I also thought about the word “entitlement”.  I never cease to be amazed at the sense of entitlement people can have.  Those who would change the definition of marriage would do so because they feel entitled to “marry” their partner and gain all the benefits there of.  I tried to trace this thought pattern back to it’s source, and I came back to desire.  It is as though we believe that if we desire something strongly enough or have desired it for long enough that somehow we “deserve” it or we are “owed” it.  If we want it, it must be good and right.  We begin to feel antagonistic toward those who would presume to deny us this desire.  If someone disagrees they must be ignorant, bigoted, or worse.

So some questions I have include:

• At what point did reality begin to depend on our will/desire? Reality is what it is.  Reason dictates that a thing is what it is whether I like/want/appreciate/agree with it or not.  Certainly a thing cannot be “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same relationship.  The essence of a thing is not affected one little bit by my perception of it, belief in it or desire concerning it.
• When was it established that desire would equate with entitlement? My desire for something does not equate to my being owed that thing…no matter how long I have wanted it nor how strongly I want it.  When I think about it clearly, I am owed precious little in life.

Some may object that in the case of marriage, it is not an “absolute” reality but rather a “societal” reality, or that marriage has no meaning outside of what a society defines.  Such a belief is convenient for those in a society who would change the meaning of marriage.  If they can achieve change through whatever course allowed by their particular society then it will be altered in actuality.  However such a belief comes from somewhere.  All ideas do.  In this case, most likely the society gave themselves the right to define marriage.  They assumed ownership of the definition.  Such self-empowerment may be appropriate when setting arbitrary laws such as a speed limit but is marriage arbitrary?  Does the history of marriage extend from before such a society was in place?  Of course it does.  Marriage was created and given definition at creation…by the Creator.  When some religious leaders of His day asked Jesus about the permanence of marriage, to what point did He refer His answer?  Did He quote Roman law?  No, He quoted Genesis:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”  He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?”  He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matthew 19:3-9

So, concerning the definition of marriage, we would do well remember its origin, respect its creator and subjugate our own desires to His decree.

What is “good” and “bad”?  What is “right” and “wrong”?  Are these concepts merely constructs of a collective societal will?   A sort of sum of a group’s preferences with some averaging applied to come up with a generally agreed upon “standard”?  Is right and wrong based on preferences?  Let’s explore this idea.

One person named Bob has an opinion/feeling about prematurely ending the life of newborn puppies.  Terminating newborn puppies makes him feel good inside and he has always felt deeply that newborn puppies should not be allowed to live.  To Bob it seems like such a conventional, inner belief that he has a hard time understanding how anyone could feel otherwise.

The remaining individuals in Bob’s neighborhood, 10 people in all, deeply feel that prematurely terminating the life of newborn puppies is wrong.  Deeply wrong.  They have even attached harsh terms to this practice, calling it “murder” or “atrocity” or “crime”.   So the 10 individuals decide to band together to “protect the rights” of puppies.  They form a group called “Puppies are Precious” and form a written, prescriptive edict declaring that all puppies are precious and that their lives should be protected, enriched, and prolonged to the maximum degree possible.

One morning Bob is interrupted from his daily task of prematurely terminating the lives of a few puppies by a stern knock at the door.  With some degree of perturbation he answers the door in his blood-stained apron, knife in hand, only to find 10, first angry then increasingly horrified neighbors standing in his front yard.  A representative of the group collects himself enough to inform Bob that it is entirely, and absolutely wrong to “murder” innocent puppies and that Bob must cease and desist this “atrocious” act immediately.

Bob, who highly values his relationship with his neighbors is thoughtful for a moment.  Then as his desire for peace and good relations gives way to righteous indignation he answers the representative by asking “Or what?”.

This stuns the representative, who looks back at his fellow “PP” group members for reassurance.  After retiring into the group for a short dialog he rejoins Bob by declaring that the group would normally attempt to bring about change with neighbors through diplomacy but that the “heinous” nature of Bob’s “crime” demands that their group stop him with force if he does not willingly concede to their demands.

Now it is Bob’s turn to be stunned.  He had already been completely unprepared for this dialog, and now this threat of force by 10 individuals set him to stammering for a reply.

Immediately sensing their advantage, the group pressed Bob with further threats, and informed him that there would be a delegation that would inspect his home weekly for the next 3 months to look for signs of the afore mentioned “crime”.  Additionally a separate delegation would meet with Bob weekly to set about teaching him the ethical principle that puppy’s lives are precious.  The group sincerely hopes that Bob can be brought back into the “mainstream” through education.

Bob, who was outmatched by the power of the group is forced to agree to these terms, although in his heart he still “knows” that he is right.

Who is right?  Why would the opinion of 10 individuals be more legitimate than that of 1?  Who is it that dictates that the more powerful group’s idea is right?  Does the issue simply come down to who holds power?  Is an individual likely to be converted to a more powerful group’s opinion of right and wrong as a result of being forced to comply with their wishes?  Is it possible that the individual will retain their view and still practice their heart-felt belief insomuch as they can do so without detection by the more powerful group?   What is the opinion of the puppies?

Objections

==========

It seems self-evident that this view of ethics is not commensurate with human experience, or at least is lacking in precision.  With some variation, humans seem to have a “built in” concept of right and wrong and it seems to be universal.  One would be hard-pressed to find a culture where cowardliness was thought to be a virtue.  Or where lying was thought to be “good form” by the one lied to.  Or where indiscriminately taking the life of newborn puppies was thought to be “good”.  So the seemingly inherent, universal concept of good and evil in people (with some few exceptions) seems to indicate something beyond preference.  It seems to indicate a pre-programmed moral compass which directs toward a fixed point or standard.  A standard which is broader than any single person or isolated society.

Where does this universal moral standard come from if it is broader than the individual or isolated society?  Is it genetic and therefore a product of evolution?   It seems that many of our moral concepts lead to conclusions that are counter-productive to evolution’s driving force, “survival of the fittest”.  The fittest survives by pragmatism, not by principle.  The fittest does whatever is necessary in any given scenario to ensure their survival.  Lying, cheating, cowardliness, etc. are all completely acceptable to the pragmatist if these traits further the goal of surviving and prospering.  Any self-less actions have no place in a moral standard created by evolution.  Yet more commonly than not we approve whole-heartedly of those who perform self-less acts.  While we may not understand such acts, or may feel such acts are beyond what we could or would do, yet we seem to think of them as “good”, and many times wish we could be more like that self-less person.

Conclusions

===========

If the moral standard’s source is not an evolutionary process then what is it?  There are perhaps several possibilities but one plausible explanation is that there is a standard of right and wrong that is higher than human preference.  A standard that’s source is external to ourselves but that has been integrated into who we are as humans.  A standard set by a moral law giver.  A law giver with the inherent right to say to human beings, “you may do this, you may not do the other”, and with the power to integrate this standard into our being.  Following this line of reasoning, this lawgiver would most likely be the creator since the one who makes a thing is most likely to have access to the thing’s “inner programming” and who other than the creator of a thing has the right to demand that the thing adhere to a standard?