Michel de Montaigne, a sixteenth century writer and philosopher, was one of the leading writers of the French Renaissance. He is generally credited with “inventing” the literary form known as the essay. Born into a wealthy family, Montaigne was able to pursue a career in academia, but also served as a civil servant for some time.
While in the service of his king, Charles IX of the House of Valois, Montaigne had the opportunity to meet with three cannibals from Brazil, who were touring Western Europe. This was a “perfect” opportunity to see Europe’s civilization from a purely objective viewpoint, as these three gentlemen had not been taught about nor had even seen what the culture of Europe was like. Included in the observations was the curious (to them, at least) habit of grown men following the orders of a 13-year-old child, King Charles IX. In their culture, the strong ruled by force of arms.
In one of his essays, Montaigne maintained that Western Europeans, although appalled by the custom of these three visitors to dine on their fellow human beings, could not “judge” cannibalism to be right or wrong. His argument was that in the culture of the area of Brazil where these three lived, cannibalism was not only practiced, but not seen as immoral or wrong. Each culture had to be evaluated on their own merits, because there was no universal moral code that would apply to all people.
I very firmly and vigorously disagree with this attitude toward the ethical and moral activity of human beings. Rather than there being no moral standard, I would posit that rejecting a universal moral standard has brought about the coarsening of civil behavior in our time.
Many who reject traditional morality also reject religion, especially in the presence of Christian churches and teaching. Could our way of life be better if we were to return to the universal moral teachings of God, as exhibited in His Son, Jesus? Following the precepts of Christianity will better the lives of all who do so and all who interact with such people. We can take a few examples to see where following a philosophy or religious set of absolute morals can improve mankind.
In our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote that “all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. As far back as the first family, life has been among the most precious of rights we enjoy. Cain was punished for killing his brother. Later, when God’s people needed a written law, the tablets Moses received included the rather clear statement, “You shall not kill (murder)”.
Today, life is far less precious in our nation that it should be. Too often we hear of death by violence, as in recent incidents of mass killings. Las Vegas saw 58 shot dead at a concert; in Sutherland Springs, Texas, 26 worshippers were slain as they came together to praise God; and just last week, a shooter in Northern New Mexico shot up a High School, with fatalities and injuries inflicted on students. In September alone, Chicago recorded 57 killings, adding to the carnage in that beleaguered city. The list of man killing his fellow-man is almost endless. Could not returning to “traditional values” benefit this fair land?
We have become a nation of strivers in America. Just getting ahead has caused many of our countrymen and women to violate another of those great commandments: “You shall not steal” and “you shall not covet”. Although not enshrined in our founding documents, the right to property is clearly indicated in how the moral code is fleshed out in Holy Writ. Ahab and Jezebel were condemned for taking another man’s property. Paul told his readers in Ephesians, “Those who steal must steal no longer”. Would not a return to this moral code stand us in good stead today?
Another of the great moral standards was codified in the Judeo-Christian ethos. “You shall not commit adultery” was given to Moses on the mountain, and by example and words reiterated down through the pages of the Bible. But today it seems that such purity of action toward those of the opposite sex is quite “old-fashioned” to many. We now know that “hookup” is not an expression of attaching a trailer to the tractor, but casual sexual relationships with no ultimate responsibility. Many marriages break up because one or the other partner seeks a better deal. Sociologists call this situation “serial monogamy” to describe this all too frequent occurrence.
Allied to this is the attitude of many of those in positions of power or influence to sexually harass those who are subordinate to them. Witness the rapid proliferation of charges against public figures today. When the dam broke, we see so many of those who have been influential or powerful acting as if there were no moral restraints on their actions. One such figure announced his imminent retirement from his prestigious position, and in so doing claimed innocence, and pointed a finger at others who were also accused, but not resigning immediately. What was not heard was a single word of contrition, no apologies to the ones he hurt; evidently he felt it was his right to molest those he wanted to molest.
Coarseness of language is now commonplace, in normal conversation between people, on television, in business settings — wherever people speak with each other, words not even whispered a generation ago are used with great frequency. Moral teaching from the past would claim we need to make sure our words are “seasoned” with salt and used to uplift, and not degrade.
Religious teaching includes honesty and integrity. “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”, but it seems that too often we violate that by lying to each other. Our elected leaders seem to shout, “Liar!” at their opponents, no matter how many times the record does not support such accusations. Husbands and wives, parents and children, bosses and employees and next door neighbors find it hard to be truthful.
Few are taught to be honest and trustworthy; it seems that the old adage, “My word is my bond” is an antiquated practice. Iron clad contracts seem to be the only way to hold someone to their promises.
Listening to a popular radio show talk host the other day, I was struck with one of his comments. He simply said, “Morality is not a matter of personal choice”. This simple sentence is the essence of this essay. We do not have the right to a personal moral code; we have a higher duty in judging our various choices in deciding what is right and wrong. There is a higher authority, to which we must give obeisance to; God, through His written word and His Son, gives us the way we should live.
To close, perhaps a moral code, so simple that most of us know it by heart, the Golden Rule. If we were to treat others as we want to be treated (Matthew 7:12), right and moral choices would be made all the time.