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”? 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 the difference between objective and subjective. (Please go back and take a look for a more in-depth description.) Objective is, for example, the accurate measured temperature of something. Subjective is how we feel about the temperature: too warm, too cold, or just right. (Thank you, Goldilocks.) 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, and if so, from where did it originate? Our options are:
1. Individuals and society determine moral standards.
2. Morality evolves over time, and thus societies become more moral over time.
3. Certain moral standards are established 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. For example, 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 only by consensus or force. Thus, I convince others that my moral view is correct, and we establish laws codifying those morals. Or, you have the biggest weapon and are able to force 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.
Consider also the statement that abusing a child for fun is always morally wrong. The societal argument says that it is always wrong because it damages the child, likely for life, and is damaging to the abuser, thus making overall society worse. 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. 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 #1 fails.
[Point of note: a society is indeed based on both subjective and objective morality. Murder 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 nations disagree. And 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 posits that morality is not objective but is instead always evolving, that evolution 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.” Any evolution-based moral assertion 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 also fails.
Now, 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 an amount of human will. God’s existence does not ensure that all people will act perfectly moral; it only ensures that a standard of fundamental good and evil exists outside of personal opinion or societal assertion.
Therefore, we can assert the following proposition:
1. If objective moral standards exist, then a 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 the difference between objective and subjective. (Please go back and take a look for a more in-depth description.) Objective is, for example, the accurate measured temperature of something. Subjective is how we feel about the temperature: too warm, too cold, or just right. (Thank you, Goldilocks.) 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, and if so, from where did it originate? Our options are:
1. Individuals and society determine moral standards.
2. Morality evolves over time, and thus societies become more moral over time.
3. Certain moral standards are established 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. For example, 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 only by consensus or force. Thus, I convince others that my moral view is correct, and we establish laws codifying those morals. Or, you have the biggest weapon and are able to force 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.
Consider also the statement that abusing a child for fun is always morally wrong. The societal argument says that it is always wrong because it damages the child, likely for life, and is damaging to the abuser, thus making overall society worse. 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. 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 #1 fails.
[Point of note: a society is indeed based on both subjective and objective morality. Murder 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 nations disagree. And 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 posits that morality is not objective but is instead always evolving, that evolution 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.” Any evolution-based moral assertion 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 also fails.
Now, 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 an amount of human will. God’s existence does not ensure that all people will act perfectly moral; it only ensures that a standard of fundamental good and evil exists outside of personal opinion or societal assertion.
Therefore, we can assert the following proposition:
1. If objective moral standards exist, then a 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