Do Moral Absolutes Exist in Our World?

 
Whose Idea of Right and Wrong Is Right?
Many of the people in the world around us embrace divergent worldviews, and many of their views contradict the Christian perspective. As a result, it’s often difficult to get people to even consider the Christian version of moral accountability. In fact, many resist the notion that there is an absolute moral code that comes from a source higher than themselves. When considering the existence of moral truths, the questions are simple: “Does morality come from people or does morality come from God?” “Does our society shape our moral beliefs, or are they handed down to us from God?” If we, as people, are the source of moral truth then we can simply follow our own path. But if morality comes from a source greater than ourselves, we have an obligation to that source and we ought to at least make an effort to identify the source of all moral truth. The secular world will tell you that morality emerges from people and societies and not from God:

 
Friedrich Nietzsche
“The masters have been done away with; the morality of the common man has triumphed.”

Albert Einstein
“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it.”

 
They will also try to tell you that even the idea of ‘absolute moral truth’ is dangerous:

 
Henry Thomas Buckle
“If you can impress any man with an absorbing conviction of the supreme importance of some moral or religious doctrine, if you can make him believe that those who reject that doctrine are doomed to eternal perdition; if you then give that man power, and by means of his ignorance blind him to the ulterior consequences of his own act, he will infallibly persecute those who deny his doctrine”

Marquis de Sade
“All universal moral principles are idle fantasies.”

 
Does It Come From the Culture?
You see, many people in our world have adopted the idea that our culture is responsible for our values and morals. They believe that we have somehow decided as a group what is morally ‘right’ and ‘true’ and just how it is that we should conform to this truth. Where and when did we decide this? Well, many would argue that it is decided every day in our courtrooms. All across the nation, cases are tried in our courts that have moral implications, and the courts make decisions that don’t simply reflect our moral values, but actually SHAPE our moral values. In essence, many believe that the culture is the source for all moral truth, and the courts are the venue in which this moral truth is decided. But let’s think about this for a minute. If an issue is decided in a courtroom, does that make it ‘right’ from a moral perspective?

What about the issue of abortion? Does the fact that we made it ‘legal’ now mean that it is ‘moral’? On the day that Roe vs. Wade was decided, was there actually a change in moral truth (what was morally true one day, completely changed the next)? Regardless of how you feel about the issue, it’s hard to believe that the court decision ITSELF created the moral truth… And what if the legal system refuses to act on a behavior practiced by the culture? Does his certify the behavior as moral? What if, for example, a culture decides to overlook the killing of millions of baby girls because poverty and overcrowding are so severe that only the most treasured of children (boys, namely) are commonly desired? What if cases of this kind of infanticide never even reach the courtroom because the culture has accepted it, as it clearly has in China today? Does this LACK of legal intervention make the act a moral one? What about other acts that are not deemed illegal by the courts? Is adultery morally acceptable simply because it is legal?

What if a society repeatedly authorizes and establishes a discriminatory system like apartheid? What if the courts in that country continue to uphold the principles of this system? Are all its proponents then ‘off the hook’ because they are simply responding to the values established in the court, or is there a higher authority above all of this? If the society and courts are the shapers of morality, then we are powerless to judge apparent evil in the world. Even when we see an evil regime involved in incredible destruction, we really have no right to say or do anything about it if their culture is the bottom line authority in issues of morality.

This is exactly what Hitler’s henchmen claimed when they were on trial in Nuremburg following World War II. They were tried as war criminals for the incredible evil they inflicted on millions of war prisoners. In their defense, they argued that their culture and courts had decided this kind of behavior was actually legal. In fact, they argued that their culture had advanced and rewarded each of them in recognition of the very behavior for which they were now standing trial! They argued that ‘foreigners’ had no right to enter into their culture’s moral code and insert another code after the fact. As moral relativists who believed that all moral truths come from the culture in which they exist, the war criminals claimed that the international courts simply had no jurisdiction or authority. So what ultimately happened? The international courts tried these men, found them guilty and executed them! The international community recognized the fact that there is a higher source for moral truth, and they were willing to appeal to this higher source in deciding the fate of these war criminals.

