Morality (Moral Law)

My argument is that the best (most reasonable) account for objective morality is that necessarily, if moral values exist, then GOD exists. Necessarily, moral values do exist. Therefore, necessarily, GOD exists. In other words, if GOD does not exist, morality would most certainly be relative. If GOD does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, GOD exists.

Now, some people claim to be moral realists and hold to the belief that morality is objective, yet they proclaim to be atheists. So, really, the question we must ask ourselves is this: what is the best account of objective moral values and duties? And I’m going to argue two points:

1. Theism provides a sound foundation for the objectivity of moral values and duties.
2. Atheism does not provide as sound a foundation as theism for the objectivity of moral values and duties.

Legislators govern actions by deeming some actions permissible and other actions impermissible. Laws don’t indicate whether an action is good or bad; they simply permit or prohibit. So “moral” deals with right/wrong, and good/bad.

People can deny the absolute moral law with their lips, but they cannot deny it by the way they live their lives. This is evident by how they respond when something wrong is done to them. The moral law is innately within us and it universal. Now, the exception is not the rule just as the existence of blind or deaf people is the exception and not the rule. We do naturally know a difference between what we want to do and what should be done.

Without an objective standard or reference point, we can’t argue that anything is good or bad, right or wrong. Think of a compass. Without true north, how do you know what is west, east, or south? When a diver gets disoriented in the sea, an air bubble might travel down, and that’s how you would know that that’s actually the way up to the surface. Also, we cannot know what is crooked without first knowing the standard of straight. There’s always an objective standard or reference point. And this is why atheist Richard Dawkins was actually correct for saying that without GOD, there would be no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. However, objective moral values do exist— even atheist Michael Ruse appealed to the absolute moral standard when he said that the man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.

Culture can’t explain away the absolute moral standard. For example, in some cultures, cows are considered to be sacred and are not allowed to be eaten, while in other cultures, cows are considered livestock and people are encouraged to eat them. This appears to be polar opposites in values between cultures, but it’s not. In India, cows are considered sacred because of the belief of reincarnation. Cows are believed to possess the souls of deceased loved ones and, therefore, are not eaten. In America, I’d argue that most people do not consider cows to possess the souls of deceased loved ones, and thus can be eaten. But in both cases, Christians in America and Hindus in India hold to the same moral standard that it is wrong to eat a deceased loved one. And even a cannibal will argue for his own life and try to convince you not to eat him. 

A person — even a scientist — might be able to tell you if an action may hurt someone; however, no mere human is able to tell you whether you ought to do something without appealing to an absolute standard of good. Logic cannot obtain “ought” from mere descriptions of “is,” that is, of the way things are.

Even naturalistic evolution doesn’t explain what it’s meant to explain because it only accounts for preprogrammed behavior, not moral choices. Morality dictates what future behavior ought to be. Darwinism can only attempt to describe why humans acted in a certain way in the past. Unless we are nihilists and we assume the universe is irrational, there must be an objective moral law. But objective moral laws require an objective Moral Law Giver. Consider the following:

(1) There must be a universal moral law, or else:
[a] Moral disagreements would make no sense (as we all assume they do).
[b] All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong”).
[c] It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties (as we all assume that it is).
[d] We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law (as we all do).

(2)  But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver, since the Source of it:
[a] Gives moral commands (as law givers do).
[b] Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are).

(3)  Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good:
[a] Otherwise all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right.
[b] The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.

(4)  Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.

Theism provides a sound foundation for objective moral duties. On a theistic view, objective moral duties are constituted by GOD’s commands. GOD’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commandments. These constitute our moral obligations.

If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would always be right, but they are not; the stronger impulse would always win, but it does not.

Neither can moral law be mere social convention, because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every society, past and present. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if society were the basis of the judgments.

Moral law is not mere human preference or popular agreement. All value judgements would be meaningless, including such statements as “Hate is wrong” and “Racism is wrong.” Moral objectivity is a rationally necessary postulate because something cannot be judged as better or worse unless there is an objective standard of comparison. Moral disagreements demand an objective standard because opposites cannot both be right. If a man declares that raping a woman is acceptable, but the woman disagrees, there must be an objective standard of right by which to measure the action. The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect. For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to be unjust. One cannot call something crooked unless the standard of straight has been established. Evil in the world presupposes a perfect standard of goodness. For if anyone insists there is real imperfection in the world, then there must be a perfect standard by which this is known. When atheists or secular humanists proclaim that they can be moral or good, they are appealing to the absolute standard of good. Without the absolute moral standard by which all actions are to be compared, good is relative and any claim to be morally right would be futile.

Without the objective moral standard, no real moral disagreements would ever have occurred, each person being right from his/her own moral perspective. No moral judgment would ever have been wrong, each being subjectively right. No ethical question could ever be discussed, there being no objective meaning to any ethical terms. Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct.

