". It is an ethics based "outside of" the individual. It is a moral demand or "oughtness".

On the other hand, virtue and consequential ethics have different values regarding what is good. Virtue ethics, is determined by the individual's character. What is "good" is not an outside form, but an inside agreement as to what is "the good". The virtue ethicist would play out the "inside character" based on whether one believed that there was an objective standard whereby "morality" or "the good" could be judged.

The Church would judge man's character again on an "outside text" or an organizational goal. The individual himself would not be granted moral choice, but demanded to behave according to an approved "standard"! Obedience to that standard of behavior or goal becomes the judgemnt of the individual's character, as to "Christian character". The atheist/agnostic would agree that virtue is within the individual, but would not agree that the standard is determined by "the Church", but on social contract. The individual, himself, must choose his values within a free society, and be allowed to play these out in his life. Character then, is defined by what is "natural" to that particular person.

The social contract forms a society by agreement. The Constitution is the 'standard that the West holds to be of value in maintaining a free society. Constitutional standards are created to protect the society from anarchy or from abuses of power. These are not hierarchal in nature, but are to be "democratic" in intent. Our government is "not sent from above", but granted from below. It is the political sphere where men adhere to the same standards of behavior because this is our cultural value, civilized behavior. Civilized behavior is expected to be ethical, or moral because it regards another's boundary.

Consequentialism would value the end as an ultimate, by whatever means. This position is utilitarian and does not value the human as an ultimate value, but the goal. There are no standards for behavior in this ethical frame. So, while the deontological sees the "moral ought" as ultimate value, isn't this really consequentialist in the Church's view of "ends"? The secular humanist would value the human, not the ends as ultimate value.

God cannot be the ultimate end, because "God" cannot be understood apart from human speculation. And ends, canot be based on what cannot be agreed upon, unless one wants to live under oppressive rule of "Tradition" or Text, as defined by an "outside source".

Virtue of character means that the human being, himself determines his own values and he allows that same liberty to others. The individual chooses to make his life's choices within a free society of free assosiciation, not moral demands of "oughtness". In such a society, there is liberty of conscience, and free debate as to ultimate ends, because each individual chooses his life, as to happiness!

So, I don't value the Church or God as to an end, because the human distinction of choice is dissolved before authoritative demands of obedience of one kind or another. Life must be enjoyed as an offering IF one want to value Chruch or God, at all. Otherwise, life is dissolved of independent value, because life becomes consumed by something "other" or "outside" of life itself. And the individual ceases to "exist" in all practical terms, because he is determined, instead of a Moral Agent.

Context Is Important to Identity

Rules/laws define and bring clarity and this is important for any society. Today, though, these rules or the laws in our Constitution are being dismissed because of higher, more alturistic goals. But, such thinking leaves little room for identification factors or for justice. Justice, in this context, means respect for the society that is defined by such rules and protection for the members/citizens of such a context. Justice is defined by protecting and upholding the "rule of law'.

Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.

On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?

What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.

I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state?  And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.

So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?