Nietzsche, God and the Search for a Rational Morality

In 1885 Fredrick Nietzsche declared that God was dead. Regardless of whether or not you accept his premise, the theoretical absence of a deity creates an interesting dilemma.

You've all heard the old riddle about a tree falling in a forest. Well, if a man lies or steals or kills and there is no God around to judge it, is it a sin?

This is more than just idle speculation. We live in a world beset by the endless clashing of moral codes. Right, left, religious, secular, traditional and progressive, view good and evil in decidedly, different ways. The source of this conflict is the belief in an absolute morality, an ethical code that cannot be questioned, merely accepted or broken.

The problem with such a belief system is that at the heart of its infallibility lies the obvious conclusion that all other philosophies must be wrong.

All it takes is an examination of our diet to see the truth in this. Jews and Muslims will eat beef but not pork. Hindus hold the cow as a sacred. Most Americans will eat pork and beef but would be disgusted by the idea of consuming a dog which is considered a delicacy in many parts of Asia. This might seem like a minor question of culture, rather than code, but many of the manifestations of morality in our societies are merely reflections of the culture that gave birth to them.

Far more dangerous are the world’s divergent attitudes, towards, abortion, promiscuity, homosexuality and the role of women. The sides in these debates are absolutely convinced that they are right and the origin of that certainty lies in the divine pedigree of their moral convictions.

It wasn’t always like this. The old polytheistic religions did not imbue their gods with moral infallibility. The gods of old possessed the same desires and foibles as the men who worshiped them. Zeus was no paragon of virtue. He was lustful, vain and vengeful. The same is true of Native American and African gods. Despite their powers, the early gods were recognizably human in their behavior. They were gods with flaws, desires and personalities.

Even the early Judeo/Christian God was far from an icon of moral perfection. The God of Genesis was, in his own words, “A Jealous God”. He demanded worship, sacrifice and obedience. He said nothing about moral codes. It wasn’t until Exodus when Moses brought the Ten Commandments to the Hebrews in the desert, that the concept of God as the source of all morality was introduced.

This is where the trouble begins because as soon as moral truths become absolute, you are faced with a myriad of conflicts both internal and external.

The internal problems come because, while opinion can evolve and change over the years, absolute truths should not. If the bible is the absolute word of God, then, the only rational response would be to follow that word absolutely, without interpretation or equivocation. Of course, nobody, not even the most devout Catholic, follows everything to the letter. If we did, stonings would be required for everything from taking the Lords name in vain to working on the Sabbath. Instead, we pick and choose. We interpret and update. The religion followed by Jews today bares little resemblance to that practiced by the Hebrews who wandered the desert for 40 years and yet it is still treated as absolute truth.

If the inconsistencies merely existed between the modern world and the past, the problem would be one of personal faith. Can you believe in an absolute truth, which is constantly changing?

The problem, however, has a far more dangerous, external manifestation because these varying interpretations evolve on divergent paths, so that after a few generations the absolute truth of one branch can barely recognize that of the other. Catholics and Protestants, Shi’a and Sunni might share the same Holy Books but that hasn’t stopped them from killing each other.

And, unfortunately, absolute beliefs leave little room for discussion, logic and compromise. This is because God does not need a reason for his commandments. If he says not to kill, not to steal, or not to comb your hair to the left, they are all God’s will and to disobey any of them is a sin. “Because God says so” might be the true origin of morality but it is not an element of rational discussion.

Is it possible that one of these interpretations is actually correct and all the others are wrong? Of course it is. But it is in our nature to always believe that that correct interpretation is the one we were raised with and a whole world of people who think that is a dangerous place indeed.

What’s so tragic about this is that most moral codes are far more similar than they are different. There are restrictions against theft, and violence. Elders are generally respected. The responsibilities of the young are increased as they age. If the only source of morality is God, how is it possible that so many disparate religious cultures follow such similar ideals? Is it possible that morality emerges, not from heaven but from us?

So, let us, for the moment, accept Nietzsche’s premise. Let us speculate on a world where there is no God, no divinely inspired vision of right and wrong and see where it leaves us. Is there still such a thing as morality? Sin? Is an ethical code based on non-mystical, rational thought even possible? If so, what form would it take? What would its precepts, postulates and pillars be. How would it balance the rights of the individual versus the needs of society? How would it treat free expression, sexual preference and non-conformity? Without the power of God to back up our moral precepts would the human race simply tear itself apart?

Personally, I don’t think it would. After all, we did not spend our days killing, raping and stealing before Moses brought those tablets down from the mountain. There were laws in China, philosophers in Greece and governments in Egypt long before morality was linked to divinity.

I believe that a rational morality is possible. In fact, I believe that rationality is the true heart of morality. Most of the basic, ethical guidelines, which we all subscribe to, have their origins in rational thought. They are survival tools. We are social animals. We depend on each other for food shelter, protection and companionship. A society without behavioral codes will not thrive and might not even survive.

If that is true, could we then define morality as simply those behaviors which help a society to thrive? If we accept that definition (or one like it) it could form the basic foundation for a logical system of right and wrong.

A rational, non-mystical approach to morality could have serious advantages over a mystical approach. Within such a framework it would no longer be enough to simply say something is “wrong”. You would have to say why it is wrong. Premises would have to be tested. Theories could be presented and debated. There would be room for adaptation, and compromise.

This quest for a rational morality is no easy task and I doubt that any final solution is really possible, particularly since our lives are constantly changing and any rational code would have to be able to change with them. More importantly, we are all flawed, irrational creatures, forever, chained by the shackles of our own perspective.

In fact, there is only one being wise enough to fully understand the mysteries we are attempting to explore and he, according to Nietzsche, is dead.

But despite, the obstacles, I believe it is a worthwhile quest. To study right and wrong is to peer into the heart of the human condition. And who knows, maybe if we shed enough light into that deep, dark mystery we might find within ourselves, the real purpose of our lives and see, for the first time, the true face of God.