In conclusion to Point 1, moral relativism is absolutely absurd and is self-defeating because moral relativism fails to meet its own requirements. There does exist an absolute moral standard beyond us, and I would argue that the Creator GOD is the absolute moral standard because objective moral laws require a Moral Law Giver and accountability to those objective moral laws. And theism is grounded in GOD, who is the greatest conceivable Being. GOD’s moral nature is expressed to us through divine commandments, which constitutes our morals duties or obligations.

WHY NOT ATHEISM:

Point 2: Morality without GOD is mere materialism without accountability. If there’s no ultimate end consequence of a moral choice, what makes it moral? If you were to steal something and no one sees you, and the theft benefits your life, how could it be wrong if it aided in your survival and no one held you accountable for your action? Thus you would receive no consequence for the theft, only a benefit. So how could it be wrong on a purely naturalistic point of view? If life ends at the grave, it ultimately makes no difference whether you live as a Stalin or Mother Theresa, KKK or MLK.

An absolutely perfect moral ideal exists (at least psychologically in our minds). An absolutely perfect moral law can exist only if there is an absolutely perfect moral Mind. Ideas can exist only if there are minds (thoughts depend on thinkers). And absolute ideas depend on an absolute Mind (not on individual [finite] minds like ours). Hence, it’s rationally necessary to postulate an absolute Mind as the basis for the absolutely perfect moral idea. The fact is that ideas only exist in minds. And it takes a Mind to produce a mind. Godless moral realism asserts a causal connection between physical things and abstract objects. Physical causes are not agents and so act blindly, which makes it unintelligible why they instantiate the right abstract objects. It’s rather absurd to postulate a realm of strange abstract moral objects that mysteriously supervene on physicals states of affair.

I’ll also argue that if GOD does not exist, true free will cannot exist. If atheism is true, we live in a purely material universe, consisting of nothing more than space, time, and matter, governed by nothing more than the laws of physics and chemistry. If that’s the case, everything in our purely physical universe is determined by prior physical causes. The neurons in your physical brain are firing based on the prior firing of neurons. These events are like dominoes that fall because they were struck by prior falling dominoes; you don’t have any control of this sequence of events. That’s why atheists like Sam Harris (trained as a neuroscientist) deny the existence of human free agency altogether. Atheists such as Harris claim free agency is an illusion. But without a mind; without free will, moral obligation goes out the window. But we have good evidence to demonstrate that the universe is not how atheists describe it. Either moral actions are uncaused, caused by another, or caused by oneself. No action can be uncaused— this violates the fundamental rational principle that every event has a cause. Neither can a person’s actions be caused by others, for in that case, they would not be personal actions and thus no accountability can be held nor charged. A complete determinist viewpoint is self-defeating. A determinist would insist that both determinists and nondeterminists are determined to believe what they believe. However, determinists believe self-determinists are wrong and ought to change their view. But “ought to change” implies freedom to change, which is contrary to determinism.

WALKING CONTRADICTION:
GOD’s moral qualities are an essential part of GOD’s nature. A big problem with the position of the godless moral realist is that every moral realist theory must have an explanatory stopping point at which one reaches the ultimate good. So, who/what is the absolute standard, the ultimate good, for the godless? For the godless, it seems it would have to be self, herd, or social convention. And all three of those are insufficient and collapse into relativism. The godless moral realist might admit that morality is objective for something like murder, yet he lives as a moral relativist, determining right/wrong and good/bad either by what he personally believes, the herd believes, or via social convention. And this is the ultimate problem with godless moral realism: you have no absolute standard by which to abide unless the standard is yourself, or herd mentality, or social convention. Who/what is the ultimate good? What is the atheist’s explanatory stopping point at which one reaches the ultimate good? Godless moral realism will always collapse into moral relativism, which is absolutely absurd and self-defeating.

REFUTATION:

Godless moral realists smuggle in human flourishing as if it is a good thing, but you don’t present sufficient evidence as to what makes that action right or wrong. Why would human flourishing be a good thing? On the atheistic worldview, humans are just accidental byproducts of nature, which have evolved relatively recently, on an infinitesimal spec of dust called the planet earth, and we are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On atheism, it’s hard to see why human well-being is good anymore than insect well-being, or rodent well-being. Now, if you are akin to platonism and believe that when the right physical situations occur in the world, that morality, as an abstract object, supervenes itself with the physical human on the right situations, it’s as absurd as the human doing the square root of two rather than moral goodness. How would abstract objects like goodness or badness become attached to physical situations? How can a physical object somehow reach out and causally connect to a transcendent causally isolated abstract object? How do these physical situations know which abstract objects to instantiate? What if instead of picking out moral goodness, some physical situation might pick out moral badness? Even more absurd, what if it picks out some other abstract object like the square root of four to instantiate? And so two people loving each other has the property of the square root of four? No. I reject that entirely. It involves extravagant metaphysical claims which render it very implausible.

