What is tall? Is 5’10” tall? What about to someone who is 5’3”? Is 6’2” tall? What about to someone who is 6’8”? Is tall in Denmark the same as tall in Yemen? Unless there exists an objective standard for what is tall (a definition outside of personal or societal opinion), tall becomes just a matter of subjective feeling.
In our previous essay, we noted in more detail the difference between objective and subjective. Objective is, for example, the accurate measured temperature of a room. Subjective is how we feel about the temperature: too warm, too cold, or just right. Subjective is opinion, objective is truth regardless of opinion. As with tall, how do we know what good and evil are? Is there an objective moral standard outside of ourselves, and if so, from where did it originate? Do human beings possess certain moral standards (such as do not murder) that exist across time and cultures, principles recognized as always good or evil despite era or society?
Our basic intuition tells us from a young age, that some objective morality exists. When we are old enough to know what murder is, given a properly functioning mind, we know that murder is wrong. We "can't not know it."
Our options are:
1. Individuals and society determine moral standards.
2. Morality evolves over time, and thus societies become increasingly moral over time.
3. Certain moral standards are established outside of ourselves (ostensibly by a Creator and are a part of the creation of human beings).
The problem with #1 is that it is entirely subjective, ultimately based on opinion. As such, Society-A decides that murdering other humans is always morally bad. So, what? Society-B decides that murder is morally good as long as it benefits them. Without an objective moral standard outside of opinion, Society-A cannot tell B that murdering them is morally wrong. It is all opinion. [Point of note: murder and killing are not the same. Murder is the immoral, unlawful killing of a human being. Certain killings under certain circumstances can be both moral and legal as in self-defense, law enforcement, or morally necessary warfare.]
Under option #1 above, societal morals are determined by consensus or force. For instance, I convince others that my moral view is correct, and we establish laws codifying and enforcing those morals. Or, you have the biggest weapon and are able to impose your moral views on others. In either scenario, morality is based on and enforced by subjective choices, which can then be changed anytime by further consensus or force.
Option #2 posits that human beings are evolutionally hard-wired to value human flourishing, to esteem what is good for the survival of our species. As time progresses, we gain further experience and knowledge, and our morality (and thus our flourishing as a species) supposedly increases. In such a framework, we know in our nature that basic morality is good for human thriving. The problem with this assertion is that it fails in practicality. Although I may value my flourishing, as well as my tribe's, it does not therefore follow that I will morally value the thriving and flourishing (or even survival) of another individual or tribe. In fact, human history has shown again and again, across time and cultures, that human flourishing is a subjective concept based on the availability of resources, land, safety, and degree of tribalism. If my morality is based on what is good for me and my tribe, it is not objective morality at all. It remains purely subjective. Although human flourishing can be an important aspect of moral discourse, it offers no answer for why and how objective moral values exist at all.
Consider also the statement that abusing a child for fun is always morally wrong. The human flourishing and societal arguments assert that it is always wrong because it damages the child, likely for life, and is damaging to the abuser, thus making overall society worse and impeding human flourishing. However, what if a pill could be developed to ensure that the child would have no memory or scars from the abuse, and that the abuser would also not be psychologically damaged. Because of this pill, no societal harm is done, and no human flourishing is ultimately impeded. Is it still morally wrong to abuse a child for fun? Of course, it is. We all know it is always (objectively) morally wrong and evil under any circumstances. Option #2 fails again.
Points of note:
Option #2 above further asserts that morality is not objective but is instead always evolving, that evolution establishes and drives moral goodness. If that is true, then we can never actually know what is truly moral. What we think is moral now might be morally evil later as we “evolve.” Further, any evolution-based moral statement could be easily countered by responding, "Who says?! Isn't it just as likely that we are evolving away from your moral view and toward my moral view?" Plus, this option, while supposedly rejecting objective morality, still ultimately supports an objective moral standard toward which we are supposedly evolving. Option #2 fails.
Evolutionary theory rests on the idea of natural selection. The weak die so that the strong may live and ensure the survival of the species. If, as evolutionists say, humans are just a higher form of ape, we, too, would be guided by natural selection. Should we then kill the weak and the infirmed? In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he referenced natural selection (Darwinian evolution) as a rationale for the extermination of millions of people he deemed inferior and subhuman. The atheist response is that human flourishing is the guiding moral principle, not natural selection, and thus Nazism violated the flourishing of millions of people. Then again, who decides which human flourishing and by what standard? Mine? My tribe's? Your tribe's? What if I don't agree with your standard of human flourishing? On what objective basis would you say I'm wrong? C.S. Lewis in his book The Joyful Christian said, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." He further argued that if we assert during World War II that the Allies' ideas were better than the Nazis' ideas, we are ultimately appealing to a standard beyond both by which we measure who is closest to that standard. If there is no standard outside of our opinions and preferences, there is no objective morality, no absolute sense of right and wrong. If there is no God, murder is not objectively wrong.
