Introduction
A philosophy of life which best describes the moral character of the hippie culture in the 1960s is summed up in the phrase, “if it feels good do it.” Of course this was not a new concept, but this philosophy flourished in the hippie era. They saw this as the most natural way to face life in what they considered an “uptight” society. This “hippie mentality” had repercussions that we experience to this day. Their mantra of “if it feels good, do it” gave license to behavior such as “free love,” abortion, and alternative lifestyles. As a result lifestyles, such as cohabiting before marriage, homosexuality and transsexualism are generally accepted today by our society.
The “hippie” culture, which was purposefully attempting to create a counterculture meant to openly defy the norms of American culture, very quickly morphed into a culture of dissent. Their disillusionment with their current cultural norms led them to seek an overhaul of the American way of thinking. Through dissent they sought to change the way America looked at itself, including its belief in its own goodness and unique form of government.
It was in the 1960s we also saw a systemic shift in the realm of education. Within the halls of education certain philosophical thoughts, some of which had been around for years, supported new cultural trends in morality, responsibility and accountability. I’ve chosen to write a brief explanation of the views of two philosophers whose concept of morality and personal responsibility is often reflected in today’s society. The premise of both these philosophers are essentially identical to virtually all philosophers and educators whose view on morality and truth has been taught in our public schools, particularly in higher education, for many decades now. Nearly all their views work on the premise that there is no God, or if God does exist he has no meaningful influence.
It is important to have some understanding of the of the philosophical views that have influenced today’s cultural trends, especially as it relates to the concept of moral certainty and truth. A. J. Ayer and Jean-Paul Sartre are two philosophers whom I believe represent the philosophical thinking espoused by a long list of educator/philosophers who have influenced the indoctrination of “anything goes, and if it feels good, do it” into the moral uncertainty and lack of concrete moral standards of today’s culture.
Ayer and Sartre, A Quick Introduction To Their Philosophies
A. J. Ayer
Ayer was an emotivist which, in ethical theory, is a moral skeptic. Emotivism claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes. Ayer believed that moral utterances have no objective validity whatsoever, hence, there can be no certain moral principle. To better understand Ayer’s views on morality, we must first outline his belief about what is verifiable. Ayer underlined his principle of verification as a means of determining whether or not a sentence, or utterance, is literally meaningful. To him the sentence is meaningful if the proposition made in the sentence can be verified as either true or false. So, according to Ayer, a sentence is verifiable if its proposition is made based on actual experience or is “theoretically conceivable” based on what we know or what we have experienced. Ayer used the principle of verification to prove, at least to his way of thinking, that metaphysical statements (abstract thoughts) are not factual. This is true because an utterance expressing a metaphysical statement does not express an already known idea or fact; nor does it express an idea or assumed fact verifiable through observation or experience. Thus making all metaphysical statements “nonsense.”
Ayer believed that what a person may feel while experiencing a certain situation does not make his feeling verifiable. In other words, one may feel as though God intervened in a situation in order to make things turn out in a positive way, but that person has nothing observable that can verify his or her feelings as being factual. Ethical or moral judgements therefore cannot be verifiable, simply because they are based on the feelings of a person, or society, as to the right or wrong of a particular act. It may be considered right or wrong based on the feelings of the person or society, but cannot actually be verified as right or wrong based on any empirical evidence.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Sartre was an existentialist who believed man’s existence preceded his essence, and as time went by, man was able to define his own essence. He believed man is what he makes of himself. There is no human nature, therefore there does not need to be a God upon which human nature is defined. Man simply exists and makes of himself, building on his own existence. Man is responsible not only for what he makes of himself, but how his choices, which constitute his self-definition, also helps define all of mankind. Sartre also claimed that God is not needed in determining right from wrong. Man must do so based on what he feels is right or wrong. He may say that God is the basis of morality, but in actuality it is his own actions that determine whether something is right or wrong. If he feels it is right, and his action confirm that feeling, then it is right.
Sartre believed that the loss of God has no decisive effect on moralities. He believed that existentialism “. . . declares . . . that even if God existed that would make no difference. . .” (Kaufman, p. 369). In this sense God becomes irrelevant, and it follows that moralities are not affected in either a positive or negative way by God’s existence or non-existence. Man is a free being, and subject to his own development or definition. As such he is also an absolute being. He is not subject to any other being, supernatural or otherwise. The loss of God, therefore, has no effect on man moralities.
Attempting To Find Moral Certainty Without God
Both Ayer and Sartre attack the ground of moral certainty precisely because they do not believe God exists. If God does not exist then we have nothing outside ourselves upon which to base our moral values. Man is therefore free to choose his own values. That freedom does, however, bring onto man the responsibility to choose what he is to be like morally.
Ayer believed values that are not scientific are made as a result of our emotional involvement. They are in essence therefore individually propagated. He was only willing to view ethical terms as being worthy of philosophic discussion. Moral experience and judgement, on the other hand, are not to be considered a valid part of philosophic discussion. Further, he felt ethical terms could not be discussed unless they could be presented as empirical facts.
At this point he begins to differ with Sartre. Sartre would have us believe that good, that is moral values, is subjective. In other words, each individual must define his or her own morality, keeping in mind of course that this definition will in some ways affect all others. Ayer, on the other hand, felt that not all actions seen by the individual as good will always be seen by all people as good. As a matter of fact, Ayer believed, an action seen as good today by an individual may be seen as bad tomorrow by the same individual. Yet Ayer did believe that for ethical values to be valid, they must be experientially verifiable. It is the experience that must verify the ethical value of an action. Sartre’s response to this would be that man is his own absolute. What is right for him is all that matters. He agrees that there is no outside force, being, entity or essence that determines moral certainties, but he does argue that man can make moral judgments about his own behavior based on his own self criteria.
Ayer believed that adding an ethical term to a sentence adds nothing of value to that sentence. It only gives the sentence the moral tone of the person speaking. So a person can say he did something, or he can say what he did was wrong. In either case he is proclaiming nothing more than the fact that he did something. Adding a moral judgment to the sentence adds nothing factual or verifiable, and therefore is of no value. Ayer believed this to be true because one cannot prove that something is either right or wrong. This is so because what is wrong for one person may not be wrong for another. This seems to be in agreement with Sartre, but Ayer goes further to say that it is not the fact that one person says something is right while another may see it as wrong, rather, moral uncertainty arises from the fact that neither person can come up with any empirical evidence to disprove the other. He can only base his determination that something is right or wrong on his own emotional reaction or involvement with the action or thing in question.
Sartre placed significant value upon the individual’s actual lived experiences as the true source of his moral valuing. What the individual proclaims to be right is indeed right for that individual as long as his actions support what he says he believes. There is no need to prove the factuality of one person’s moral values over another’s, there is only the requirement that each person lives according to the values he claims to hold. Sartre does limit the individual’s freedom to casually propose self-defined morality. He believed that with freedom comes responsibility. Man is indeed absolute, but he is responsible for how his moral definitions affect all of mankind. It therefore seems that Sartre was not saying that the individual person is absolute unto himself, but that that Man is absolute in the sense of mankind in general. There is nothing beyond man that sets standards by which man can formulate definitions for morality. He must define morality from within his own being. To Sartre moral certainty is definable only in the sense that man defines how he wishes to behave. As he defines bad behavior, that behavior becomes a moral certainty. He also realizes that what is considered bad today may not be considered bad tomorrow. It becomes apparent that Sartre believed moral certainty cannot be once and for all defined.
Again, this differs from Ayer’s reason for believing moral certainty cannot be defined. To Ayer there is no factual basis upon which to argue the certainty of moral values. Mankind may generally define certain acts as immoral, but that definition is based on their emotional response to that act. There can never be moral certainty because no definition can be based on fact. Man’s emotional response to any given act may differ as time, knowledge, tolerance and so forth changes.
Ayer is very careful to define a verifiable statement, and then goes on to carefully base his belief that there is no moral certainty on that definition. In doing so he presents a very well thought out argument; and one that is convincing if you accept his notion of verifiability. According to him a statement has meaning only if it is verifiable. And, it is verifiable only only if it is based on factual experience, or has probability based on factual experience. By this definition, therefore, adding a moral term to a sentence adds no value or meaning to the sentence. This is because a moral term is only included in the sentence as an expression by the speaker of his own feelings about the situation being addressed. Feelings however are only emotional at their source, having no basis in factual empiricism and therefore cannot be verifiable.