How Did We Get Here?
So how did we get to a place in our own culture today where we are about to reject the idea that moral truth comes from something higher than our cultures and is therefore ‘absolute’ in nature? It all started in the 1800’s in a movement known as Romanticism. This movement was clearly a response to a social system in which there was a true gap between those who had everything (money and power) and were able to shape the morality of the culture, and those who had nothing (living at the lower levels of society). The Romanticists reacted with their own versions of social justice, teaching, in essence, that the poor are morally superior to the rich and that the criminal is somehow spiritually superior to the law-abiding citizens. This was done to force monarchies of the 1800's to change their political and elite structures. As a result, concepts of evil, like hell and Satan, were glamorized into glorious figures of goodness under this ideology. Good was evil and evil was good, and this inverted moral structure was advanced in order to protest moral, social, and political injustices of time, whether imaginary or real. Romanticism became a rejection of the existing precepts of order, calm, harmony, and balance that typified the culture of the time. Romanticism emphasized the ‘individual’, the ‘subjective’, the ‘irrational’, the ‘imaginative’, the ‘personal’, the ‘spontaneous’, the ‘emotional’, the ‘visionary’, and the ‘transcendental’.

The basic ideals of Romanticism became popularized by Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, and Friedrich Nietzsche, the founder of Nihilism, both from the 1800's. Communism is a theory and system of social and political organization that dominated much of the history of the 20th century. In theory, communism proposes a classless society in which all property is owned by the community as a whole and where all people enjoy equal social and economic status. As a political movement, communism sought to overthrow capitalism through a workers’ revolution and redistribute the wealth in the hands of the proletariat, or working class. Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns the idea of ‘existence’. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose (other than possibly an impulse to destroy). While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, Nietzsche argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and create the greatest crisis in all human history.

Our World Today
So, how does all this apply to our current situation? Throughout the Twentieth Century, more and more people became educated and exposed to these emerging philosophies, primarily because the elitists of the 1800's who were taught these doctrines gave birth to more elitists who became professors, teachers, judges, and journalists. As a result, our culture was quick to accept moral relativity and even to praise those who live a life that is contrary to the moral norm.

Think about it. Our history is replete with the adoration of bad boys. We love them and promote their behavior. Our society has been captivated with known criminals like Al Capone, and Bonnie and Clyde. We’ve also loved the edgiest of celebrities like James Dean and Vin Diesel. And our sports heroes always include a healthy dose of near criminals like Dennis Rodman. Just like the Romanticists of the past, we continue to lift up the lowest values in our society until there is no distinction left. All morals, either good or bad, eventually become of equal value. In this kind of a world, moral truths are simply a matter of opinion. Moral truth is only a matter of societal perspective. What you think is ‘right’ may be ‘right’ to you, but please don’t try to force your moral code on me in some effort to control my behavior. Your code has no more value than mine.

Many people in our world today make the simple claim that all morality is personal and comes from the culture in which we live. From their perspective, there are no moral absolutes that transcend culture, time or location; no culture can therefore judge its own morality as better than the morality of others. This is a tremendous claim in and of itself, so we need to look at some of the reasons why people believe this to be true and examine the consequence of such views.

So, Where Did Morality Come From?
First, let’s take a very brief look at the naturalist perspective on morality. Many evolutionists and secular naturalists believe that morality has emerged over time as a human necessity. They believe that people groups survive best when they adopt a moral code that reduces mayhem and violence, and provides for the most civil environment in which to raise children and promote the general welfare of the society. This is how they account for common moral codes across the globe; we humans have adopted similar codes because we are similarly human. In essence, this view of moral ‘grounding’ maintains that you and I have adopted the codes from our parents, who first learned them from their parents, and so forth and so on, going back in time as long as there have been humans present on the planet. This kind of moral evolution is sometimes called ‘evolutionary psychology’ and it attempts to explain the development of moral truths as a part of the evolutionary process for humans. It presumes that moral truths originate in primitive social groups who adopted certain codes in order to best advance the species. But let’s think about that for a second.

