Take Your Compass #5 - What about morality continued.
In Compass #1, we looked at the definition of a Worldview, and what the minimal requirements are. In Compass #2, we looked at the most basic questions of life that a Worldview should ask. In Compass #3, we looked at the meaning of truth. In Compass #4, we began to look at the issue of morality which will finish today.
When challenged on how the Christian God could exist when there is so much evil in the world, Ravi Zacharias famously answered:
“When you say there’s too much evil in this world you assume there’s good. When you assume there’s good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that’s Who you’re trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there’s no moral Law Giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil. What is your question?”
This logic is airtight. It is denied everywhere. People will rage against it, but it has never been defeated, and never will be. All systems and all Worldviews that posit a subjective morality, are actually proposing no morality at all, no “ought to be.” They propose mere preferences, whims, feelings, desires, and whatever just happens to be accepted at a particular time and place.
On a daily basis you will run into people with worldviews that presuppose a materialist (physicalist) viewpoint, that is, the belief that there are no immaterial things, or at a minimum that the things that appear to be immaterial are connected to and inseparable from the material.
Materialists will propose differing ideas about moral laws:
Morality could be just a bunch of rules that help personal autonomy. That logically does not get you anywhere.
Morality could be based on autonomy and consent. Again, that does not get you anywhere. (This is a popular stream of thought today, that everything can be worked out “morally” by autonomy and consent. It is a great evil and deserves a strong rebuttal. This may be a future topic.)
Morality is an illusion. Ultimately the same as no morality, but everyone embraces some moral law from somewhere.
Moral rules are cosmic accidents, brute fact. That's just the way it is. It is just part of the universe. Why would anyone obey a moral law from a non-intelligent source? And how does the material bring about an immaterial moral law?
Evolution produced moral laws. Our ‘meat computers’ are hard wired to moral beliefs. This can only account for the material, and the physical behavior. It cannot account for motive, intent, or real sense of oughtness. Evolutionary ‘morality’ is an appeal to the past. Why should you be good tomorrow?
In this often upside down world you can know and trust these things about objective moral laws:
Moral laws are not physical. They are patently immaterial.
Meaning and intent, which are critical in moral judgment, are objectively real and immaterial.
Moral laws are communication, they have cognitive content.
Moral laws have incumbency. They are prior to any behavior.
Moral laws have an oughtness. Oughtness is immaterial.
We react with guilt and discomfort when we break moral laws.
Moral laws are not reducible to non moral goods or powers.
Moral laws have/show an intelligence.
Below is a link to a great five minute video that lays out both the difference between subjective and objective morality, and the Moral Argument for the necessity of a moral law giver. It is well worth your five minutes. Link: The Moral Argument.
Recommended book: Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air by Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl. Buy from Summit or Amazon.
Next week, What are the Major Worldviews?
Thank you for reading!
JW
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis