Who Is Your Authority?
Who is the final arbitrator of moral right and wrong in your life? Is it yourself? The culture? The government? Perhaps we should clarify what we mean by an authority.
First, an authority must be a Someone - a Person (or Persons) who has the power and ability to set laws and boundaries, demand obedience, and has the right to enact punishment for breaking laws. It has to be a person because we are under no obligation to impersonal forces.
When questioned about authority, most people automatically think first of governments. We are accustomed to being under the authority of our local and national government authorities and to being punished for exceeding those laws by the police, military or other government enforcers.
But the thrust of this article is to ask, Who or What is the Highest Authority? Is it the individual, the government, or the culture? If it is one of those three, what gives them that authority? Is it majority rule, might makes right? What happens when those in charge break the laws themselves, or do immoral heinous acts such as that by the officers of Nazi Germany? If governments or cultures are the highest final authority, then does that make the Nazi Regime’s actions correct or morally acceptable?
Governments As Final Authority
The Nuremberg Trial.
At the end of World War Two, the Allies faced a thorny legal problem: how to hold Nazi leaders accountable for their crimes. The war crimes of the Nazi leaders were so repugnant and unprecedented, a new term, “crimes against humanity,” was coined.
The Allies legal problems arose from four main Nazis defense claims:
1) Their crimes were committed before the International Military Tribunal was established, thus the new laws did not apply them.
2) The trials were a form of “victor’s justice,” meaning the Allies overlooked their own crimes so as to judge the actions of the losing side. This was actually partially true because Stalin only agreed to support the war crime trials if Russia’s atrocities of the Germans were not brought to trial.
3) The Nazi’s attorneys argued that only a country could be accused of war crimes - there was no precedent to try individuals.
4) Last, many Nazis famously defended their actions by saying that they were simply following orders. This became known as the Nuremberg defense.
Skeletal bodies of former inmates piled on a truck at the newly liberated Buchenwald concentration camp.
The author, John Warwick Montgomery, had this to say about the Nuremberg defense in his book, “The Law Above The Law:”
“The most telling defense offered by the accused was that they had simply followed orders or made decisions within the framework of their own legal system, in complete consistency with it, and that they therefore ought not rightly be condemned because they deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors.”
The chief counsel for the United States at the trials, Robert H. Jackson flatly disagreed:
“[The Tribunal] rises above the provincial and transient, and seeks guidance not only from International Law, but also from the basic principles of jurisprudence which are assumptions of civilization...”
In other words, the Tribunal appealed to a higher moral law beyond all governments in order to bring justice. The officers and individuals should have disobeyed their orders because they had a duty to a higher morality authority. So Who or What is that higher authority?
The Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence
The Founding Fathers of the United States understood this need for a Higher Authority when it came to justifying rebelling against the tyrannical authority of the King of England:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
And then, in the final paragraph:
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Click to enlarge
At every stage, our Founding Fathers appealed to and based their actions upon a higher moral authority beyond that of the secular government of the King of England that had birthed their own nation.
And thus governments must derive their authority from the Higher Authority if they are to be a legitimate authority.
Unless we appeal to a Higher Authority than a culture, a government or popular opinion, we have no basis on which to stand for our rights or freedoms. Without an objective external standard of authority beyond that of humans, any appeal to rights or freedoms we claim are just illusions. If the final authority for our rights and freedom stem from human origins, whether culture, governments, or the individual, they are as fickle as the wind and as easy to change. In that case, it all just boils down to might makes right; whoever has the most power to enforce whatever they want. The Nazi’s rejected any higher authority than themselves and enforced it on everyone around them by exterminating over 6 million Jews, gays, gypsies, mentally ill and other such “undesirables.” Matthew J. Trewhella, author of “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates,” describes the issue:
“If there is no objective standard to judge the purpose and limits of the State, then the State can do whatever it pleases because the people will not know any different. If a citizenry does not know the purpose, function, and limitations of the State, then the State can do whatever it wants to do because the citizenry doesn’t realize anything improper is being done. For there to be indignation towards acts of tyranny by the State, one must be able to identify tyranny.”
If the Highest Authority is the elected or unelected person or persons in power, then every act by every tyrant, despot, dictator and communist regime such as North Korea must logically therefore be entirely moral, above reproach and cannot be condemned. And by that reasoning, every person who rose up to fight against slavery in the American Civil War was immoral as long as they were in opposition to those in power. Of course, all rational beings obviously reject this. We all instinctively know there is a higher standard.
Culture as Final Authority
At first glance it seems that many cultures have their own unique set of moral values, their own right and wrong from which they derive their laws, and thus it is often argued that one culture should not impose their values on another. But already there is a problem: If there is no objective moral standard external to humans, then who is to say that imposing on another culture is wrong?
In addition, what happens when one culture has the moral value that it is better for them to eradicate another culture? In Rwandan in 1994, the Hutu’s attempted to kill every Tutsi and nearly succeeded, butchering, raping and killing nearly 1 million in just 100 days. If culture is where we derive moral authority, then the Hutu’s were acting correctly within their own moral value system. A direct consequence of this logic is that if morality is not based on an objective standard outside of the culture, then it would be immoral for any other nation/culture to object to the genocide. If moral authority is relative to each culture, we would have no moral ground to object to, say, China reinstating slavery or making pedophilia legal. In order for us to object, we have to be referring to a standard beyond cultures, nations or governments.
“One other problem with cultural relativism is the hero problem. All of our greatest heroes (apart from sport heroes, actors and rock stars) have been men and women who have stood up and called their own society wrong. If culture is what determines morality, it is always morally wrong to criticize society.” - Gregory E. Ganssle, from “Thinking About God, First Steps in Philosophy”
The good news is that it is very easy to see that the basic tenants of morality transcend history, cultures and governments with only very minor differences. The atheist turned Christian writer, C.S. Lewis states it succinctly:
“If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.”
Here are a few examples of ancient moral values that show us how inherent they are to our very nature, taken from the appendix of C.S. Lewis’ book, “Abolition of Man.” Notice how they all state or imply a moral value we all recognize:
“I have given bread to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, a ferry boat to the boatless.” - Ancient Egyptian ERE v.446
“Choose loss rather than shameful gains.” - Greek, Chilon Fr. 10. Diels
“He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat.” - Hindu, Laws of Manu
“Do to men what you wish men to do to you.” - Jewish/Christian, Matthew 7:12 circa 60AD
“There are two kinds of injustice: the first is found in those who do an injury, the second in those who fail to protect another from injury when they can.” - Roman. Cicero, De Off. I. vii
“I sought no trickery, nor swore false oaths.” - Beowulf 1000AD
“He who is asked for alms should always give.” - Hindu. Janet i.7
“Love thy neighbor as thyself.” - Ancient Jewish, Leviticus 19:18
“Never do unto others what you would not like them to do to you.” - Ancient Chinese, Analects of Confucius 500BC
“You will see them take care of… widows, orphans, and old men, never reproaching them.” - Native American. ERE v. 439
“Speak kindness … show good will.” - Babylonian 1000BC
Individuals as Final Authority
Scholars would be hard pressed to find any time in the history prior to this modern era where people have been so deluded as to proudly proclaim that “truth is relative” and “what’s true for you isn’t true for me.” College students protest, carrying signs declaring that there are no objective truths, it’s all relative. And by that declaration, they feel empowered to toss all moral truths, standards and values in the dumpster in the pursuit of “freedom” to be their “true selves.” They are now free to indulge their every whim because the only standard of moral right and wrong is now determined by the individual person themselves. Popular culture inundates us every single moment of every day with this hedonistic message. Take this Nike ad for example: “
“We are Hedonists and we want what feels good. We are all basically hedonists. That’s what makes us human. And we were made to want pretty simple things: Food. Water. Shelter. Warmth. And pleasure. We want what feels good…If it feels good then just do it.”