Why is it that we as humans hate cowardice, selfishness, unfaithfulness, or senseless cruelty? It can easily be argued that these behaviors can actually promote the success and survival of a primitive group of humans as they combat the competing people groups around them. Sometimes cowardice (the simple act of running away) assures your survival! Selfish tribes who think only of themselves are MORE likely to survive in a dog eat dog world. Unfaithfulness will lead to further propagation of a blood line with an even larger number of children. Doesn’t that help assure the survival of the species? And in the most primitive of times, senseless cruelty and the killing of your enemy’s infants will certainly guarantee that your enemies will not grow up around you. All of these moral taboos could easily be seen as virtues to primitive cultures. Yet they are almost unanimously accepted as moral ‘evils’ across cultural lines. Is it really possible that the most primitive of men, thousands of years ago (cavemen, if you will) would somehow hesitate to kill a rival based on a self imposed ethic? (More on this HERE).

Why would we assume that primitive individuals would ever want to put the good of the SPECIES over the good of themselves or their own family units? When times got tough and small families found themselves in desperate situations, do we really think that they submitted sacrificially to some moral code that was in the best interest of the species rather than their family? Doesn’t history show us that over and over again, societies fought for their own survival and disregarded all moral codes in an effort to stay alive? There are still secluded primitive people groups in our world that live the most violent of lives, demonstrating this natural and innate tendency toward self survival, regardless of the moral truth. These groups simply demonstrate the reality of our moral condition and the fact that humans cannot be trusted to develop the moral codes we embrace today.

And even if we believed that individuals have a deep desire to promote the wellbeing of the species, thus accounting for the formation of moral codes over time, where does this deep desire to advance the larger group (even at the expense of the individual) come from? It seems that we have pushed the origin of morality question back one level. Now we have to account for our transcendent desire to promote the species rather than our own family! Where does that come from? Natural processes simply fail to explain where moral truths originate.

So, What Are the Consequences of All of This?
But we need to do more than simply examine the fallacious explanation of moral grounding offered by secular naturalists. We need to look deeply at the world around us and see if it is even possible for us to live in a world that has no moral absolutes, and we need to examine the consequence of living in such a world. Many in academia now believe that there are no absolutes at all (in either the area of ‘truth’ in general or ‘morality’ in particular). Professors across the nation are promoting ‘moral relativity’; either teaching it directly or advancing a worldview that assumes it to be true. But let’s think about this for a moment. Unless there ARE moral absolutes, much of what academia has come to appreciate and respect in our culture would not, and could not, exist. Let’s look at just a few aspects of our life that require moral absolutes:

 
All True Praise Requires A Moral Absolute
Now, how many of you have heard a professor praise someone who recently won some type of international humanitarian award? Many in academia hold a high regard for those who win international awards and honors in the pursuit of humanitarian efforts, but remember that it is impossible to truly praise anyone in this way without the existence of a transcendent, absolute, moral standard! Oh sure, if there was no transcendent, absolute standard, we could still make trite statements about the ‘relative’ goodness of some action. For example, we could honor someone and say, “We praise you for doing something that we happen to value in this culture; something that is good to us, even if it may not be good to anyone else.” But international awards assume that there is some standard of goodness that all of us agree on regardless of culture! Awards of this type assume that there is a transcendent ‘good’ that we are honoring across cultural boundaries! When we receive praise from someone, we want it to be more than the opinion of the person giving it. For example, do you remember growing up as a teenager and hearing your mom tell you that you were handsome or pretty? Didn’t you take that compliment with a measure of hesitancy; with a grain of salt? You knew that this was only the biased opinion of someone who loves you; you knew that you may not have been getting the objective truth. You and I want to be praised under an objective standard that transcends opinion. We want to know if we are ‘truly’ handsome or ‘truly’ pretty. True praise requires an objective standard related to what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