Ayer, by carefully building his hypothesis on his definitions, presents an argument that is hard to refute, only because it is obvious that he will not accept any argument that does not fit within this principle of verifiability. More importantly, it is hard to argue against the notion of verifiability. It is easy to believe that if something is not based on fact then it cannot be proved. Yet it is hard to accept his premise that morality is not absolute simply because it is based on emotions. Ayer does concede that truth may be found in this way, but implies that if truth is found it is merely by accident, but certainly not based on any empirical evidence. It may be truth, but we may never be able to verify it as truth with certainty.
Ayer claimed that since the supposed nature of God is said to transcend human understanding “ . . . is to say that it is unintelligible, and what it unintelligible cannot significantly be described.” (Ayer, p. 118). But this assumes our knowledge is complete. Ayer himself admits that this is not true since he admits that nothing is conclusively verifiable. “It seems to me that if we adopt conclusive verifiability as our criterion of significance, as some positivist have proposed, our argument will prove too much.” (Ayer, p. 37). There may be some presently unknown condition that will someday be discovered that proves what we now believe to be fact is not fact after all.
Ayer uses the example “all men are mortal” (Ayer, p. 37) as a statement that is verifiable by empirical evidence, but we cannot conclusively say that all men are mortal because we have not yet encountered all men. There may someday come along a man who will never die. The chances of that ever happening are highly unlikely, but even the idea means we cannot verify the statement conclusively . If Ayer concedes that nothing is conclusively verifiable then he must also concede that nothing is entirely impossible. The existence of God then is a possibility, and with that possibility comes the possibility of absolute truth, or moral certainty. It may simply be, in accordance with Ayer’s own criteria, that our knowledge is not yet developed enough to comprehend God. By using Ayer’s criteria it is conceivable that our knowledge will so increase that we will be able to comprehend how and why God exists.
I do not believe Sartre is as careful as Ayer in defining his premise and basing his logic on that premise. His entire premise is based on his belief that existence comes before essence. Yet, unlike Ayer, he does not offer this as anything more than a theory. Ayer’s grounds for moral uncertainty are based on logic that can be reasonably extrapolated from his hypothesis. Sartre proclaims his hypothesis as fact without actually setting a basis upon which he formed his belief, and upon which one can see the possibilities of his theory even if one was otherwise convinced. He states his beliefs and expects the reader to accept them as fact.
Sartre claimed that “there is at least one being whose existence comes before its essence . . . [and] that being is man,” (Kaufmann, p. 349) yet he offers nothing upon which we can hang our hats to even accept this as a reasonable possibility. Anyone that agrees that man is the ultimate being would easily accept Sartre’s reasoning. Ayer, however was able to create a groundwork for his hypothesis that would make it sound reasonable even to one that did not believe his hypothesis. Even so, Ayer does have an overly narrow view of what counts as meaningful. Therefore there is much about human experience that we cannot really explain on Ayer’s model.
Sartre does not build Ayer’s type of groundwork. It may be that we cannot prove God’s existence, but Sartre offers nothing that might be the basis for for proof that God does not exist. Instead, I believe his statements actually open the door for the possibility that God does indeed exit. One example of this is when he claims he “ . . . cannot obtain any truth whatsoever about myself, except through the mediation of another.” (Kaufmann, p. 361) If this postulate is to be consistent with his hypothesis then it must be further said that the whole of humanity cannot obtain any truth except through the mediation of something outside of man. It therefore must be conceded that there may have been some being that existed before man. Maybe that being is God, whose essence was found in the creation of mankind. I cannot prove this within the scope of these philosophical grounds, but Sartre has not said anything to convince me that it cannot possibly be, even when basing that possibility on his own words.
The weight of Sartre’s statement, as quoted above, I believe is further diminished by his own words. He claims that it is not “ . . . admissible that a man should pronounce judgment upon Man.” (Kaufmann, p. 368). This makes me wonder: If man cannot pronounce judgment on Man then how can he possibly interact? How can his choices affect mankind? How then can he find truth through interaction with others? It would seem to me, if he wishes to hold onto his theory, he must accept that there is an intelligent being outside the existence and essence of man.