Now, if you reject that moral values are platonic objects existing independent of the material world, then your only recourse is to try to ground moral values in the natural world. But how can you do that? Nature is in and of itself just morally neutral. On a naturalistic view moral values are just the behavioral byproducts of biological evolution and social conditioning. And if you’re like the atheist philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, then you’ll say that morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. If you’re going to argue from a naturalistic point of view, then you need to live it out consistently. For us to think that human beings are special and our morality is objectively true is to succumb to the temptation to species-ism, that is to say an unjustified bias in favor of one’s own species. (Hmm. It’s almost like we both know that human beings are special and set apart from the entire animal kingdom— just like the Bible says).

But godless moral realists are guilty of doing what Sam Harris tried to do. How did Sam Harris propose to solve the Value Problem? The trick he proposed was simply to re-define what he means by “good” and “evil”, in non-moral terms. He says, “We should “define ‘good’ as that which supports [the] well-being” of conscious creatures. So, he says, “questions about values . . . are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures.” And therefore, he concludes, “it makes no sense . . . to ask whether maximizing well-being is ‘good’.” Why not? Because he’s redefined the word “good” to mean the well-being of conscious creatures. So to ask, “Why is maximizing creatures’ well-being good?” is on his definition the same as asking, “Why does maximizing creatures’ well-being maximize creatures’ well-being?” It’s just a tautology. It’s just talking in circles! So Sam Harris “solved” the Value Problem just by re-defining his terms. But it’s nothing but wordplay. And that’s exactly what godless moral realists are guilty of doing. You’re arguing for objective morality, but by whose standard is this known? Who/what is the ultimate  stopping point of good? Your definition comes from either self, herd mentality, or social convention. And I’ve already refuted those. So, you, much like Sam Harris, aren’t really talking about objective moral values at all. You’re more or less just talking about what’s conducive to the flourishing of sentient life on this planet. Your so-called answer or solution to the value problem is just a semantical trick of an arbitrary and idiosyncratic re-definition of the terms “good” and “evil” in non-moral vocabulary. It’s just a bunch of intellectual double-talk that never addresses the roots of the issue: mainly, the ultimate good as the standard, and the fact that moral laws require a Moral Law Giver because without a Moral Law Giver, there’s no accountability for the moral laws.

Also, atheism does not provide a sound foundation for objective moral duties. “Duty” has to do with moral obligation or prohibition, what I ought or ought not to do. Natural science tells us only what is, not what ought to be, the case. As the philosopher Jerry Fodor has written, “Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it wouldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are.” In particular it cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions which are conducive to human flourishing. So, if there is no GOD, what foundation remains for objective moral duties? On the naturalistic view, human beings are just animals, and animals have no moral obligation to one another. When a lion kills a zebra, it kills the zebra, but it doesn’t murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with the female, but it doesn’t rape the female–for none of these actions are forbidden or obligatory. There is no moral dimension to these actions in a naturalistic view. So if GOD does not exist, we do not have any moral obligations as mere animals as part of the animal kingdom. Who or what imposes these obligations upon us? Where do they come from? Why would they be anything more than a subjective impression ingrained into us by societal and parental conditioning? On the atheistic view, certain actions such as rape and incest may not be biologically and socially advantageous, and so in the course of human development have become taboo, that is, socially unacceptable behavior. But, that does absolutely nothing to prove that such acts are really wrong. Moral obligations or prohibitions arise in response to imperatives from a competent authority. For example, if a policeman tells you to pull over, then because of his authority, who he is, you are legally obligated to pull over. But if some random stranger tells you to pull over, you’re not legally obligated to do so. Now, in the absence of GOD (the Moral Law Giver), what authority is there to issue moral commands or prohibitions? Why would morality be objective as well as universal? There is no reason on atheism, and therefore there are no moral imperatives for us to obey. In the absence of GOD there just isn’t any sort of moral obligation or prohibition that characterizes our lives. In particular, we’re not morally obligated to promote the flourishing of conscious creatures. And I speak all of that to the failure of your atheistic worldview. However, the godless moral realist has perceived rightly that objective morality does exist. But because he/she has acknowledged objective morality, he/she now needs the ultimate good stopping point as the absolute moral standard by which all actions can be judged as being wrong. Furthermore, he/she would need to acknowledge that moral laws require a Moral Law Giver and also address accountability. So, does the godless moral realist live out consistently his/her objective moral duties or has he/she allowed self, herd, or social convention to become the ultimate good stopping point? Or does he/she shift back and forth between them? Who/what is the absolute moral standard? What is the atheist’s explanatory stopping point at which one reaches the ultimate good?

CLOSING STATEMENT:
Godless moral realism fails to provide sufficient reasoning for three important necessities of objective morality:
(1) The basis of objective moral values on atheism; in particular, what is the basis for intrinsic value for human beings when all life is limited and ultimately amounts to nothing?
(2) What is the Source of objective moral duties on atheism? What makes certain acts obligatory or forbidden if there is no Moral Law Giver to command or prohibit them?
(3) To explain how on atheism moral accountability exists; or alternatively, why accountability is not necessary to morality.

