Rosa Parks and objective morality 

I have read a few blogs posts about morality lately and, as I often am since I’ve grown tired of jumping into the fray, have been a silent lurker in a few comment threads following the posts.

Fascinating discussions to be sure but also mind-numbingly futile given that both sides always argue from one of two unchanging and uncompromising presuppositions. 

1. If one believes in God and that God is the ultimate law giver, objective morality is a no-brainer.

2. If one lacks a belief in God there can be no ultimate law giver, therefore objective morality cannot be possible.

Anyone who is familiar with this blog should know what I believe about objective morality without question so this post is not intended to make a case. So instead of taking this as support for a known quantity I urge readers, regardless of what they believe, to consider it as merely food for thought.

There have been reformers in the history of the human race whom we believe to have improved our understanding of what is right and wrong. An example would be Rosa Parks who rejected the principle that African-American people should acquiesce in being treated as inferiors and challenged the Montgomery bus system’s policy of requiring African-American riders to give up their seats

Because of her stand, and that of Martin Luther King and other leaders of the civil rights movements, laws were changed in such a way as to require equal treatment under the law. Now if you think that the laws of the state of Alabama are more just and moral today than they were when Parks refused to give up her seat, then you are applying an objective standard of justice/morality. If on the other hand, you maintain that morals are merely socially acceptable conventions, then Parks’ actions would have to be considered unjust or immoral, because they contravened the accepted social convention of the time.

*I pulled the Rosa Parks example out of an email I got some time ago. I am not sure where it originally came from but would like to credit the source if anyone knows it.


Categories: Christianity, Misc.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

14 replies

  1. Yeah…that’ll be interesting to wait for…somebody calling Rosa Parks immoral LOL. Nice example, and effective too.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. More food for thought… If morality was objective, Rosa Parks would not have needed to take her stand because the scenario in which she found herself would not have existed, or she would have found the situation acceptable and therefore not made a stand. The fact she made a stand against an existing state of affairs demonstrates subjective morality.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Good point. It’s a good defeater for those who believe she’s in the right but also hold to the premise that morality is determined by society, the law of government in of itself, etc

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Very good article, you described both elements quite well. I am going to reblog this article for you. I hope you and your loved ones have a great weekend, God’s blessings to you and yours.

    Liked by 1 person


  1. The Weekly Headlines – My Daily Musing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: