I posted the following in a Facebook message thread on March 7th, 2010, telling several friends about something that I have been thinking about.

I’ve been thinking about the concept of morality a lot.

I only have a theory. And it’s that we are an intelligent enough species to know there is a higher morality to which we should aspire, but not intelligent enough to be certain of what that morality *is*.

We’re doing the best we can under the circumstances. In nature, there is very little compassion, if any. In nature, differences are seen as grounds for execution. In nature, the weak receive no quarter from the strong. In nature, prey is eaten alive.

Then there’s us.

We try a good deal harder than nature does. We feel that we’re meant for more. Whether we’re searching for Heaven or a more complete state of human dignity, we can’t live as if we are a *part* of nature.

No wonder some surmise that we come from another planet or celestial realms. It’s like we don’t fit in on this world at all.

We can’t answer the question “why do we assume there is a universal morality?” We just do. In every culture and throughout recorded history, the existence of morality is taken as fact.

Unfortunately we also can’t answer the question “what is morality?” Not with any consensus as a species. Isn’t that odd? A certain type of bird will build a certain type of nest, and will behave a certain way toward its offspring, etc, no matter where that bird is or in which circumstances it finds itself. But humans are a single species that can’t agree on the details of anything. We build our own nests, we treat our offspring however we like. Even cultural norms only go so far.

Homosexuality is only Exhibit A in a litany of moral uncertainties. We have the perspective that teaches divine revelation and the concept of things being wrong simply because it is believed that a god said they are. We have the perspective that teaches logical conclusions and the concept of things being right until such time as they actively harm someone.

Both views leave us with no consensus.

Which divine revelation? There are many books in the world that are said to be holy. And which interpretation is correct? No two people can ever agree on what a god might have said and meant. So we don’t agree on how to dress, how generous to be, how much to enjoy sex, how to pray. It’s clear that the Bible as translated declares homosexuality a sin but there are arguments concerning “what this word here really means”. Everyone plays that game at various times, both believers and nonbelievers. Since none of us speaks ancient languages, we’re at the mercy of people who claim to. This is what our quest for morality leads us to. A bunch of people on the internet ranting endlessly at each other over the literal meaning of ye olde Hebrew word for “circle”. (If you don’t know which ongoing debate that refers to, you need to lurk moar.)

What is logic, and when do we know for sure that a conclusion has been reached? Define “harm”? Should we assume that the norm is nature’s choice and all else is disordered *because* it is unusual? Is diversity of life the key to a better and more lively society? Is it true that “love is love”? And if so, where do we draw a line, if we draw one at all? Is drawing a line harmful to the individual, or declining to draw a line harmful to society as a whole?

There were a lot more questions concerning a logical approach to morality than to a religious one.

My main hope for us as a species is that we will not be dealt with harshly in the end. Because we never get it right, we keep changing our minds, we swing that pendulum back and forth, we just don’t know what we’re doing. We’re guessing. We’re like 3-year-old children trying to solve algebra problems. Yesterday’s sin is today’s obligation, and vice versa. Tomorrow’s logic is today’s nonsense. It’s awful. The only thing we know for sure is that there’s a perfection we’re supposed to reach but nothing will lead us there. Am I the only one scared by this?