The godless moral realist will even attempted to turn the table and claim that GOD is immoral, yet that person has no moral foundation for saying that Christian beliefs are morally execrable, because he/she has no ultimate good stopping point for basing such a judgment. If atheism is true, what objective foundation is there for affirming that one view is execrable and another is not? There’s simply no basis for such judgments. Now, I am not saying that people need to believe in GOD for objective morality to be true, only that GOD is necessary for objective morality. The godless moral realist doesn’t believe GOD exists; however, GOD’s Word proves true (Romans 2:15) in that he/she has the moral law written on his/her heart and that’s why he/she acknowledges that morality is objective. Unfortunately for the atheist, he/she cannot live out moral objectivity consistently because his/her actions will reveal that he/she has no absolute standard, and thus his/her moral realism collapses into moral relativism as he lives out only what he/she believes is morally obligatory. However, if the atheist does hold to the truth that objective morality does exist, he/she will need to compare all duties to the absolute standard and be accountable to the Moral Law Giver. And the only way to do that is to concede that a Moral Law Giver exists. And this is why GOD is necessary for objective morality.

OBJECTIONS:

EPISTEMOLOGY:
The claim that moral values and duties are rooted in GOD is a Meta-Ethical claim about Moral Ontology, not about Moral Linguistics or Epistemology. A Scriptural revelation of GOD’s commands is indeed one way we could come to know our moral duties, but that isn’t to say that it’s the only way of coming to know our moral duties is through such a means. In fact, godless moral realists also believe that morality is objective because the moral law is written on our hearts. The salient point is that GOD’s commands constitute our moral duties. That is a claim of moral ontology. How we come to know our moral duties is a matter of moral epistemology and is irrelevant to the argument.

NECESSARY BEING:
For GOD to be logically necessary, He simply needs to exist in every logically possible world; indeed, to say that GOD is logically necessary just is to say that He exists in every possible world. Some who think that GOD cannot be the foundation of moral value is because in part they think that GOD exists merely contingently rather than necessarily, whereas at least some moral values exist necessarily. So, on their view there are possible worlds in which GOD does not exist and yet moral values do exist. My point is that the classical theist faces no such problem, since he believes that GOD is a logically necessary Being and so can ground moral values in every logically possible world. So, the objection finds no purchase against the classical theist. Now, if GOD is a contingent being, then He cannot ground moral values. I agree. But it is now up to the opponent to prove that GOD is a contingent being. Unless the opponent does that, the conclusion does not follow that GOD cannot ground moral values. Things that exist necessarily exist by necessity of their own nature. An example could be abstract objects such as numbers. Many mathematicians would concur that numbers exist by necessity of their own nature. Things that exist contingently are caused to exist by something else. A painting exists because an artist created it. A globe that many teachers use in classrooms only exists because it was created. Earth is the same – it exists contingently. How do we know this? Almost all physicists and cosmologists agree that at some point in the finite past the universe began to exist. In other words, there was nothing — no time, space, matter or energy — and then there was something. It is logically possible that the entire universe did not have to exist. But it does exist. Why? The universe doesn’t exist necessarily; rather, it exists contingently. The universe didn’t create itself because nothing cannot become something unless a certain Something creates that something. Therefore, creation comes from either GOD or abstract objects; however, abstract objects do not create anything; therefore, GOD is The Creator. It is argued that GOD created the entire universe and all humankind. The only adequate explanation of a contingent universe existing is that it was created by a non-contingent and supernatural Being. GOD exists necessarily. And yet a lot of people ask, “Who made GOD?” But that question is like asking “Who caused the ‘uncaused first cause’?” A “created GOD” is not even a coherent concept. But supposing that the universe has always existed and energy is eternal and uncreated, of course no one created it. And if it is meaningless to ask, “Who created energy or the universe?” since it has always existed, then it is equally meaningless to ask “Who made GOD?” since GOD has always existed. If energy and the universe is not eternal, it needs a Cause. On the other hand, if it has no beginning, it does not need a cause of its beginning. Likewise, if GOD exists who has no beginning, it is absurd to ask, “Who made GOD?” It is a category mistake to ask, “Who made the Unmade?” or “Who created the Uncreated?” However, the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists agree that at some point in the finite past, the universe had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, the universe exists contingently; therefore, the universe was created; GOD is the Creator and GOD exists necessarily. GOD was not created, GOD simply is. GOD exists necessarily. The opponent cannot just assume that GOD is contingent or else he is begging the question.

• Something exists, and
• owes its existence either to nothing or to something.
• Nothing cannot cause something.
• There is, then, a Something, which is either one or many.
• If many, the beings would be mutually dependent on another.
• They cannot be mutually dependent for their existence. Something cannot exist through a being on which it confers existence.
• Therefore, there must be one Being through which all other beings exist.
• This Being must exist through itself.
• Whatever exists through itself exists in the highest degree of all.
• Therefore, a supremely perfect Being exists in the highest degree. GOD is the greatest conceivable Being, who exists necessarily.

