moral law.

(these are merely fragments of something i have been working on of late. keep in mind they're rather random and somewhat unorganized still, the reason for posting them is to perhaps induce some form of conversation regarding these topics.)

if there is no objectivity in morals, the very idea of there existing a moral law behind the universe would be no more than mere concept and ideal for mutual comfort within a society. the golden rule would only apply insofar as it produced pleasure and not pain. it would be mere utilitarianism. yet if pleasure were the ultimate aim, it would contradict with the very 'morals' one ought to conduct thesmselves according to in it's pursuit. so what is the purpose of living according to the moral law? is it simply subjective good behaviour? while the byproducts of morality would be beneficial to society as a whole, can the ends also be the means to that end as well?

or is it that the entire purpose behind there being a law is to illuminate and attempt to contain our moral deficiencies? what other intrinsic purpose does the law possess? is it possible that we have developed the map of the road towards a more perfected state of society? the moral law serves a two-fold purpose much like a compass. first to give a bearing on one's position and second to point the way to one's destination.

given the historical timeline of human existence and our cultural 'progressions' it would seem that though we may not have progressed in many ways, it would seem that we have become more and more cognitive of our deficiencies, perhaps it is time we, instead of being bogged down in our own deficiencies, focused on the flipside of moral law, the good.

created in the image of a creator, it follows that there is inextricable value inside each and every person, regardless of religious creeds and denominational affiliation. the moral law cannot be owned by a specific cultural group without implying it's subjective implications.

do "evil" people exist? or are they merely people comitting acts of "evil?"if we are inherently evil and cannot help ourselves, it should seem faulty programming on the part of the designer. since i cannot cognitively blame my acts of "evil" on a creator, i must take responsibility for them, but also must acknowledge the possibility of not commiting the acts of "evil" in the first place. the truth that people do commit acts of "evil" does not devaule the intrinsic "good" that is within us as result of our reflecting the 'imageo dei.'

yet, even further, does morality itself exist independently of God? can it?if the two are inextricably intertwined, it should follow then that without God, man could not act in such ways that were morally 'right.' yet, they must be able to if they reflect the image of their creator within them.