Repercussions
Both Ayer and Sartre believed moral certainty cannot be once and for all defined; both in their own way saying that morality is defined by the individual. This, it seems, would always keep man in a state of flux and confusion, never quite sure of right and wrong. This confusing flux, or instability, subjects man to the moral “value of the day.” He becomes overly influenced by the most current “value” trend. For example, we can see this today in the idea of gender identification. Moral absolutes say that, without a doubt, there are only two genders, male and female. This, by the way, is also a biological absolute, but when you are allowed to define your own truth, there is nothing to prevent you from asserting there are more than two genders; we can just throw biology out the window. When man, or woman, is left to define his or her own moral certainty (Truth), we have seen the confusion that occurs. The LBGT community became the LGBTQ community, which then became the LGBTQIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual) community. A white woman, like Rachel Dolezal, can declare herself black because she wants to be black. A man can declare himself a woman because he feels like a female. A man in Amsterdam, Emile Ratelband, petitioned a Dutch court to have his age legally changed from 69 to 49, claiming age is a fluid as gender.
When will it end? The concept of morality and truth fluctuates so routinely, it may never end; the point is that it creates the confusion we see in today’s culture. We don’t know how to talk to each other because we fear we might insult someone, but we don’t know what words will insult today that were okay to say yesterday. We cannot criticize another person or group, even in a constructive way, because we might be accused of being a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, or ascribed any other label that is perceived to be intolerant. What was once called good, we now call evil, and what was one called evil we now call good. All in the name of tolerance. We must accept everyone else’s definition of morality and responsibility or we are labeled intolerant or worse.
Sadly we have recently seen how moral uncertainty can even affect some in the Christian community. In just the past few weeks two well known leaders in the Christian community have publicly renounced their faith. For whatever reason they determined that “their truth” did not coincide with what they formerly claimed to believe. One of these two, Marty Sampson, a former worship leader for Hillsong, wrote in a tweet in response to a criticism of his decision, “I for one don’t see this kind of shock and horror in the scientific community when a theory is usurped by a new and contradicting theory. Perhaps this is the nature of religion.” This statement revealed his belief that there is no such thing as absolute moral certainty or truth. He has succumbed to the hypothesis proposed by A.J. Ayer that there may be some presently unknown condition that will someday be discovered that proves what we now believe to be fact is not fact after all. Both of these former leaders, by denouncing their faith, seem to be basing their moral convictions on emotion, disregarding the absolutes found in the Word of God.
The concept of “truth” is also affected. If man is free to choose his own values, truth also becomes relevant only to the feelings of the individual; it becomes a personal preference. If it feels right to me, that is my personal truth. We are told that we should speak our own truth, as though truth has no absolutes. In the Kavanaugh hearings for example, Senator Cory Booker constantly referred to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony as “her truth.” This is, of course, nonsense because truth is not subjective. It doesn’t vary dependent on the current feelings, or interpretations of any given individual. For there to be truth, it must be the same for everyone, at all times. It must be absolute, otherwise it is nothing more than emotion.
We are in a state of flux and confusion because we are unsure of what will be deemed good or evil, truth or false, at any given moment. This is the essence of moral relevance. It is a direct outcome of the moral philosophies of Ayer, Sartre and others who have thrown God out of our educational pursuit of moral absolutes, and replace Him with the belief that man is his own absolute, and as such he can define his own morality as it fits his own idea of “if it feels good.” The state of flux continues as society changes, and once again what is considered evil today will likely be considered good in the future. When we accept the notion that my truth can conflict with your truth then, in effect, we have rejected truth all together.
I experienced this type of confusion first hand while attending the University of Colorado in Colorado Springs in the late 1980s. I had one professor in whom I confronted in almost every class session. The course she taught that I attended was Social Theory. The basis of her philosophy and approach as to how and what she taught was grounded in the premise that God either did not exist or was irrelevant. All social theory was encompassed by the idea that moral behavior was a personal thing, ultimately defined by the individual. God was not, and never was a factor in what any given society deemed as acceptable moral behavior.