And objective moral values cannot exist without GOD; they entail His existence. The argument is as follows:
Necessarily, if moral values exist, then GOD exists.
Necessarily, moral values do exist.
Therefore, necessarily, GOD exists.

MATERIALISM:
As suggested by the agnostic astronomer, Carl Sagan, the cosmos is all that was, is, or ever will be. Everything is matter or reducible to it and dependent on it. If matter were to cease to exist, nothing would remain. Materialism believes that all is matter or reducible to it. If it were true that matter is all there is, then there could not be such things as minds, personality, moral law, or GOD. After all, none of those are matter. However, the mind does exist and it exists distinctively apart from the brain in the manner of discrete thoughts and ideas. There was a news article that did a story on a man who received an implant in his brain. And because of that, he was able to move a once-paralyzed hand with his thoughts due to the brain connections functioning properly. But even if the brain is “wired” correctly, what causes the brain to function? Who commands the function of the brain? Mere matter does not command itself and it certainly doesn’t make any moral decisions. In another incident, a surgeon manipulating someone’s brain caused that person to move his arm. When asked if the man had moved his own arm, he said no. Exactly! Because the person and body had a distinction. It is for this reason that a person can say his/her body sometimes functions in a way that is against his/her will. There most certainly is a distinction between the inner person and the body that person uses. The brain does not command itself; rather, a person causes the brain to fire commands to the body. Materialists say that when the brain dies, consciousness ceases at the same time. However, this argument assumes that consciousness is a physical function, that “mind” is a function of matter. There is no proof for such an assumption. How could I know I am nothing more than my brain unless I was more than it? I cannot analyze my brain in a test tube unless I am outside the test tube. The fact that we can’t locate, weigh, or dye thoughts — as we can physical objects — reveals the inadequacy of a view identifying the physical with the mental/soulish — or reducing the mind/soul to the physical. Brains just don’t have the same properties that minds (or souls) have, and minds don’t have the same properties brains do. Therefore, the mental can’t be identical with the brain — or even produced by the physical brain. In fact, the materialist’s theory is not made up of matter. That is, the theory about matter has no matter in it. The idea that all is made of molecules does not itself consist of molecules. For the thought about all matter must itself stand over and above matter. Even the materialist speaks of personal thoughts. But if strict materialism were correct, there could be no discrete thoughts. They would be a mere stream of electrons or some other material particle. Only a self-conscious being can truly make thoughts. The attempt to deny that there is a reality beyond the material implies that a nonmaterial reality, such as the mind, exists. If everything is matter, then what is a scientific theory about matter? C.S. Lewis, quoting Haldane, wrote, “If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true… and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” In conclusion, materialism cannot account for minds, personality, or moral law. At the heart of materialism is the rejection of the existence of mind or spirit as a separate entity that surveys the dissolution of matter. Materialism is an untenable position and therefore must be rejected. In any scenario involving a moral decision, there’s nothing about a brain of mere matter that would tell us what we ought to do.

NATURALISM:
Naturalism is essentially materialism. Unguided evolution is geared toward survival, not morality, and certainly not sacrificial love (which you are unable to adequately explain in terms of a preprograming for survival). If naturalism is true, life’s meaning and purpose are simply in the eye of the beholder. If your son/daughter tells you that he/she thinks meaning is found in playing video games 12 hours a day while eating only junk food, there is little you can offer as an objective rebuttal. After all, if there is no transcendent author of life, each of us gets to write our own script. While you may believe your son/daughter has missed the point of his/her existence and has forfeited the opportunity to experience life fully, you really don’t have any objective authority upon which to ground an alternative. Because as a naturalist, you are inventing your own meaning as well; purpose and significance (from a purely naturalistic perspective) are nothing more than opinion and personal preference. And if your son/daughter believes that his/her purpose is to become the next Adolf Hitler and finish what the Nazis started, you cannot object because naturalism holds to moral relativism because there would be no ultimate good as an absolute standard and there would be no Moral Law Giver to hold anyone accountable.

RELATIVE TO WHAT?:
Relative to what? It can’t be relative to the relative. In that case, it could not be relative at all, ad infinitum, since there would be nothing to which it was relative.

SOCIETY HAS CHANGED:
Relativists confuse fact and value, what is and what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not. There is a difference between sociology and morality. The former is descriptive; the latter is prescriptive. Relativists confuse the changing factual situation with unchanging moral duty.

