What is tall? Is 5’8” tall? Perhaps to someone who is 5’3”. Is 6’2” tall? Not to someone who is 6’9”. Is tall in Denmark the same as tall in Guatemala? Unless there exists an objective standard for what tall is (a definition outside of personal or societal opinion), tall becomes a matter of subjective opinion.
The previous essay noted in more detail the difference between objective and subjective, but to summarize, objective is, for example, the accurate measured temperature of a room. Subjective is how one feels 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 murder is evil, that exist across time and cultures, principles recognized as always good or evil despite era or society?
Our conscience and moral experiences tell us that objective moral values do exist. When we are old enough to know what murder is, and given a properly functioning mind, we know that murder is wrong. In the same way that we trust our senses to convince us that physical objects exist (we can see them, touch them, and experience them), we know objective morality exists based upon our moral experiences. A man might state that he does not believe in objective moral values, but as soon as he is mistreated, he will react as if such a standard does exist. "That's not fair!" he will exclaim. Nearly all human beings agree that one ought to try to save a drowning person. But "oughts" and "shoulds" appeal fundamentally to an objective standard. And abusing a child for fun is always wrong. We don't need to be taught such a truth, and we can't not know it. In the absence of rational reasons to disprove our experiences, we are justified in believing them.
Given that objective morality exists, the question remains: from where or from whom do such morals originate? Our options are:
1. Individuals and societies 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, based solely 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:
Under option #1, societal morals are determined by consensus or force. For instance, I convince others that my moral views are correct, and we establish laws codifying and enforcing them. 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 #1 fails to explain the existence of objective moral values.
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. Thus, as time and evolution progresses, we gain further experience and knowledge, and our morality (and thus our flourishing as a species) supposedly increases. In such a framework, we somehow know in our nature that basic morality is good for human thriving. The problem with this assertion is that it fails in practicality. Although a man may value his flourishing, as well as his tribe's, it does not therefore follow that he 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.
If option #2 is correct that morality progressively evolves, 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 still ultimately supports an objective moral standard beyond ourselves—one toward which we are supposedly evolving.
Consider again the statement that abusing a child for fun is objectively 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 impeded. Is it still morally wrong to abuse a child for fun? Of course, it is! We all know it is objectively morally wrong and evil under any circumstances.
Furthermore, 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 declare, humans are just a higher form of ape, then we, too, would be guided by natural selection. Should we then abandon or even kill the weak and the infirmed? Hitler's Mein Kampf referenced natural selection as a rationale for the extermination of millions of people he deemed inferior and subhuman. The atheist responds again that human flourishing is the guiding moral principle, not natural selection, and thus Nazism violated the flourishing of millions of people. Yet in evolution, a flourishing species depends on natural selection as a mechanism for ensuring survival. And 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 definition of human flourishing? On what objective basis would you say I'm wrong? Option #2 fails for multiple reasons.
Contrary to natural selection, human cultures across millennia have heralded the self-sacrificing hero, caring for the sick, and rescuing the weak. If morality rests on evolution and natural selection, the strongest fireman should never risk his valuable life to save an old woman from a burning building who was too weak to escape on her own. Clearly, objective morality cannot be based on evolution and natural selection, and instead the accumulated evidence demonstrates the existence of an objective standard of morality outside of ourselves.
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 the assertion during World War II that the Allies' ideas were better than the Nazis' ideas was ultimately an appeal to a standard beyond both. The Nuremberg Trials successfully appealed to objective morality by establishing a legal framework that held state representatives accountable for their actions, regardless of their nation's political, sociological, or theological views.
As a result, the proposition follows:
1. If objective moral standards exist, then some kind of moral Creator outside of us must exist who established such moral standards.
2. Objective moral standards do exist.
3. Therefore, a moral Creator (God) exists.
Points of note:
If there is no God, murder is not objectively wrong. If there is no God, the Allies of World War II were not objectively right and Hitler's Axis objectively wrong. If there is no God, 9/11 was entirely subjective, subject to opinion and preference. Whether we believe in God or not, none of us live out a morally subjective world view. We do not accept that abusing a child for fun can be considered morally good in another culture. We rightly object to the assertion that, "It's good to them, so who are we to impose our morality on their culture?" Thank God (literally) we all understand that it remains objectively morally wrong to abuse a child for fun. Experience and evidence validate the reality of objective moral values.
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 deep down 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 George Washington famously proclaimed:
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
The previous essay noted in more detail the difference between objective and subjective, but to summarize, objective is, for example, the accurate measured temperature of a room. Subjective is how one feels 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 murder is evil, that exist across time and cultures, principles recognized as always good or evil despite era or society?
