Proofs and Puzzlements

The night after Islana helped tend to his stings, Gonyaul had the best rest since the bee heist. He woke in pain the next morning; however, he was recovering well and feeling refreshed. It had been several days now of fasting and meditating as he mended.

He was willfully choosing not to eat. His intention was to take this time to re-center himself. One of the concerns he had become aware of when he started interacting with the others, during the winter, was how he had subtly drifted from his calling; as if hiding from parts of it, in shame or fear. Perhaps it was just ease and comfort from the potential suffering that being authentically himself might have caused. He was so engrossed in such thoughts he rarely felt hungry.

His thoughts were of a wide variety. He focused on both the known and the unknown. He concentrated on the novelty of the new and the commonplace of the old. He played around with the whimsical and the nonsensical. Gonyaul thought for hours on end about the new people that came into his life. One person in particular frequented his thoughts. In the darkness, that the closed windows to his soul provided, he took every thought captive. While in this raw state of being, any thought that surfaced was intentionally dove deeper into.

At this exact instant, a displeased feeling emerged from the depths and began metamorphizing into memories. He had witnessed so much death, murder and killing recently. He was against taking life; however, he had bared witness to others being saved because of the taking of life. Or was the taking of life too hasty a remedy for the situation, that would lead to a worsening ripple effect, and a better alternative could have been reached if given the chance? A discourse between himself, that-knew-what-it-knew, began communicating with himself, that did not know-what-he-knew, in an attempt to figure out if moral absolutes did indeed exist. The Vauxian Elders taught of them, but he was trying to figure it out for himself by unlearning to relearn.

--- Inside Gonyaul's thoughts ---

Are certain things wrong? For example, is murder wrong? Is it evil?

Probably most would answer yes.

But, how do you know? I am sure you think that murder is wrong. But how do you know? If asked how you know the earth is round, you could offer me measurable data. But what objective absolute standards of measurement could you provide to prove that murder, or rape, or theft is wrong? Well how do you know?

Rejection of moral absolutes and values has led to a world of moral confusion. Good and evil, right and wrong, truth and lies cease to objectively exist. Therefore we end up with a relative morality – meaning that morality is not absolute but only relative to the secular personal opinions of individuals or to the group.

I am going to make the argument that moral good and evil really exist. They are not simply a matter of personal taste or opinion. Not merely substitutes for “I like” and “I don’t like.” Before I begin, let’s get one misunderstanding out of the way. My argument does not mean that witches can’t be moral, just as theists aren’t immune to being immoral.

Let’s start then with a question about good and evil: “Where do good and evil come from?”

I propose the following possibilities: Among these are evolution, reason, conscience, human nature, and universal hedonism.

Yet, are these the ultimate source of morality?

Let’s think again.

Why not from evolution?

Because any supposed morality that is evolving can change. If it can change for the good or the bad, there must be a standard above these changes to judge them as good or bad. For most of human history, more powerful societies enslaved weaker societies, and prospered. That’s just the way it was and no one questioned it. Now they condemn witchery. But based on a merely evolutionary model that is an ever-changing view of morality, who is to say that it won’t be acceptable again one day? Witchery was once accepted, but it was not therefore acceptable. And if you can’t make that distinction between accepted and acceptable, you can’t criticize witchery. And if you can make that distinction you are admitting to objective morality.

What about reasoning?

While reasoning is a powerful tool to help us discover and understand morality, it cannot be the source of morality. For example, criminals use reasoning to plan a murder – without their reason telling them that murder is wrong. And, was it reasoning – or something higher than reasoning – that leads some to risk their lives to save others? The answer is it was something higher than reasoning – because risking one’s life to save a stranger was a very unreasonable thing to do.

What about conscience?

Nor can conscience alone be the source of morality. Every person has his own conscience and some people apparently have none. The man with boar's head, successfully appealed to his henchmen’s consciences to help them do the ‘right’ thing in murdering others. How can you say your conscience is right and the Boar Head is wrong if conscience alone is the source of morality? You may in turn say that people won’t murder because they don’t want to be murdered. But that argument is just wishful thinking. The leaders of the Nocta Inquisition didn’t want to be murdered, but that hardly stopped them from murdering countless number of people.

What about human nature?

Some people say “human nature” is the ultimate source of morality. But human nature can lead us to do all sorts of reprehensible things. In fact, human nature is the reason we need morality. Our human nature leads some of us to do real evil, and leads all of us to be selfish, unkind, petty, and egocentric. I doubt you would want to live in a world where everyone’s human nature was given free reign.

What about universal hedonism?

Universal hedonism is the claim that what is morally right is determined by whatever creates ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number.’ But to return to our witchery example: if ninety percent of the people will get great benefit from killing the other ten percent would that make killing right? According to universal hedonism it would.

So where does morality come from then?

We first have to question what are moral laws? Unlike the laws of nature or the laws of science, which tell us what is, the laws of morality tell us what ought to be. But like physical laws, they direct and order something. And that something is right human behavior. But since morality doesn’t exist physically – there are no moral or immoral basic foundational elements – its cause has to be something that exists apart from the physical world. That thing must therefore be above nature – or super-natural. The very existence of morality proves the existence of something beyond nature and beyond man. Just as a design suggests a designer, moral commands suggest a moral commander.

Does kagim behave than like this moral commander that exists above nature and beyond man?

---

Gonyaul jerked out of meditation. What just happened!? Had he just proven absolute morality existed? And in doing so, mishandled his own understanding of kagim? He felt oddly certain about the first and confused more than ever about the latter.

A sudden wave of hunger pains suddenly roared to life inside his body. He exited his tent, to the best of his ability, in search of food. He would have to meditate harder on the last question that was left buzzing in his mind, no pun intended. He laughed at himself ... bees are great.