ANIMALS:
Animals are not moral. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything wrong. If GOD doesn’t exist, we should — in a naturalistic worldview — view humans in the same way. Naturalistic. It is what it is. It’s survival of the fittest. It’s nothing more than mere preference. Even the animals that protect their own kind, do they love thy neighbor? Do they love their enemies? Some animals eat their young, but that doesn’t mean we should be cannibals. Dogs eat their own vomit. Not a good behavior to emulate (Proverbs 26:11; 1Peter 2:22). Some insects devour their partners after mating — please don’t do that. We simply cannot use animal behavior as a basis for morality or to justify our sinful desires. In fact, in most cases animals are the examples of what not to do (Psalm 49:20; 2Peter 2:12). Animals are unable to sin because they don’t have a mind capable of accountability nor do they have the moral law written on their hearts as humans do (Psalm 40:8; Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; Romans 2:15; 2Corinthians 3:3; Hebrews 8:10). Morality is objective. Without the absolute moral standard, everything would be mere preference and nothing could be wrong. Logic proves that moral relativism is absolutely absurd. We are not mere animals and we will be held accountable for our actions (Revelation 20:11-15).

EUTHYPHRO’S DILEMMA: (from Plato’s dialogue, “Euthyphro”)

Is something good just because GOD wills it? Or does GOD will something because it is good? This is the fallacy of false dilemma. The answer is neither one. GOD wills something because He is good. GOD’s nature is goodness. The good is not independent of GOD; rather, GOD is the Good. GOD’s moral standards are never arbitrary or capricious, but are all consistent with and derived from His own moral character. This is why Paul can say, “be imitators of God, as beloved children” (Ephesians 5:1). This theme of imitating GOD’s moral character is found throughout the Bible: “we love because He first loved us” (1John 4:19). Or, “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful” (Luke 6:36). Or, “You shall be holy, for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44; 1Peter 1:15). But if all GOD’s moral standards are grounded in his unchanging moral character, it follows that He could not have given commands that were substantially different from these. If one understands the ethical system found in the Bible to be grounded in the moral character of GOD, this also provides an answer to the age-old philosophical question, “How can one ever reason from what is (a description of reality) to what ought to be (a prescription of right and wrong)?” If what is (that is, what exists in the universe) begins with GOD Himself and His moral character, then GOD’s very being determines the nature of the the things that are right and wrong, and thus GOD’s being determines, in an ultimate sense, what ought to be. And this is why sin is defined as anything (whether in thoughts, actions, or attitudes) that does not express or conform to the holy character of GOD as expressed in His Moral Law.

EPICUREAN PARADOX:
What is the Epicurean Paradox that so many critics like to launch at Christians? This is, essentially, the “problem of evil and suffering.” It goes like this: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

So, a critic would assert that Christians believe that GOD is all-powerful and GOD is all-loving. But Christians also acknowledge there is evil and suffering. Therefore, this is a trilemma because it’s incongruous! How can an all-powerful and all-loving GOD sit back and watch so much evil and suffering? However, it’s not a trilemma because Christians also believe that GOD is all-wise. Our theology doesn’t end at the first two. Further, we believe that GOD is eternal and works through time. Just by bringing in those two elements into the equation, it changes the entire paradigm. GOD does not conquer in spite of the dark mystery of evil and suffering; rather, GOD conquers through evil, pain, and suffering and forms us into the people we are intended to be. This life is a refinery where the dross must be removed so we can be purified vessels for holy living. In this lifetime, we are constantly being sanctified. Essentially, this life is boot camp training for the next. GOD has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil in the world. And finally, GOD did in fact do something about evil and suffering. That’s why Christ Jesus willingly became the sacrifice on our behalf— to get rid of the problem and provide an eternal solution.

HELL:
Any mention of Hell in a debate regarding objective morality only shows a lack of understanding about Christianity. We don’t believe in GOD to avoid going to Hell. Belief in GOD isn’t some kind of fire insurance. We believe in GOD because GOD, as the supreme Good, is the appropriate object of adoration and love. He is Goodness itself, to be desired for its own sake. And so the fulfillment of human existence is to be found in relation to GOD. It’s because of who GOD is and His moral worth that He is worthy of worship. It has nothing to do with avoiding Hell, or promoting your own well-being. Hell is merely quarantine for evil, which is the privation of good. What’s interesting to me is the fact that you make complaints about evil yet you have no ultimate good as the standard by which to make the comparison so that evil may be known. And while you’re pointing a finger at either GOD (who is Good) or the Christians who try to accurately reflect the Lord, you have three fingers that point back at you for the immorality you accept as being morally right. Yet, you have no foundation to use in order to argue why such actions are morally right. What you fail to see is that Hell is for those who do evil while calling evil good.

