Your Logo Here


"Friends, if we be honest with ourselves, we shall be honest with each other." - George Macdonald (1824-1905)
Home | Jesus Wept | Disobey | Motives | You Bad | Government | Salvation | Extremism | Healing | Success | Our Future? | Clean your room!

Does an objective moral standard exist and if so where*?


First of all, without objective standards nothing makes sense. When we say a brick is heavier than a feather, heavy has meaning because weight is a real thing, we know objectively that some things are heavier than others. If something is longer or shorter than something else it only makes sense because distances are real. These are not things that human beings have constructed. They are not subjective. In other words, something’s would still be longer or shorter, heavier or lighter than other things even if no one existed (there would just be no minds to observe the fact).

When we say something is better or worse than something else it only makes sense if morals do exist in an objective sense. If we say morals are simply what the majority decides then there can be no such thing as a moral reformer, for a moral reformer could not be right because he or she is going against the majority. Neither can society get better or grow worse if there is not a real objective moral standard by which to judge what is better or worse; all we could say is that society changed. What is the point of saying that a law is immoral if objective morals do not exist?

 

It is true that people create laws and societies have their standards, but all people, at all times, in all cultures have judged their own laws and standards by an objective standard.

That standard is a real thing but it is not something that can be seen, we merely see its affects when it is obeyed or broken.

Like weight or distance you cannot say, "here I have all distance and this is how far it is." That's absurd. Likewise you cannot say you have all of morality in any one place. Morality, like distance or weight is a real thing but it is not the thing itself. It is something  by which you measure other things. The morality of a thing can be determined because morals are objectively real, just as the distance of some things can be measured because distance is real. (Note: you might say, "but people have created feet, metres, yards etc. These are all human constructs." The ways of measuring them are human creations but none of those measurements could be created unless distance itself was a real thing that could be measured. Likewise, you can only say that it is wrong to torture babies for fun if there is such a thing as right and wrong.)


So where does this objective moral standard exist? It exists inside all of us. When people have a moral dispute they appeal to that standard in their conversation because they expect others to know about it no matter where they are from, because they know the same standard exists in others.** Reformers like Martin Luther King and Confucius tried to draw people's attention to it just as parents try to bring their children's attention to it when they say things like, "How would you like it if someone did that to you?" Without that objective standard parents could not teach their children anything about right or wrong for they'd have nothing to appeal to. (The key word is "about," the parents did not invent right and wrong.) If a person pays close attention to what they know is right and do not go against their conscience (there sense of the moral law) then they will develop sensitivity to it and become a better person. If they choose to ignore the standard they will become a thief or liar or something worse.

So the moral law or natural law exists inside each of us and we call it our conscience. Some pay close attention to it, become more aware of it and consequently become better people; others ignore it and grow worse.

But where did this awareness of right and wrong come from?

If no human created that standard, that standard which we all know about because it is in us then where did it come from? Can DNA explain objective moral standards?

 

DNA gives instructions to cells telling them what proteins to make. DNA does not give cells options. DNA does not say, "You can make a protein if you want but you don't have to." DNA does not tell cells that they "should" or "ought" to do something because the body needs it but they are free not to if they choose. Only a mind can choose. Out of all the laws in the universe only the moral law tells us what we ought or should do. All other laws tell us what actually happens, not what should happen, they do not tell us what someone or something should do but doesn't. Animals simply respond to their own nature just as a rock sinks when it falls into a pond.

 

Where did this law, which tells us what is right and wrong, come from if not from God?

 
Some object, "if God exists then why is there evil in the world?"

If they grant that evil exists they must also grant that good exists.

 
As already pointed out, how can there be such a thing as good and evil without an objective standard by which to measure what is good, bad, better or worse?

 
But how can there be an objective moral standard or law without a law giver?

 

Without God we are only left with personal preferences, likes and dislikes. Without God there is no such thing as evil.



A challenge.



(This is not me by the way.)

Greg Koukl - Moral Relativism


For further reading on the moral law see
 

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

Legislating Morality by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

What We Can't Not Know by J.  Budziszewski

Relativism by Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith

Secularism and the Illusion of Neutrality by Ravi Zacharias

















*It is important to note that I am not talking about the Bible or the commands of any other book.

**The sociopath may be the exception. Though I do wonder if such a person has some sense of right and wrong (no matter how poorly developed that sense may be). Greg Koukl points out that the only person who pays no attention to that sense of "ought" is a sociopath. So perhaps they do have a sense of right and wrong but have ignored it so perfectly that they do not feel shame or guilt when they commit the worst of crimes.

©2006 - 2007 All Rights Reserved.

Clicky Web Analytics