 
All True Condemnation Requires A Moral Absolute
In a similar way, it is also impossible to truly condemn anyone unless there is an absolute standard with which to judge moral behavior. Professors often find themselves condemning those who they think embody evil in our world (Hitler is a good example). But let’s look closely at their condemnation. When a professor says that he or she believes someone or something to be evil, they really don’t mean it is just their personal opinion. Instead, they mean that this person or thing is ‘truly’ evil and deserves the condemnation of ALL of us! The professor wants to convince us that we too should see this person or thing as evil. But such transcendent condemnation also requires that there be a moral absolute that defines transcendent evil. If we accept the idea that nothing is transcendently and universally evil, we are going to have to admit that what one person might see as evil, another might see as good. In a world like this, there is really no sense in making condemning statements at all. Condemnation in a world like this is mere opinion, and in the end it presumes that the ‘condemner’ has some right to judge others who simply may not agree with what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. In this kind of world, firm condemnation is arrogant and self righteous.

 
All Moral Activism Requires A Moral Absolute
And how many times have you heard a professor talk glowingly about moral reformers like Martin Luther King Jr.? Well, there are definitely times when an activist sees a society in need of improvement and feels compelled to propose some alteration or reform for its citizens. But think about that… ‘moral relativism’ proposes that all moral truth comes from the society in which the moral truth exists; morals are the result of societal groups. So when a society decides that something is morally ‘right’ and the vast majority of its members agree on this, on what basis can a lone reformer make a call for change? To what standard is this moral reformer appealing? If moral truths come from the society, then whatever the society believes is, by definition, morally ‘right’. The majority rules, and this group, by definition, is the source of moral truth. In a world like this, the minority position is immoral by definition. Moral reformers simply cannot say that they are arguing for a moral truth unless they are AGREEING with the society. In short, anyone who advocates reform in this kind of world is morally mistaken. A moral reformer like a Martin Luther King Jr. simply could not exist (as a person holding a minority position) and argue that he possesses a moral truth that the rest of us should accept.

 
All Tolerance Requires A Moral Absolute
Finally, let’s take a look at the much loved attribute of ‘tolerance’. Professors across the land often wax eloquent about the value of tolerance, but it’s important to recognize that tolerance is impossible unless there are moral absolutes. Tolerance begins with a disagreement (more on this HERE). When two people disagree, tolerance is the behavior employed to coexist in spite of the disagreement! When two people agree, there is nothing to tolerate! Tolerance is reserved for those with whom we disagree. But if we are living in a society in which all diversity is to be embraced with equal status and value, a world in which nothing is wrong and we accept everything, there is nothing with which we can disagree. And without disagreement, there is no need for tolerance.

 
Some of the greatest thinkers in academia don’t seem to have thought through the issue of absolute, objective morality. While they claim that we live in a world of moral relativism, they still cling to the virtues of true praise, righteous condemnation, moral activism and tolerance; virtues that REQUIRE the world to be one of moral absolutism! Their worldview is self-contradictory; it is impossible to live out the principles that they believe.

 
So, Where Are We Headed?
As we stop and examine the relativistic moral worldview that the culture (and some of the culture’s greatest thinkers) promote, we might want to ask where this is all leading. One way to assess the potential significance, value or worth of a particular moral point of view is to ask a few simple questions: what kind of moral person does this point of view produce? If we were to adopt this notion of morality, what kind of person would we ultimately be? How might we behave? You see, ideas have consequences and our behaviors follow the intentions of our heart. Our actions then define us as human beings. Think about some of the people who stand out from history as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ moral characters. If we look very closely, we can see that their moral perspectives informed their behavior which in turn defined their lives. Here are just a few examples:

These three figures from the past embodied the worldviews that they held. Their lives epitomized the moral standards, ideals and values that they believed to be true. We can evaluate their moral worldview by simply looking at the fruit of their lives. Mother Theresa, Ghandi and Jesus lived lives that were the logical extensions of their moral worldviews.

