Not too long ago I listened to two men arguing over the weight of morality.

One
side argued that we as humans must strive to be without moral flaw while the other
argued that no matter how hard we try we cannot be sinless, in which he followed up by
asking, Why would anyone, in there right mind, jump off a building knowing theyd hit
the ground? Arguing that if wickedness is inevitable we might as well just accept it as
part of life and not bother with trying to fight it. We can avoid the false hope and
devastation by simply accepting it.
Both sides intrigued me; if we accept that there is such thing as right and wrong,
we also must accept that we ought to be acting according to good and not evil. But
due to an overwhelming amount of variables and choices around us, it is impossible to
choose and do good all the time. When we look at it even closer, our animalistic
instinct often leads us into evil, or sin. So what are we to do? Are we to strive towards an
impossible goal constantly being disappointed with ourselves? Or should we simply
numb our disappointment and simply accept sin as part of who we are.
The analogy of jumping off a roof fails to directly correlate due to the fact that
the person jumping seemingly has no purpose of making the leap. So in order to make the
analogy fair, we must give the man a reason to jump and then move forward from there.
So the following is a revision of the analogy:
A man has lived his whole life knowing that he was meant to fly, but due to
gravity he knows he will never be able to accomplish this task fully. No matter how high
he throws himself from, he will always be pulled back to the ground. No matter how
much fuel he puts in his plane, as long as its in this atmosphere (just as with sin as long
as were in this fallen world), it must fall back to earth. Every time he leaps, flies, soars,
he risks a hard painful landing. Now a fairer question to be discussed, Why would any
man, who knew he was meant to fly, ever throw himself off a building knowing that
ultimately he would hit the ground?
This needs to be broken back down.
To start off, we must approach the subject of morality itself. Morality or moral
law, is the idea that beyond the animalistic desire to simply to survive, we as humans
have a set standard of how we ought to behave and anything apart from this is evil, or
sin (which ultimately is defined as missing the mark). Other theologians (C.S. Lewis)
and philosophers (Plato, Aristotle) have referred to it as natural law, saying that it is as
much a part of nature as gravity or physics. While going further saying that the
uniqueness of morality is that although we cannot choose to avoid the laws of physics, we
can indeed choose to not obey the moral law. The choice to not obey it is what we refer to
as evil. The question now is if we know we cannot attain the moral law entirely,
whether we should continue to pursue as it is partially, or learn to live without
acknowledging it at all.

Before I go on, I must first approach the man who protests, I dont believe there
is such thing as right and wrong, everything is simply preference. If everything is simply
preference, I could simply say I prefer morals and the protester could no more object to
me as if I were to agree and say everything is grey as well. However, I prefer not to
take the loophole in the theory and instead take the objection and theory head-on.
When thinking of a moral code, a few of the large universal moral laws that
come to mind are do not steal, and do not murder. A person who argues preference
would argue, If you can never steal, what do you do when your children are starving,
you have no work, and you have no money? Do you sit back and watch your children
die? Or do you steal and keep them alive? Of coarse you steal to keep your kids alive.
So cross stealing off the moral absolutes list. Check. Lets say a man comes after your
family, hes going to brutally kill your wife and kids. The police wont arrive in time and
your only way of keeping your family alive is by killing the man, you have no other
option. Would you murder to protect your family or let him kill your family? Under the
extreme circumstances, given I truely knew there were absolutely no other options, yes I
would kill the man. So cross murder off the moral absolutes as well. Check.
At first it may seem these examples are evidence against a moral code, against
what we call good and evil, but under further examination I believe it does the
opposite, if anything I believe it strengthens the theory. I personally believe the moral
code is a deep complex structure woven into our very being. You may train yourself over
time to ignore negative emotions, or conscience, while you yourself are going against
the code such as stealing from me, but as soon as Ive swindled a sum of money from
you, all hell breaks loose, and Ive wronged you. Whats ironic about a person who
believes in no-morals asking those questions is the fact that when asking them, the
person is searching for a specific answer. If I answered, Let them starve, or Let them
be brutally murdered, Im considered mad or simply ignorant. This is due to the fact
that no man in his right mind, can say letting his family starve is. the right thing to do.
In other words had I chose Let them starve, and Be brutally murdered my answers
would have been wrong, crazy. immoral.
What our no-morals believer has done is simply disproven his own belief by
showing us that even in the most extreme situations, there is a way each of us ought to
behave. Maybe we cant say one specific action is good in all circumstances, and one
specific action is evil in every circumstance, but we do agree that in all circumstances
there is a specific way we ought to behave.
In a no-moral or preference moral society, if a man was about to murder my
wife and kids, you could not say I was wrong even if I helped him do it. If I preferred to
eat in front of my starving children I could be called no less a man than if I decided to
share and provide for them. If a society makes up its own morals and there is no ultimate
moral code, who are we to say that the Nazis were wrong? They simply chose a
different set of morals than we did. A no moral or choose your own morals society
cannot say giving to charity is any grander than donating to a brothel. Due to a fallen

