Mysticism and morality

When a person acquires a sense of morality, he or she typically obtains his or her moral knowledge from two sources: mysticism or reason (or some combination thereof).

When one relies on mysticism for moral guidance, one typically draws from certain spiritual or religious convictions.

The mystical position is concerned with such concepts as “God,” “karma,” “fate,” “faith,” and the eternal “after-life,” among many other fancy abstractions.

Mystical moral views are usually determined by dogma, such as sacred scripture: the Koran, the Ten Commandments, The Five Pillars of Islam, etc.

When one relies on reason, by sharp contrast, one is exclusively concerned with logical reasoning as an objective basis for determining moral truths.

Rationalists simply cannot accept blind, unquestioning faith. Instead, they adopt a rather rigorous scientific or philosophical approach to morality.

Unlike their dyed-in-the-wool mystic counterparts, rationalists painstakingly examine moral arguments for precision, clarity, accuracy, and–this is crucial–“validity.” They inspect premises, determine if they are true, and then proceed to see if the argument’s conclusion inevitably follows from those premises.

The problem with mysticism is that it lacks a certain credibility. It does not rest on objective facts or sound, logical reasoning. It cannot easily be advanced in a court of reason or law. The 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, so brilliantly dramatized in the film “Inherit the Wind,” captures the apparent insanity of relying on faith alone.

The problem with the rationalist position is equally disturbing. When possible consequences are taken fully into account, the rationalist view not only seems inadequate–it renders mysticism more psychologically appealing in its quest for cosmic justice.

In his relentless quest for lasting moral truths, the rationalist could come up with all sorts of solid moral justifications for various actions. He could draw truth tables, Venn Diagrams, thirty-two step deductive proofs–the works. He could even logically prove that murder is morally wrong.
Very well–so what?

Suppose the rational moral order were violated. Suppose our friend Raskolinikov got away with murder in “Crime and Punishment.”
People escape moral punishment all the time.
They defy the moral force of logic. Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Dictator who massacred millions of Russians, escaped criminal prosecution. He was never punished.

When an engineer makes a calculation mistake, something tangible happens: a bridge collapses, a plane falls out of the sky. But when a rationalist defies his own moral logic–say, when he murders A or B–he could actually get away with it. This is possible, especially if the DPS is investigating.

So the fact that one can get away with murder–can defy logical morality–leaves the rationalist perspective wanting. It makes mysticism, however irrational, that much more alluring, because we all desperately want to believe that there is a just God who eventually punishes all moral transgressions, even if man does not.