Now let’s think hard about moral relativism for a minute. Let’s think about what kind of life might emerge from the belief that all morals are equally valuable and that ‘people’ are ultimately the source of all moral truths. What kind of life results from the notion that I need not submit to any moral code outside of my own design?

Don’t get me wrong, this is not to say that all moral relativists are sociopaths! That would be a ridiculous claim. But moral relativism does allow us to ultimately look to ourselves for the moral code that will guide our lives. Moral relativism encourages us to say, “What’s ‘right’ to you may be ‘right’ to you, but what’s ‘right’ to me is ‘right’ to me!” Carried out to its logical conclusion, this kind of isolated and disconnected ‘island’ morality allows us to be comfortable with any moral code that may conform to our desires (whether good or evil). This is the definition of what it is to be a sociopath. Jeffrey Dahmer was someone who believed that his own moral code was more important than any transcendent truth about right or wrong. When they conducted the search warrant at Jeffrey’s home they found the remains of 17 victims. Clearly Dahmer had developed a personal morality which allowed for the murder, dismemberment and cannibalization of his human victims. It didn’t matter what God thought. It didn’t matter what the culture thought. He was moral relativism was personified to the extreme.

The Consequence of Sloppy Moral Thinking
In spite of what the relativistic culture might be trying to tell us, the nature of moral truth is objective and transcendent. It’s important for us to recognize that the existence of just one objective and transcendent moral truth (like the fact that it s never ‘good’ to torture babies for fun) demonstrates this reality (more on this HERE). If people are reflective on this issue, they will generally see that they are living lives that reflect the fact that they DO believe that moral truths transcend the society in which they live. Many simply refuse to admit this is true, and sadly, we all know there is a consequence for ignoring moral truth. We know this from our own personal experience and we know this from the special revelation of the scriptures:

 
Proverbs 15:9-10
The LORD is disgusted with all who do wrong, but he loves everyone who does right. If you turn from the right way, you will be punished; if you refuse correction, you will die.

 
Transcendent moral truths have great value in that they provide protection from irresponsible behaviors that ultimately hurt each of us (individually) and hurt our relationship with God. It’s been said that “good fences make good neighbors” because fences allow each neighbor to know his or her boundaries. In a similar way, “good fences (moral codes) make good people” because they delineate the moral boundaries that ultimately protect us from doing wrong. It’s not enough for us to embrace and accept a particular moral code. We first need to think clearly about the SOURCE of that moral code. If the source is transcendent and unchanging, we will come to recognize that moral truths are not trivial and transient; they are as fixed unchanging as their source. If this is true, then we are less likely to exchange them whenever we please to meet our human desires.

So, Why Do Christians Stumble?
If Christians are so sure that morality does not come from people or societal groups, but instead comes from a much Higher Source, why do they sometimes succumb to the morality of our society when it runs completely contrary to their belief? Is it because they want to avoid confrontation, or is it just because it is often easier to live life as the world lives it rather than to live a life that reflects the transcendent moral truth of our Creator?

Part of their problem with relativism is that even when Christians say that they reject it and believe that there is a higher absolute standard, they still live as though there are several standards. Even Christians have to admit that they sometimes live one way in their church setting, and another way when they are away from the safety and boundaries of the church family. So here’s the challenge for those of us who call ourselves Christians as we come to grips with God’s Moral Standard. We all must avoid moral relativity in our own lives. Let’s live with one moral code, regardless of our environment, because there clearly are moral absolutes.