Prior to taking these 400 level courses my exposure to this form of “liberal” education was practically nil. Most of my lower level courses had been taken at more conservative colleges, and taken in the late 1960s to early 1970s. I have to admit, it was I kind of cultural shock for me to hear what was being taught so blatantly, and with such conviction. But what really shocked me is how nearly every student in this class of 20 to 30 students seemed to be totally in agreement with everything this professor was teaching. They did not question her premise about God, nor the idea that morality is defined solely by each individual. It seemed obvious to me that these students, most of them in their late teens and early twenties, had never been taught anything else in school. While I’m sure many of them went to church with their families when they were younger, it was apparent their public educational experience did not support much of anything taught in those churches they used to attend.
I felt I could not let the professor’s ideas stand without challenging them, and I did so with earnest. So much so that I began to feel guilty about disrupting the class so often. I eventually met her in her office and apologized for being so disruptive and disrespectful. To her credit she told me that she actually enjoyed that I expressed my difference of opinion in the classroom. She felt it invigorated class discussion. However, I did not express myself as much after that office visit. I realized my opinion was by now well known, and more importantly, nothing I said was going to change anyone’s mind.
For the first time I realized just how pervasive liberal ideologies had infiltrated our educational system. “If it feels good, do it” had become the moral standard of many who were brought up in public schools. No longer were there absolutes upon which to develop a moral and responsible lifestyle; instead morality was left up to the individual to define according to his or her own predilections. What you get is a culture where anything goes and nothing matters. Author James Howard Kunstler wrote, “Extract all the meaning and purpose from being here on earth, and erase as many boundaries as you can from custom and behavior, and watch what happens . . .” (Tucker, American Tragedy). I believe this “anything goes, nothing matters” and “if it feels good, do it” outlook on life go hand in hand. We’ve erased many of the boundaries of behavior, and not only do we now see what happens, we must live with its repercussions every day.
Moral Certainty Found In Christ – The Christian Answer
In the introduction to Francis A. Schaeffer’s book, “He Is There And He Is Not Silent,” Chuck Colson wrote, “God has revealed to us the truth about the world in which we live, the truth about our human existence and the truth about himself. He has spoken truly to us in his Word, and therefore, the message of the Bible fits with the nature of reality as we experience it. . . . Christianity is true to the way things are.” Morality can and should be defined with absolute certainty. There is no confusion with God. The Bible throughout convinces us of the absolute and unchangeable nature of God. Our God, the only true God, “is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8 NIV) To the Christians in Rome Paul warned, “I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.” (Romans 16:19 NIV). Paul was certain about what is good and what is evil, and knew that each person could depend on the certainty of what is good and what is evil, because of the immutability of God. We can depend on His Word to always be true, in every situation.
It is interesting to note what Paul wrote to the Romans immediately preceding his warning to be wise about what is good. “I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.” (Romans 16:17-18 NIV). Without moral certainty there will always be divisions and obstacles to hearing and abiding by the truth. Paul warned the Colossians, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ.” (Colossians 2:8 NIV) Without moral certainly we can be easily trapped in mindless and deceitful ideologies. The philosophies developed solely through human understanding cause confusion and conflict. The Truth as revealed through His Word can bring peace and unity.
Because of his conviction that moral certainty is found in God, Paul wrote with confidence, “Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.” (Philippians 4:8 NIV) Paul knew these were not abstract notions. We too can be confident that when we think about the moral certainties of God, and put them into practice, we will know the peace of God. (Philippians 4:9) There need not be confusion, divisions, or deception among the people of God. When Christians think on these things they will become like the early church who overcame the pagan culture of their day, and changed the world as a result.
This is our challenge today. In a culture where God is scorned, Christians must unite behind the moral certainty, the truth, of God’s Word. We too can be the catalyst that God uses to change the world. A culture wallowing in confusion and deceit can be changed back to the culture upon which this nation was founded. The greatness of our exceptional nation has been rooted in our belief in the immutability of God. We are, or at least have been, an exceptional society because we knew there was certainty in our moral values. Certain acts were immoral across the board; there was no confusion.
In Christ there is no confusion. Instead there is hope in the truth of God. Paul writes to Titus of his purpose; he rightly presents himself as “a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness— in the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,” (Titus 1:1-2 NIV) Paul preaches the truth of God that never changes. It is truth we can count on to be forever the same; a truth that leads to the hope of eternal life. God does not lie; He does not change. What He promised before the beginning of time, we know he will honor today. Moral Certainty!