Morality

One of the great conflicts between Christians and Communists has been that of morality, namely the existence of objective moral principles. Christians say that things like murder, rape, and robbery are themselves inherently bad. Meanwhile, many communists and materialists argue that these things aren't inherently good or evil, they simply just are, though we may have personal or even societal dislikes of them. Both generally agree that murder and rape are undesireable in a personal sense, but disagree over whether there's an inherent property of being 'good' or 'bad' in these actions.

With communists, the viewpoint is plain. People don't like murder, but murder itself isn't bad. Any root of 'why is murder bad' comes down to 'because it just is'. Why is murder bad? Because it harms people. Why is harming people bad? Because it hurts society. Why is hurting society bad? and so on. A tower of moral principles all built on each other, but the foundation itself simply does not exist. Murder is bad because it is bad. Materialists can then point that this is circular logic, that the assertion cannot be its own evidence, and so on. Therefore, murder itself isn't bad, even though many people and societies view it as such. There is also the Marxist concept that many of the moral values and such filter down from the top. This is why things like honor were valued under feudalism, while independence is valued under capitalism. Many morals are simply products of the economic systems that dominate, actions are deemed to be bad simply by who rules.

Another conception of morality by marxists is that of Bourgeois Morality. In essence, it is hypocrisy. Murder is condemned as immoral while the ruling class kills peaceful demonstrators, theft is condemned as immoral while the ruling class steals land and labor from the poor, greed is condemned as immoral while the ruling class allows people to freeze or starve to death. This sort of double-standard of rules and moral code for the working class that don't apply to the ruling class is labeled as bourgeois morality, and much of the moral fabic of society can be declared as such. It is not necessarily saying that theft is fine, but that these same standards are only applied at the lowest levels of society and never actually applied to those on top.

On the other hand, Christians often claim that morality does objectively exist, some actions are objectively good and bad. Murder is always a bad thing no matter where it happens, and Romans 2:15 states that "[...]the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them", meaning that people have an innate moral-compass. Murder itself is bad, the act of murder has the property of being bad, it isn't based on opinion. But this itself also similarly has flaws. It can be reduced by the same process as before to 'because God says so'. But is this not subjective, but simply at God's discretion? If God declared today that toasting bread for more than two minutes was a sin, that this was now objectively an immoral act, would it have been immoral in the past? Obviously not. So then morality comes from God's decrees, and not from the actions themselves. Is then morality not totally subjective, but simply by the decree of God rather than man? It pushes the issue to be someone else's responsibility, but the acts are still only immoral if God decrees it.

The obvious objection to this that God is immutable and never changing don't actually discount this argument. God has never changed his opinion on what is and isn't good, sure. But that doesn't change the fact that these things are only bad because God has decreed it rather than because of some property of 'bad' or 'good' in these actions. Sure, God has the right to declare things bad. But it is still by decree, not by inherent property, it is God's opinion. Without the presence of God to declare it, would it still be evil to murder? If so, then is God, who is all-good and does not do evil, not bound by something outside himself, objective morality, and therefore not omnipotent? Surely not! So morality must not objectively exist in actions, but merely exist as a decree of God. Even under Christianity, morality cannot be said to definitively exist

There is the additional question of whether people themselves can also be good or evil. Again, marxists say that people are not good or evil, they simply respond to their conditions and act accordingly. People can do actions we disagree with, but they themselves are just people, neither good nor evil. Meanwhile, Christians do declare in Mark 10:18b "No one is good except God alone", as well as labeling people as good and evil in the Sermon on the Mount. Given Jesus' saying that only God is good, the descriptor of 'the good and evil' for people in the Sermon on the Mount is likely meant to illustrate simply those who are and aren't faithful, God-serving, etc., not be a firm statement on these people's definite moral characters. But the absence of objective morality being necessary for God to be omnipotent actually quite well supports the statement that only God is good. If what is seen as 'good', obeying moral laws, is merely obeying God's decree and will, then surely God is the only one that is good, for God is obviously compliant totally to his own will! Thus through the lack of objective morality, it becomes necessary that God is the only one wholly good. Meanwhile people, declared righteous and such through Christ -- being declared as the keyword -- and not having the objective property of good and evil, are amoral. Not moral, not immoral, but amoral. People are not good or bad, and their actions are not good or bad. They can please or displease God, but the actions themselves are not good or bad. John 15:5b declares "Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing." This is a common source of doctrine, that those who lack faith cannot please God with their actions, cannot do good. In other words, the moral character of their actions are not dependent on the actions themselves, but on their relation to God. Thus, even under core Christian doctrine, actions themselves are only good or bad insofar as they are pleasing in God's eyes. There is no inherent goodness in the actions.

Overall, through basic logical processes, it can be shown that the system of objective morality, of actions and people being inherently good or evil, is nonsense. Under an atheist lens, actions and people simply are, they do not have definite and objective moral character besides what people subjectively ascribe them. Similarly, even with much of core Christian belief, actions and people are only declared good or evil insofar as they please God and comply with God's will. In other words, they are dependent on their relation to God, and these moral qualities do not exist in the abstract, in a vacuum. Though people may have personal preferences and values, there exists in either system no definite declaration of an action's moral quality of itself, an inherent goodness or badness apart from how it is viewed and declared by an external observer.