1Samuel 15:2-3:
Just like the Canaanites, the Amalekites were far from innocent. In fact, they were utterly depraved. What is more, in verse 2, Scripture reveals that they desired to destroy Israel, GOD’s chosen people, the channel of His redemptive plans for all humankind (Genesis 12:1-3). The act of their total destruction was necessitated by the gravity of their sin. Otherwise, some hard core remnant might rise to resume their hateful act toward GOD’s people and plan. But as to the objection regarding the innocent children, several observations are relevant. First, we are all born in sin (Psalm 51:5) and deserve death (Romans 5:12). If Christianity is true, then people don’t actually die, they merely change locations. Everyone will eventually be “taken” by GOD in death— it is only a matter of when (Hebrews 9:27). Second, GOD is sovereign over life as the Creator of all life and reserves the right to take it when He wills (Deuteronomy 32:39; Job 1:21). Third, all children who die before the age of accountability are saved (Isaiah 7:16; Psalm 16:10-11; 139:14-16; 2Samuel 12:23; Matthew 18:10; Mark 10:14; Romans 5:18-19; John 3:36; 9:41). Hence, the act by which GOD took the children is far from merciless. In fact, in regards to GOD “taking” children, several things should be noted: (1) Given the cancerous state of the society into which they were born, they had no chance to avoid its fatal pollution. (2) As previously stated, children who die before the age of accountability go to Heaven. And if they go to Heaven, the temporary physical death is but a mere moment of pain compared to eternity of joy in a Holy environment where evil will no longer exist. So, what you’re doing is questioning GOD’s justice against evil and His nature of goodness to save those whom in GOD’s omniscience He knows should be saved. What you fail to realize is that GOD’s mercy always precedes GOD’s wrath of justice. But after warning a wicked people for so long, sometimes radical surgery is required to completely eliminate a deadly cancer from the body.

SLAVERY:
Ah. Yes. I anticipated that you would bring up slavery. In fact, I planned an answer to this objection in advance. But a brain as mere matter doesn’t respond, it merely reacts. Mere matter certainly can’t plan ahead for what has not yet happened. But a mind can. In fact, mere matter cannot be moral. But anyway… you need to understand what is written in proper context, within the historical culture of that ancient society, through the understanding of humanity’s free will, the fact that they possess a sinful nature, they consistently rebelled against GOD’s absolute moral standard of goodness, and the fact that they had a progressive revelation much like adults have different rules to follow than toddlers do. The Israelites were spiritual babies, yet those of us who now have the complete revelation are supposed to be spiritual adults (even though we tend to act like spiritual teenagers a lot of the time). And this is why it is written in Acts 17:30-31, “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” You also need to understand that two common historic types of slavery existed based on economy and race. The Old Testament acknowledged the existence of racial slavery (like the Israelites were slaves to the Egyptians), but it also acknowledged economic slavery in ancient times and attempted to regulate it, making it more humane. People worked off their debts— and that’s actually a good thing. Moreover, the Bible’s main focus is not human culture, but the relationship between GOD and humankind. Healing for the dying soul is prioritized over overturning corrupt social systems; in fact, this is why Jesus did not overthrow the Roman empire while He walked the earth. GOD’s Word is absolutely clear that in this world, evil is going to exist and we will have trouble. Furthermore, you fail to understand the difference between description and prescription, allowance and approval. The Bible doesn’t condone slavery any more than it condones polygamy or divorce, even though the Bible describes both of them and GOD allowed both of them, yet never once prescribed them nor approved of them. And one of the reasons GOD allowed humans to be subject to other humans was so that we could learn that we do not want to be under man’s oppressive thumb; rather, it is better to be in GOD’s loving hand. In fact, the entire story of the Bible says that even when GOD tells humans what is right, humans rebel against GOD’s absolute moral standard time and time again— just like you do, because you think you know better than GOD. But in John 8:34, the Lord said, “everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.” But no doubt, you will disagree about what is morally wrong even though you boldly argue that morality is objective. But if morality is objective from an atheistic point of view, then why do you support actions that are morally wrong? And why do you call what is immoral to be morally acceptable? And no doubt, you will disagree that you advocate for immorality, but if you do, you will have to justify why the specific actions are morally right rather than immoral. But can you do that or will you reveal the truth that atheism always collapses into moral relativism despite your claim that morality is objective? And by the way, if you want to understand the ancient Near East history and culture, I recommend Professor Paul Copan’s book, “Is God a Moral Monster?”

WHAT IF GOD COMMANDS:
Because GOD’s divine commands are from His nature of goodness, it makes no sense to ask a question like, “If GOD commanded us to eat our children, would we be morally obligated to eat them?” Because this proposition has an impossible antecedent. And therefore, no non-trivial truth value. It’s like asking, “If there were a square circle, would its area be the square of one of its sides?” The question has no meaningful answer because it’s logically incoherent. That’s not who GOD is as a necessary morally perfect Being. (see Euthyphro’s dilemma) Also, there is no contradiction between the command for men not to commit murder, and the command that the proper authorities should execute capital punishment for capital crimes. Capital punishment should be a deterrent and is not only retributive but also protective of the community. Evil is contagious and spreads like cancer. And if GOD sees evil (which is the privation of good) and decides to surgically remove the cancer, why would that be bad or morally wrong? Further, Deuteronomy 32:39 says that GOD gives life and takes life away. That’s not murder. That’s the prerogative of the Creator of life. We all have an expiration date; therefore, GOD essentially “kills” everyone. However, it is written that GOD takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked; rather, He desires for them to repent so they may live (Ezekiel 18:23,32; 33:11). So much so, in fact, that Jesus willingly sacrificed Himself on the cross even for sinners (John 10:18; Romans 5:8). Also, we must remember that if Christianity is true, then people don’t actually die, they merely change locations. So, how is it morally bad or wrong for GOD to change the location of His creation?

