Letters turn philosophical
(In response to Thursday's column by Jamey Sackett titled "I'm 70% evil, and I'm OK with that")
Sackett addressed a very important question, one that is often overlooked in today's whirlpool of relativism — he asked, "Where do the magnetic fields that point our personal moral compass come from? What do we base the paradigm of our fragile minds upon?"
In other words, "We've all done things we know are wrong, but how do we know they are wrong? Who set the rules beforehand?" Sackett then set out to propose an answer to his own question. He offered, "A moral compass may be a way of the ecosystem ensuring its survival. A moral paradigm is the greatest contribution of Mother Earth; it ensures her survival as well as ours."
Well, thank you, Mother Earth. I'm glad credit is being given where credit is due. Now, let's just take moment and find out if Mother Earth really wants to accept such an honor. Have we, as humans, been a benefit to the ecosystem? Think big industry. Think the origin of pollution. Think landfill waste.
Now, if Mother Earth had truly given us our moral compass, with her own survival at interest, would she have elected to give us a compass that allows for her destruction at the expense of our lifestyle choices? In other words, wouldn't Mother Earth rather have had us all kill each other off? I think we can all agree that nature is much better off living on its own, without us humans screwing things up. So, we see that our planet is actually better suited for survival without our existence.
Strike one, Mr. Sackett. Clearly a moral compass that considers humans as more important than grass demonstrates that "Mother Nature" did not create our moral compass (if she did, it was to her own demise, NOT to ensure her own survival).
Scott Cole
Undergraduate
In his column about evil and morality, Sackett said, "Where do the magnetic fields that point our personal moral compass come from?" Perhaps a first step in answering this question is to consider evil itself. According to Dr. Gregory Boyd in his book, "Satan and the Problem of Evil," evil is a necessary possibility in a world in which the following realities make love possible:
1. Love entails freedom. Freedom to choose otherwise is what gives meaning to choosing love.
2. Freedom entails risk. The risk is that someone may actually choose not to love.
3. Risk entails moral responsibility. People are responsible for their choices because of the consequences they bring. Choices other than love often lead to evil.
4. Moral responsibility is proportionate to the power to influence others. If you are powerful, you have more responsibility than someone who is inconsequential.
5. The power to influence is irrevocable, meaning that it is subject only to the power to influence held by us or others.
6. The power to influence is finite, meaning there are boundaries within which we operate, so the consequences of our poor decisions are not infinitely bad for everyone everywhere.
Of course, this model doesn't really answer Sackett's question, but it does offer an explanation for how the dynamics of morality are structured. Just as we don't fully understand the ultimate causes of magnetism, we accept that the magnetic field of the Earth reliably influences a compass so that we can navigate. So it is with conscience. The real question is not about why we have conscience, but rather why we so often don't.
David Wright
Advisor, Graduate Christian Fellowship
