Moral Perspectives: Meaning and Free Will

How a person considers the world around them is that individual’s worldview. Any worldview is constructed of presuppositions—particulars about which one holds opinions. Where humanity came from, if people are meaningful, and if truth exists are three examples of presuppositional particulars that impact an individual’s moral worldview.

Some believe that humanity is the result of time + energy + mass. When one begins with an impersonal origin of humankind, there’s little source for moral guidance. Morality’s sources are species instinct, personal survival instinct, and cultural/ environmental influence. For those holding these presuppositions, morality is chosen, and very personal. Like a trip to the grocery store, such an individual selects moral elements that personally appeal to them. This position is called moral relativism.

Others believe God created humanity in His own image, and communicated truth to His creatures. In this communication, the creator gave humankind a meaningful moral law. People with this worldview see moral law as real as the laws of physics. Taking an innocent human life is not just bad for our species, or bad for the individual who does time behind bars. Murder is against the very nature of a good personal creator, and meaningfully wrong. This position is called moral absolutism.

The old adage is: never discuss religion or politics. When a relativist and an absolutist discuss a controversial moral issue, things can get hot quick. Usually it’s because those in the debate don’t understand the other’s moral perspective. The relativist feels judged by the absolutist, who seems to be imposing their own personal morality on everyone around them. The absolutist is frequently frustrated by the relativist’s arbitrary sense of morality.

For people of faith, meaning is something that’s often taken for granted. Religions with a personal creator offer answers to the greatest philosophical questions of the ages.

Existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre understood the problem of meaning. He compared the individual to a mathematical point. A creator would act as line or an X-Y graph, giving context and therefore meaning to all points. But Sartre did not believe in a god. A point that’s not on a line has no value. Sartre’s existentialist answer to the problem of individual meaning is called authentication of the self. That meant a single act of free will to prove that one existed and made a difference in the world. Sartre’s problem was the authentication of the self's moral neutrality: one could establish meaning by saving someone from a burning building, or by setting someone on fire.

In our world, every individual enjoys free will in assembling their own presuppositional structures and creating their own worldview. In the current U.S. post-modern (truth doesn’t exist—everything is spin) culture, the vast majority of people are moral relativists. When personally chosen sets of values are questioned by moral absolutists, relativists feel attacked on a very personal level. The relativist has enough trouble feeling that they’re meaningful without knowing why, so when what’s right for them is dissected, the relativist’s whole worldview is shaken. Because of the difference in personal moral worldviews, commonly there’s a complete communication breakdown. Respecting an individual’s presuppositions is the only way understanding can take place. The most powerful tool is the Golden Rule: treat others how you wish to be treated . . . with love.