Imagine for a moment every person in America throwing off all restraint and just doing whatever brings them pleasure, whatever feels good in the moment. We won’t have to imagine it much longer, as it is rapidly becoming our new norm. Welcome to “Woke” truth.
What so few seem to realize, however, is that this idea that morality is subjective, relative to each individual and that there is no external standard beyond ourselves, leads inevitably to a twisted justification for any desire under the sun:
“I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective (emphasis added), and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the US had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself: that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring and strength of character to throw off its shackles.” - Ted Bundy, serial killer in the ‘70’s who raped and murdered over 30 women
To dare to speak of Christian morals, or even of morality itself having a standard beyond people is to invite instant condemnation as being “repressive,” “archaic,” and “judgmental.” Which is really funny when you think about it as those are all moral statements, made by people claiming a moral standard and that they are on the right side and you are clearly on the wrong side. Of course, to ask them from whence these morals come and how did they come to the conclusion they know the right and wrong of it, is to be answered, at best by a confused stammer but most often by a smugly superior retort that it “feels” authentic and true to them.
Allan Bloom, the author of the watershed book, “The Closing of the American Mind,” lays it out clearly:
“There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes or says he believes, that truth is relative. If this belief is put to the test, one can count on the students’ reaction: they will be uncomprehending.”
As objective truth has died, subjectivism/relativism has taken its place, with the slogan, “Anything goes.” Statements once regarded as basic facts for all of human history, such as “there are only two genders,” are now hotly denied and even called hate speech. One wonders when noting that the “the world is round” will be just as outrageous and condemned.
Once objective truth is lost, however, the idea that there are objective morals that apply to all people irrespective of time, culture, race or beliefs no longer has any meaning. Instead of a standard or an authority beyond us, all that is left is to turn inward. The question, “What is good?” turns into “What feels good?” The individual’s pleasure, desires and self-centeredness becomes their Final Authority. The individual becomes their own little god, answering to nothing more than their emotions and their “heart.”
The trouble with your feelings being “your truth” is that emotions and feelings are fleeting and arbitrary, here now and gone an hour later. Can you imagine being an innocent person caught up in a murder investigation and the judge and jurors at the trial rely not on objective facts but on their own subjective inner bias and “feelings” about your guilt?
No wonder depression and suicide is currently at an all time high even though life is easier and better than at any other time in history. Too many people have their feet firmly planted in mid air, dangling helplessly with nothing solid to stand on. Imagine being lost in a forest in a freezing snowstorm, being told a warm cabin is just due west of you a short ways. Do you trust the compass in your hand, an objective unbiased guide that swings to point up the mountain, or do you trust your feelings that tell you that going downhill the other way is the right way because, well, it’s easier and “feels” right? Sounds absurd and yet this is exactly how so many people today live their lives.
Finding Our Way
God has given us several compasses. One is innate within us as our conscience, like the child’s game of “hot, warm, cold” it guides us broadly to the right actions. One might argue that it too is merely subjective, based on individual preferences. However, one need only look at the broad strokes of humanity and you find that never in history has cowardice been esteemed higher than courage, selfishness more than selflessness, brutality over kindness, and betrayal over loyalty. We each have a moral compass that is shared with the rest of humanity. Just because we don’t always heed it does not mean it doesn’t exist.
The second compass is the Bible: it is the highly detailed and deeply nuanced explanation of the moral law of our innermost conscience. It is clear, precise and not only does it line up directly with the conscience “written on their hearts,” it elucidates, defines and confirms it.
Who is the final moral authority of your life?
Follow Up Resources:
Does Disagreement Prove There Are No Objective Moral Truths?
Throwing off the Shackles of Morality
What Criminal Trials Teach Us About Objective Moral Truth