Are there laws of morality?
(The problem of ethics)

This is a day that is marked by pluralism, tolerance, and relativism. Can anyone say for sure what is right and wrong with so many ideas competing in the marketplace of thought? We have to some degree as a culture lost the idea of absolutes and replaced it with different strokes for different folks. What is right for you might not be right for me.

So we might begin by asking a tongue in cheek question that is not really a play on words: Are you absolutely sure that there are no absolutes? In answering that, one finds oneself on the horns of a dilemma. In fact, what one finds is that there are ethical absolutes and that those absolutes tend to agree with one's one set of ethics. So people will say there are no ethical absolutes, that some former absolutes should be relative. But then the things that they believe have to be believed by everyone, and they are going to enforce it with the power of the State if they have to, e.g. there are no absolutes, and everyone had better believe it. However, if we are going to rule out absolutes, then we must do it in a consistent way.

The truth is that we all have a standard of what we consider to be right and wrong. Each of us tries to justify our own ethical principles. What are some ways that people try to justify their own ethical standards apart from the Bible? Do they work? Are they consistent? Or are they simply arbitrary?

There are those who would hold out that it is okay to do something as long as it does not hurt someone else. What is wrong with that kind of thinking? The question that immediately comes to mind is: Why is it wrong to hurt other people? How do you justify that claim?

In fact, if you are a non-Christian who is an atheist, then you believe that this world came about through the chance forces of evolution. According to that view of history and the development of the human race, a good portion of the evolutionary process is a matter of dog eat dog, survival of the fittest. Nature is red in tooth and claw. The surviving races and species are usually so because they have been willing to hurt others and take advantage of them. You know that out in the realm of nature, there would not be any species of animal that was not willing to feed on other living forms. That is true of us too. So nature would seem to suggest to us that hurting is a part of the evolutionary process.

In fact, you say that sexual immorality is acceptable because that is just the way that nature made us. If that is true, then how do you defend the fact that nature has also made us violent, so there is no reason on your view of the world why we should not hurt other people. In fact, it is not only acceptable to hurt someone on your view of the world, there is also a good reason for it – to survive. In fact, with such an evolutionary view of the world, one could become someone who hurts people for entertainment. There are people who are like that in this world. Just think of the Columbine High School tragedy.

Though from a Christian standpoint, they are horrible people, and as Christians we would condemn them severely, we have a reason to do so. While one would not question your condemnation of such people as well, but for what reason given your view of the world?

But you might retort, if everybody did this, then we would not survive well as a species. In fact, if everyone did this then there is a chance that the whole race would die out.

Of course, I would have to ask you just how you know that. That is a humongous prophecy about the future and I would doubt whether or not you have enough evidence to support it. But let's just say for the moment, it is true. But let me ask you this: Why would it be wrong for the human race to die out?

Many species have gone by the way in the history of evolution. Since that is the course of evolution, why shouldn't the human species die out? Why is that a bad thing, from an evolutionary point of view?

But the fact of the matter is that not everyone is going to want to hurt other people. That is a fact of nature too. Not everyone gets pleasure out of hurting people and not everyone hurts people to the point where they die. So why should we say that it is wrong for everyone? That is the only fair thing. If it is wrong for everybody, then it needs to be wrong for you as an individual.

In other words, you are appealing then to a principle that we must distribute moral rights evenly and that is why we should not hurt someone else. Where do you come up with the idea that moral rights should be distributed evenly?

Here is a sign that says Don't Walk on the Grass. Being a belligerent person, I am going to walk on the grass. Someone pleads with me, reasons with me by saying, There is a good reason for that sign. If everyone was to walk on the grass then the grass would die out and it would be just muddy there. So if you enjoy having grass there, then you should not walk on it.

My simple reply is: You are right if everyone walks on it, it will. But not everyone is going to walk on it, so I will go ahead and walk on it.

You might take offense at that and tell me it isn't fair, but I will simply ask where you got the idea that moral rights must be evenly distributed. The fact is I am claiming a moral exception. Since I know that not everyone is going to walk on the grass with that sign there, I will be the exception. A few exceptions can be tolerated without killing the grass.

But if you hurt people, they might hurt you. It is in your best interest not to go around hurting other people. It is a form of self-preservation.

But what if a person is a masochist, and they really wish that people would hurt them? But I know that you do not believe that, and neither do I. The point is that as a Christian I have a reason to believe it, but you don't given your view of the world.

But it is in the prudential interest of the greatest number of people to have laws which forbid hurting other people? But who says that everybody should be happy? Where do we find that principle? Besides, why should a person care if everyone else is happy, as long the individual is happy? This person feels the best when he is hurting someone else.

You might come up with other consequences that you believe would be detrimental, but the question comes back to What is wrong with those consequences. On what authority would you claim that those consequences are detrimental? Besides, in a random, chance universe how can you ever predict the future and its consequences.

The truth is that everyone wants to live by an ethic. There are things that we would both find wrong and repulsive. We do not believe child molestation is right. But in your view of the world how can you say it is wrong? In the Christian view of the world, God condemns it and says that such people should be executed. But on your view of the survival of the fittest, how do you defend such a position. The truth is that while you condemn the action, you have no right to do so. Once again, you borrow from the Christian view of the world in order to live in this world which was created by God and is governed by His law, yet at the same time denying He exists or that you owe Him anything.

The truth is that you do believe in moral absolutes. The simple fact that you might be debating in your own mind the claims of Christianity is evidence that you believe in such absolutes. How? Is it all right for me to lie to you in order to convince you that my point of view is correct? Why not? Why shouldn't I try to win the debate any way I can, if it is for your own good, or if it makes me happy to win such debates?

In fact, why should we be going to the laws of logic rather than the laws of violence to settle our differences? Most people would say that violence is a much more effective than logic in getting ahead in life. Why shouldn't we resort to violence to settle the argument?

Moreover, your very debating with a Christian is a sign that you have already bought into the Christian's worldview.

Do not be a hypocrite about what you believe. Live consistently within it. If everyone can create their own reality, if everyone is right, then no one is wrong. Therefore, you lose all moral ground to condemn Hitler for the Holocaust because he just created his own reality and culture where it was okay to kill Jews, Poles, and other people he considered inferior. You lose all ground to condemn the South for their cultural racism, and you must say that it was wrong for Martin Luther King, Jr. to try to change their ethical norms. It is just different strokes for different folks. You have to respect other points of view.

No, truth is not person relative. Truth is declared by the One who is absolute Truth and He has declared it for all of us to read in the Bible. He is the only One who is able to set the absolute standard for right and wrong. We must submit to His rule. But there is our problem. We want to be God. We want to set the standards ourselves. We want to be the #1 person in the universe. We are rebels at heart.

Dr. Cornelius Van Til used to give the illustration of a child slapping her father in the face. The only way that a child can do that is if she is sitting on her Father's lap. So as rebels, we sit on God's lap and slap Him in the face, refusing to submit our will to His. We use the Christian view of the world in order to argue that there is no God and no Christian view of the world.