Many people I speak with believe that morals are relative. That is, that what's right and wrong varies depending on the person, culture, or situation. What may be right for you in your situation may not be right for me in mine, or vice-versa. This is such a common viewpoint that the preponderance of people that say they believe it may make one think that it's actually true. After all, so many people can't be wrong about that, can they?
I would like to suggest that virtually nobody is a pure relativist. Here's how we know this: everyone says things like, "You shouldn't do that", or "He's wrong for saying that." Even the most adamant moral relativist utters statements like this from time to time. Often those statements are in the direction of Christians or other religious people - "He shouldn't be so judgmental!" Moral relativists are often the first people in line to criticize moral objectivists.
But how can a moral relativist be critical of moral objectivists? How can a person who claims to believe in moral relativism criticize someone else's morals? It happens all the time. It shows that such a person truly isn't a moral relativist, and here's why. In order for Jack to criticize Bob, there needs to be a standard of morals that exists by which both Jack and Bob are bound. If morals are truly relative, then all Jack can say to Bob is, "Well, I wouldn't do that, but if it fits your moral code, then by all means, have at it." But that's not what Jack says to Bob. Jack says, "You shouldn't do that." And the minute he says that, he's pointing to a moral standard that applies to both Jack and Bob.
If Jack believes that there's a moral standard that applies to anyone else, then Jack is no longer a moral relativist. He's a moral objectivist.
And we see this when it comes to individuals and when it comes to cultures. It's easy to say that what's right for one culture isn't necessarily right for another, but then we can simply apply the Nazi test. Were the Nazis justified in the slaughter of six million Jews? After all, their culture said it was okay. Or were the Americans justified in their enslavement of millions of Africans? After all, their culture said it was okay. Or are cultures today justified in their sex trafficking of minors? After all, their culture says it is okay.
In all these cases the majority of so-called moral relativists would say that these cultures were/are not justified. Buy why? Because there's some larger moral standard at work here that binds all cultures to it. And the self-proclaimed moral relativist knows it.
So we all believe in objective morality. It's the only way we can ever say that something is "good" or "right" or "noble" or "wrong" or "evil" or "unjust". It's the only way to place any sort of value statement on anything. But what does this have to do with God?
If we all believe in moral objectivity (even though many people incorrectly claim they don't), where does moral objectivity come from? Can it come from the individual? No. No individual can set the moral standard for everyone else. What about society? No. The same principle applies. Which culture's moral code is the truly "right" one? We can vote on laws and rules but that doesn't mean that those laws and rules are objectively morally right (or wrong). True objective morality must originate outside people.
But can it come from amoral nature? No. How can objective morality arise from amoral matter? How can electrons produce genuine, objective "goodness"? There must be a moral agent that is the source for objective morality, and if it isn't humanity, what is it? Such a being has to exist independent of the material world. In order for objective morality to exist, an objective moral lawgiver must exist, independent of the material universe. Who could such a moral lawgiver be? Well, like with the two previous posts, this isn't "proof" of God's existence, but it is important evidence suggesting it.
No comments:
Post a Comment