world I do believe there are some of us who are born without having an innate knowledge
of the moral code, such as psychopaths and sociopaths, but for the overwhelming amount,
we can all agree that there is a way woven within us that we know we ought to behave.
Now that weve established a moral code, at least a general acceptance that there
is a way we ought to behave, we can revert back to original question. If we cant keep
the moral code entirely, why bother worrying about it at all? Being told, We are made
to abide by the moral code, is the same as being told that we are currently living as
something other than what we were meant to be. As soon as evil entered this world (at
some point evil did have to enter the world due to the fact that it cannot exist on its own.
Evil is simply a departure from good.), all hopes of righteousness and perfection were
lost. If you are a painter you cannot erase mistakes within your masterpiece. No matter
how beautiful the final portrait, the mistakes still lie beneath the outermost layer of paint.
Likewise, as soon as evil entered the world, perfection was lost. Evil is rooted deep in us.
We know everyone should act a certain way, yet due to an invasion of sin, this is
impossible.
As you step closer to the edge of the building. You know that as long as theres
gravity, you will end up on the ground, right back where you started. As you step towards
moral law, you find yourself facing a call to live in absolute perfection, while our own
fallen nature prevents us from doing that. If you choose to abide by this standard you
cant choose a certain way of living stretching morality to fit your needs, once again this
becomes preference. The first time you throw yourself at the impossible standard you
have an assumption that somehow, miraculously, youll be able to fly. Due to this
ignorance, sometimes this first fall back into sin hits the hardest. The spiritual high gets
squashed. Often times you tell your friends, family and onlookers youve stepped into a
life of purity and righteousness. They see you climb up in attempt to fly only to watch
you fall to the ground.
Why would you ever try to live a life of absolute moral integrity knowing you
will always fail to do so? In Order to answer this question, we must look further into the
moral code itself.
A moral code implies that there is a certain way we are supposed to behave.
Whether or not we do behave that way does not strengthen or weaken the moral code just
as being in a plane does not make gravity any less real. Once you acknowledge there is
right and wrong, you must also agree that we ought to behave under the morals we
good, pure, or righteous. To say anything else contradicts itself and contradicts the
labels. If you agree there is such thing as right and wrong, you must also agree that there
is a certain way were supposed to behave, and anything apart from this; any act against
this righteousness is actually a retreat from how we are supposed to behave and
ultimately a retreat from how we are designed to be. (The only exception to this idea of
a way we ought to act is where we are confronted by a choice of two evils. This is the
result of a fallen world. In these circumstances we must choose the lesser of the two evils
all while knowing that it is still not morally correct.)

Due to our fallen nature, it is impossible to follow the code entirely. No matter
how hard we try to live a life of righteousness, we always fall back into sin. No matter
how hard we try we cannot attain or become this person we were meant to be. Many
look at this and see the impossibility so they decide instead of trying to attain
righteousness, to turn away and blow off the task altogether. They build their own pride
and then instead of choosing between moral and immoral, it simply becomes a choice of
benefit. Pride has no trouble being immoral, but as soon as the prideful man is crossed he
will be the first to let you know of your own immoral actions. To have pride takes no
effort, this is because pride does not push anyone further. It simply inflates him or her
where they are. Pride turns morality into a shape-shifter for oneself, yet holds everyone
else to the moral code. Pride takes no courage to pursue.
If we are to live according to the natural law we must kill this demon inside of
us called pride, and follow after an impossible task of living with perfect morality. It
takes no courage to inflate yourself, but it takes absolute courage to behave in a way that
looks outward, especially when it means deflating yourself and stepping down from a
pedestal. Now the question becomes why should we choose righteousness over pride? Is
striving for a life of righteousness indeed courageous, or is it mere stupidity for grasping
at the impossible.
For this explanation, Ill use an analogy. Take a seed. In its current state it exists
perfectly fine, no harm, no loss. As it exists right now it is perfectly content, other than
aging, there are no changes taking place. However, the seed was never meant to be a
mere seed. Before it can ever reach its full potential it must first be buried. Only once its
been placed and covered with dirt can it ever sprout and grow towards what it was truly
meant to be.
We were not meant to be self-centered people. If we choose to simply live a life
ignoring a guilty conscience, a life where good and wrong shape-shift to your own
pride, you are choosing to stay the same way you are now (if you are prideful, this may
not seem bad at all). Pride, although it may increase material possessions (not always, but
sometimes), it may drive you to the next social status (once again sometimes and not
always), ultimately pride fails to satisfy. It fails to satisfy you because pride itself in its
own nature can never be satisfied. Its not happy with money, but having more money
than someone else. With that nature pride may carry you up, but it is always competitive
and need something else to devour leaving itself always hungry and never content. So
now weve found pride itself can never be satisfied, but can an ill attempt at
righteousness promise you anything more?
It is a struggle to stay morally sound. Just when you think youve been doing
decent as a person you fall once again. The harder you try to be good, the more you
realize how evil you truly are. The further you pull yourself into discipleship, the harder
each fall back into sin lands.
Its like being told you were meant to fly in a world with gravity. Due to
ignorance you throw yourself off a building and then act surprised when you fall, you yell

but I was meant to. The call to moral integrity is not a transformation, but a struggle.
Overnight your impurities will not fade. Its a process. You start to burry yourself. You
lower yourself into the ground deflating yourself so you might sprout back up. You learn
jump from the 2nd floor flying only for a short period before you hit the ground. As you
gain knowledge you take a parachute to keep you afloat for more time. Then you run and
jump with a glider, helping you fly for longer periods.
In a world with gravity, nothing can truly fly. No matter how much fuel a plane
stores, eventually it has to land. Likewise in a world with sin, no person can live
blameless. We can never achieve this calling, this design, in its ultimate form, but this
does not mean we should turn our back on this calling altogether. The struggle of falling
back into sin may be frustrating, but the trade-off is remarkable. Its the time while you
are living in righteousness, while you are living a life according to this moral standard,
living a life focused outward instead of inward, where you find who you were truly meant
to be. Nothing aside from this will ever satisfy. If you were called to fly how could you
ever be satisfied living a life on the ground? The joy of righteousness is every bit worth
the frustration of falling back into sin. We must not fear the frustration that comes with
our constant fall into sin, its once we numb ourselves of this frustration that we must start
to fear.