Our conscience and moral experiences tell us that objective moral values do exist. When we are old enough to know what murder is, and given a properly functioning mind, we know that murder is wrong. In the same way that we trust our senses to convince us that physical objects exist (we can see them, touch them, and experience them), we know objective morality exists based upon our moral experiences. A man might state that he does not believe in objective moral values, but as soon as he is mistreated, he will react as if such a standard does exist. "That's not fair!" he will exclaim. Nearly all human beings agree that one ought to try to save a drowning person. But "oughts" and "shoulds" appeal fundamentally to an objective standard. And abusing a child for fun is always wrong. We don't need to be taught such a truth, and we can't not know it. In the absence of rational reasons to disprove our experiences, we are justified in believing them.
Given that objective morality exists, the question remains: from where or from whom do such morals originate? Our options are:
1. Individuals and societies 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, based solely 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, societal morals are determined by consensus or force. For instance, I convince others that my moral views are correct, and we establish laws codifying and enforcing them. 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 #1 fails to explain the existence of objective moral values.
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. Thus, as time and evolution progresses, we gain further experience and knowledge, and our morality (and thus our flourishing as a species) supposedly increases. In such a framework, we somehow know in our nature that basic morality is good for human thriving. The problem with this assertion is that it fails in practicality. Although a man may value his flourishing, as well as his tribe's, it does not therefore follow that he 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.
If option #2 is correct that morality progressively evolves, 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 still ultimately supports an objective moral standard beyond ourselves—one toward which we are supposedly evolving.
Consider again the statement that abusing a child for fun is objectively 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 impeded. Is it still morally wrong to abuse a child for fun? Of course, it is! We all know it is objectively morally wrong and evil under any circumstances.
Furthermore, 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 declare, humans are just a higher form of ape, then we, too, would be guided by natural selection. Should we then abandon or even kill the weak and the infirmed? Hitler's Mein Kampf referenced natural selection as a rationale for the extermination of millions of people he deemed inferior and subhuman. The atheist responds again that human flourishing is the guiding moral principle, not natural selection, and thus Nazism violated the flourishing of millions of people. Yet in evolution, a flourishing species depends on natural selection as a mechanism for ensuring survival. And 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 definition of human flourishing? On what objective basis would you say I'm wrong? Option #2 fails for multiple reasons.
Contrary to natural selection, human cultures across millennia have heralded the self-sacrificing hero, caring for the sick, and rescuing the weak. If morality rests on evolution and natural selection, the strongest fireman should never risk his valuable life to save an old woman from a burning building who was too weak to escape on her own. Clearly, objective morality cannot be based on evolution and natural selection, and instead the accumulated evidence demonstrates the existence of an objective standard of morality outside of ourselves.
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 the assertion during World War II that the Allies' ideas were better than the Nazis' ideas was ultimately an appeal to a standard beyond both. The Nuremberg Trials successfully appealed to objective morality by establishing a legal framework that held state representatives accountable for their actions, regardless of their nation's political, sociological, or theological views.
As a result, the proposition follows:
1. If objective moral standards exist, then some kind of moral Creator outside of us must exist who established such moral standards.
2. Objective moral standards do exist.
3. Therefore, a moral Creator (God) exists.
Points of note:
- A society is indeed based on both subjective and objective morality. There are absolute moral truths, as well as moral guidelines that vary in different cultures. For example, America agrees on certain subjective moral standards of kindness toward animals. Other cultures use 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 created human beings with the ability to know objective morality (through our conscience and experiences) and still not follow it. Our ability to violate objective moral standards is not relevant to the fundamental issues of the origin and existence of objective morality.
- Experience and evidence clearly demonstrate that a person who does not believe in God can still be morally good and kind. Conversely, someone professing religious moral values remains capable of committing morally bad acts. (They either do not truly believe what they profess, or because sin still impacts an honestly religious person.) However, these two truths have nothing to do with the origin and existence of objective morality.
If there is no God, murder is not objectively wrong. If there is no God, the Allies of World War II were not objectively right and Hitler's Axis objectively wrong. If there is no God, 9/11 was entirely subjective, subject to opinion and preference. Whether we believe in God or not, none of us live out a morally subjective world view. We do not accept that abusing a child for fun can be considered morally good in another culture. We rightly object to the assertion that, "It's good to them, so who are we to impose our morality on their culture?" Thank God (literally) we all understand that it remains objectively morally wrong to abuse a child for fun. Experience and evidence validate the reality of objective moral values.
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 deep down 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 George Washington famously proclaimed:
"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
RSS Feed