Our sense of objective morality points to the moral standard/law Giver.
Check out the video from Reasonable Faith for an excellent summary/presentation.
While some argue that everything is relative (that there is nothing absolute in the universe), that is patently false. In fact, their claim itself is an absolute statement. If everything were relative, then their claim is meaningless. Not only is that statement nonsensical, they can't make any absolute statements or claims.
Atheists, postmodernists, nihilists, existentialists, etc. also argue that there is no right or wrong. But, is that statement true or false? Without the standard, well, everything is meaningless. Without the true north (North Pole), there is no direction.
In the moral landscape, there can be points of contention or disagreements. But, such are typically in the domains of personal preference or social conventions. However, there is an innate and objective sense of right and wrong that one cannot dismiss. For example, universally, people will be sickened and repulsed by the act of raping a young child (there are sexual deviants and mentally incompetent people out there, but we're not talking about them). Especially if one's own child or relative was the victim, I doubt that atheists, postmodernists, nihilists, existentialists, etc. can dismiss that as "relative" or nonchalantly treat it as a trivial matter undeserving justice. So, it is clear to me that objective morals or the sense of right and wrong are etched in our being.
Some claim that morality is a man-made construct. But is it? Let's discuss this contention more carefully.
1. It's been argued that morality or ethics were created by the powerful (elites) to control or manipulate the powerless (masses). But, that sounds backward or wrong because much of moral choice/behavior deal with protecting and fairly treating the weak/powerless. Strike one. 2. Nietzsche claimed that the those who were weak yet cunning (educated) flipped everything upside-down, thus, making morals and ethics favorable to their dominance rather than that of the traditionally powerful (hunters/warriors/soldiers). Even if that were true, where did the original idea or concept of morals come from? Strike two.
3. Evolutionists claim that morals or ethics are mere tools of survival. For example, being nice increases your chance of survival because your nicety invites reciprocity and allows you to remain as member of a herd (greater protection and mating opportunity). Yet, psychologists tell us that (1) man is hard-wired with the sense of right and wrong, and (2) much of morals has nothing to do with one's survival.
3.a. Let's analyze the first point. Arthur Dorin (Hofstra University) reports that, Larry Nicci (psychologist at University of Illinois, Chicago) posits in Education in the Moral Domain that there are personal preferences (choosing red over blue, for example), social conventions (ex. driving on either right side or left side of the road), and intrinsic morality (ex. hitting someone hard for no reason is wrong). Nicci's finding is based on observation of very young children who distinguish right from wrong even when rules were not taught to them. Thus, the sense of right/wrong is innate rather than constructed or taught.
3.b. On the second point. There are examples showing that morally right choices (ex. saving someone from drowning, or taking a bullet for someone else) has nothing to do with your own survival. We see similar examples in mothers/fathers as they rear and protect their child (although one can argue that parental sacrifice has everything to do with passing on their gene, I think that's more of argument for the sake of argument).
Thus, strike three.
The sense of right and wrong is universal and objective--even atheists ‘borrow’ such standards to make the argument that everything is relative. Further, based on the brief discussion above, we can confidently claim that (1) objective morals or right/wrong exist, and (2) it is not man-made. If so, the universality of morals (transcending time, culture, language, and region) points to the existence of the Moral Giver.
Comments