To the contrary, in fact, we see human cultures repeatedly valuing the self-sacrificing hero, caring for the sick, and the strong rescuing the weak. If morality rests on evolution and natural selection, the strongest fireman should never risk his life to save an old woman from a burning building who was too weak to escape on her own. Clearly, human morality is not based on evolution and natural selection, and thus the accumulated evidence demonstrates the existence of an objective standard of morality outside of ourselves.
Finally, it is important to note that a person who does not believe in God can be a morally good and kind person. Conversely, someone professing religious moral values remains capable of committing morally bad acts. (They either do not really believe what they profess, or sin can still impact an honestly religious person.) However, these two truths have nothing to do with the issue of whether objective morality exists. Human beings, although knowing deep down that certain actions are always morally wrong, sometimes act otherwise and can even convince themselves that their evil actions are somehow justified. For example, people know intuitively that human sacrifice is wrong, and that the Holocaust was evil. Such events remain rare in overall human history and are clearly recognized through the ages as objectively evil even though some people chose to act that way. Human behavior involves a measure of human will. God’s existence and moral perfection as the standard of goodness does not ensure that all people will act perfectly moral; it only ensures that we are aware of and value a standard of basic morality outside of personal opinion or societal assertion.
Therefore, we can assert the following proposition:
1. If objective moral standards exist, then a moral Creator (God) outside of us must exist who established such moral standards.
2. Objective moral standards do exist.
3. Therefore, a moral Creator exists.
God gifts each of us with a basic moral compass. We know this deep down. This moral compass (conscience and mind) doesn't make clear every moral dilemma, but on basic issues of fundamental morality, we know what is objectively good or evil. God also, in His infinite wisdom, allows us to deny objective morality, ignore it, or convince ourselves otherwise; yet it remains our only infallible guide toward a decent and moral culture. As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted:
“If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations, and that all reality has spiritual control.”
In our previous essay, we noted in more detail the difference between objective and subjective. Objective is, for example, the accurate measured temperature of a room. Subjective is how we feel about the temperature: too warm, too cold, or just right. Subjective is opinion, objective is truth regardless of opinion. As with tall, how do we know what good and evil are? Is there an objective moral standard outside of ourselves, and if so, from where did it originate? Do human beings possess certain moral standards (such as do not murder) that exist across time and cultures, principles recognized as always good or evil despite era or society?
Our basic intuition tells us from a young age, that some objective morality exists. When we are old enough to know what murder is, given a properly functioning mind, we know that murder is wrong. We "can't not know it."
Our options are:
1. Individuals and society determine moral standards.
2. Morality evolves over time, and thus societies become increasingly moral over time.
3. Certain moral standards are established outside of ourselves (ostensibly by a Creator and are a part of the creation of human beings).
The problem with #1 is that it is entirely subjective, ultimately based on opinion. As such, Society-A decides that murdering other humans is always morally bad. So, what? Society-B decides that murder is morally good as long as it benefits them. Without an objective moral standard outside of opinion, Society-A cannot tell B that murdering them is morally wrong. It is all opinion. [Point of note: murder and killing are not the same. Murder is the immoral, unlawful killing of a human being. Certain killings under certain circumstances can be both moral and legal as in self-defense, law enforcement, or morally necessary warfare.]
Under option #1 above, societal morals are determined by consensus or force. For instance, I convince others that my moral view is correct, and we establish laws codifying and enforcing those morals. Or, you have the biggest weapon and are able to impose your moral views on others. In either scenario, morality is based on and enforced by subjective choices, which can then be changed anytime by further consensus or force.
Option #2 posits that human beings are evolutionally hard-wired to value human flourishing, to esteem what is good for the survival of our species. As time progresses, we gain further experience and knowledge, and our morality (and thus our flourishing as a species) supposedly increases. In such a framework, we know in our nature that basic morality is good for human thriving. The problem with this assertion is that it fails in practicality. Although I may value my flourishing, as well as my tribe's, it does not therefore follow that I will morally value the thriving and flourishing (or even survival) of another individual or tribe. In fact, human history has shown again and again, across time and cultures, that human flourishing is a subjective concept based on the availability of resources, land, safety, and degree of tribalism. If my morality is based on what is good for me and my tribe, it is not objective morality at all. It remains purely subjective. Although human flourishing can be an important aspect of moral discourse, it offers no answer for why and how objective moral values exist at all.
Consider also the statement that abusing a child for fun is always morally wrong. The human flourishing and societal arguments assert that it is always wrong because it damages the child, likely for life, and is damaging to the abuser, thus making overall society worse and impeding human flourishing. However, what if a pill could be developed to ensure that the child would have no memory or scars from the abuse, and that the abuser would also not be psychologically damaged. Because of this pill, no societal harm is done, and no human flourishing is ultimately impeded. Is it still morally wrong to abuse a child for fun? Of course, it is. We all know it is always (objectively) morally wrong and evil under any circumstances. Option #2 fails again.
Points of note:
- A society is indeed based on both subjective and objective morality. Abusing children for fun is objectively immoral - wrong for all people at all times. In addition, for example, America agrees on certain subjective moral standards of kindness toward animals. Other cultures treat animals based on different subjective standards. Torturing animals remains objectively immoral, while other animal use is guided by subjective cultural values.
- The existence of objective morality does not mean that people's behavior necessarily and always adheres to this morality. God in His wisdom allows human beings to know objective morality (through our conscience and mind) and still not follow it. Our ability to violate objective moral standards is not relevant to the fundamental issue of the existence of objective morality.
Option #2 above further asserts that morality is not objective but is instead always evolving, that evolution establishes and drives moral goodness. If that is true, then we can never actually know what is truly moral. What we think is moral now might be morally evil later as we “evolve.” Further, any evolution-based moral statement could be easily countered by responding, "Who says?! Isn't it just as likely that we are evolving away from your moral view and toward my moral view?" Plus, this option, while supposedly rejecting objective morality, still ultimately supports an objective moral standard toward which we are supposedly evolving. Option #2 fails.
Evolutionary theory rests on the idea of natural selection. The weak die so that the strong may live and ensure the survival of the species. If, as evolutionists say, humans are just a higher form of ape, we, too, would be guided by natural selection. Should we then kill the weak and the infirmed? In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he referenced natural selection (Darwinian evolution) as a rationale for the extermination of millions of people he deemed inferior and subhuman. The atheist response is that human flourishing is the guiding moral principle, not natural selection, and thus Nazism violated the flourishing of millions of people. Then again, who decides which human flourishing and by what standard? Mine? My tribe's? Your tribe's? What if I don't agree with your standard of human flourishing? On what objective basis would you say I'm wrong? C.S. Lewis in his book The Joyful Christian said, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." He further argued that if we assert during World War II that the Allies' ideas were better than the Nazis' ideas, we are ultimately appealing to a standard beyond both by which we measure who is closest to that standard. If there is no standard outside of our opinions and preferences, there is no objective morality, no absolute sense of right and wrong. If there is no God, murder is not objectively wrong.
To the contrary, in fact, we see human cultures repeatedly valuing the self-sacrificing hero, caring for the sick, and the strong rescuing the weak. If morality rests on evolution and natural selection, the strongest fireman should never risk his life to save an old woman from a burning building who was too weak to escape on her own. Clearly, human morality is not based on evolution and natural selection, and thus the accumulated evidence demonstrates the existence of an objective standard of morality outside of ourselves.
Finally, it is important to note that a person who does not believe in God can be a morally good and kind person. Conversely, someone professing religious moral values remains capable of committing morally bad acts. (They either do not really believe what they profess, or sin can still impact an honestly religious person.) However, these two truths have nothing to do with the issue of whether objective morality exists. Human beings, although knowing deep down that certain actions are always morally wrong, sometimes act otherwise and can even convince themselves that their evil actions are somehow justified. For example, people know intuitively that human sacrifice is wrong, and that the Holocaust was evil. Such events remain rare in overall human history and are clearly recognized through the ages as objectively evil even though some people chose to act that way. Human behavior involves a measure of human will. God’s existence and moral perfection as the standard of goodness does not ensure that all people will act perfectly moral; it only ensures that we are aware of and value a standard of basic morality outside of personal opinion or societal assertion.
Therefore, we can assert the following proposition:
1. If objective moral standards exist, then a moral Creator (God) outside of us must exist who established such moral standards.
2. Objective moral standards do exist.
3. Therefore, a moral Creator exists.
God gifts each of us with a basic moral compass. We know this deep down. This moral compass (conscience and mind) doesn't make clear every moral dilemma, but on basic issues of fundamental morality, we know what is objectively good or evil. God also, in His infinite wisdom, allows us to deny objective morality, ignore it, or convince ourselves otherwise; yet it remains our only infallible guide toward a decent and moral culture. As Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. noted:
“If we are to go forward, we must go back and rediscover those precious values - that all reality hinges on moral foundations, and that all reality has spiritual control.”
RSS Feed