So, the dilemma is this: when evil exists, people complain that GOD doesn’t do anything about it; however, when GOD does do something about evil, people complain that GOD did something about it and then falsely accuse GOD of being evil because He did something. But GOD does not arbitrarily decide to kill people. A surgeon takes drastic action against a cancer to bring about the ultimate good of the patient, yet without proper context, someone might believe that the patient is being sliced open and murdered. But spiritual evil is much more serious than physical evil. When GOD commanded war or capital punishment in the Old Testament, it was against the forces of spiritual evil in order to cut out the cancer before it spread. GOD took drastic action to rid the land of the evil influence of the inhabitants. Yet mercy always precedes judgement; however, once judgement has been decided, there will be no mercy, only wrath. GOD provided warning before Adam and Eve’s spiritual death (Genesis 2:16-17), flooding the earth (Genesis 6:13), destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:17,20; 19:12-14), and allowing the Israelites to be exiled (all of GOD’s commandments and even Jeremiah the prophet warned Israel in advance of the coming exile), etc. There’s always been warning prior to judgment. And the judgment at the end of age will is not any different. You’ve already been warned. You just choose not to abide by the absolute moral standard and instead choose to follow your own moral compass, which makes your morality relative.

MORAL QUESTIONS TO PONDER:

• If you were homeless and hungry and on the verge of starving to death, yet you saw an opportunity to steal food from someone who had a lot of food in a picnic area at a park, someone who would not notice anything missing, and you knew you could get away with stealing that food without being held accountable and receiving a negative penalty, would you steal it so you could eat and live? (Exodus 15:25; 16:12; 20:15; Leviticus 19:11; Deuteronomy 5:19; 1Kings 17:4-6; 2Kings 4:1-7; Matthew 6:25-34; 19:18)
• Do you believe that pornography is immoral or morally right? (Secular research reveals that pornography changes what men and women expect from each other, creates dissociation from reality, destroys relationships, and distorts children’s ideas of sex and sexuality. Matthew 5:27-28; Romans 13:13; 1Corinthians 6:13,18-20; 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1Thessalonians 4:3; Hebrews 13:4)
• Do you believe that polyamorous sexual relationships are immoral or morally right? [same Scriptures as above]
• Do you believe that homosexual sexual activity is immoral or morally right? (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18,23-24; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 17:17; Malachi 2:14-16; Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-10; 7:2; 1Timothy 1:9-10; 3:2,12)
• If the Nazis had managed to conquer everyone and they eventually influenced decisions and determined what’s right/wrong, and they proved they were the fittest for survival, would they still be immoral for killing the people they had killed? [Are you saying it’s wrong to kill an innocent life even if the majority believe it’s acceptable?]
• What if your wife confessed to you that she had cheated on you with another man, and she found out she is pregnant from that other man’s seed? She tells you it was a stupid mistake, she is filled with remorse and regret, she loves you, she wants you to forgive her, and that she only wants to be with you. Because you already have three children with her, you want to restore the relationship and make your marriage work. She then asks you to drive her to the abortion clinic so that the “mistake” can be terminated. Would you drive her there? Would you support her decision to get an abortion? Would you also desire to terminate the innocent life growing within her? Or would you value life and defend the defenseless even though the child would not be yours? [Because life begins at conception, the essentialistic definition, psychological / philosophical concept, and GOD attribute the same characteristics to the unborn human as the adult human (Psalms 139:15-16; Isaiah 49:1; Jeremiah 1:5). Therefore, the unborn human is a person; that person is merely in a different stage of growth and maturity. Abortion is murdering an innocent and defenseless person and that violates the moral command not to murder (Exodus 20:13)]
• What if you were on a cruise ship that somehow caught on fire, and everyone had to abandon ship. Unfortunately, there’s not enough lifeboats for all the passengers. The lifeboats soon fill with people,  carrying many more people than they were designed to carry. You and your pregnant wife manage to get in one; however, it is sitting dangerously low in the water – a few inches lower and it will sink. Not another person can come in or it will take on water and sink. An elderly man in the water asks you to let him in the lifeboat. Would you let him in? (John 15:13; Philippians 2:3-4; James 1:5-8; I’d switch places with him, allowing the old man in the lifeboat, and I would swim beside the boat. I’d also ask if others would be willing to take turns swimming so that everyone can have an opportunity to rest in the boat. With a system of rotation, no one would have to drown. But if they refused to take turns in the water, I’d still do it while having faith in GOD to send rescue in time.)
  

CONCLUSION:

Moral relativism is absolutely absurd; godless moral realism always collapses into moral relativism; therefore, godless moral realism is ultimately absurd and self-defeating. GOD is necessary for objective morality.