Today, Dave Clark (the author of Uncertain Dogma and Hope in Action) lead a discussion at Vox Dei Community with the Student Ministries group on the topic of beauty.  We discussed the definition of beauty and how it relates to Christian philosophy.  After listening to the first movement of a symphony that was absolutely beautiful, Dave began a line of questioning which went somewhat like this:

“Look at these paintings…” 

“They are all beautiful, aren’t they?”  We agreed.  ”How do you know this?”

I am still struck by this question.  What do you think?  What commonalities are there between the paintings above which link them all in the area of aesthetics?

 “Human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and can’t really get rid of it.”

- C.S. Lewis

Embedded in human nature there exists an inherent sense of the way things ought to be. The foundation of all right and wrong and the backbone of all justice, this idea is an intrinsic part of humanity and has shaped philosophic thought since the beginning of time. This sense of right and wrong which arises from conscience is the basis of all correctness and acts as the determiner of all moral standards.

Embedded in the fibers of man’s nature, morality acts as a standard of correctness that must be used as a compass to guide man’s actions and decisions. Morality, in its simplest form, is a metaphysical system of ethics dealing with the deontological ethics of individuals and is concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct which arise from the conscience or the sense of right and wrong. Perhaps Oscar Wilde put it most simply when he said that “Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.” 

When exploring the nature of the creation of moral boundaries, one discovers that morality is inherently inflexible. An action is either right or wrong, there is no in-between. Due to the fact that there exists no “moral dictionary”, the determination of an action’s morality remains left up to the conscience. Fluctuations in moral interpretation are the source of the differentiation between the ideals of one individual and another.

With the definition of morality being discussed we must now begin to answer the question that has begged to be answered for so long; what constitutes a moral action? Before we can answer this question, we must first get a clear picture of what morality is and how it relates to us as God’s children. Imaging a radio station (something transcendent/God) which broadcasts a signal (morality) to radios (people) worldwide. Now imagine yourself as a radio; you have speakers (your actions), a receiver or antenna (conscience), and a tuner (free will). Every radio on Earth can pick up this signal with their antenna (if they choose to tune in). Your choice to, or to not, tune into morality is solely up to you. As with all radio broadcasts, there can be interference with the signal by obstacles (unhealthy spiritual environment) or thick walls (social barriers). This results in fuzzy or unclear sound (different “standards” of morality). If your signal is unclear, you have the option of moving to a more open location and picking up a clearer signal. This is a simple analogy, but a clear one.  Because morality is a constant signal, the standard is constant for everyone.

Keeping the picture of a radio broadcast in mind, let’s answer the question concerning the constitution of moral actions. Because it has been established that morality is universal, these standards can be used to determine the moral or immoral nature of an action. If an action is done in good conscience and the individual whose action is in question is “tuned into” the global “morality broadcast”, then the action is, by nature, moral.