Morality: Who Needs God?

God's existence has direct bearing on how we view morality. As Dostoyevsky so famously put it, "Without God, everything is permitted."

At first glance, this statement may not make sense. Everything is permitted? Can't there be a morality without an infinite God?

Perhaps some of the confusion is due to a murky definition of morality we owe to moral relativism. Moral relativism maintains that there is no objective standard of right and wrong existing separate and independent from humanity. The creation of moral principles stems only from within a person, not as a distinct, detached reality. Each person is the source and definer of his or her subjective ethical code, and each has equal power and authority to define morality the way he or she sees fit.

The consequences of moral relativism are far-reaching. Since all moral issues are subjective, right and wrong are reduced to matters of opinion and personal taste. Without a binding, objective standard of morality that sticks whether one likes it or not, a person can do whatever he feels like by choosing to label any behavior he personally enjoys as "good." Adultery, embezzlement, and random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea -- but why should that stop someone from taking pleasure in them if that is what they enjoy.

Is having an intimate relationship with a 12-year-old objectively wrong just because you don't like it?

Perhaps murder makes a serial killer feel powerful and alive. A moral relativist can say he finds murder disgusting, but that does not make it wrong -- only distasteful. Hannibal, the Cannibal, is entitled to his own preferences even if they are unusual and repugnant to most.

Popularity has nothing to do with determining absolute morality; it just makes it commonplace, like the color navy.

"But this killer is hurting others!" True. But in a world where everything is subjective, hurting an innocent person is merely distasteful to some, like eating chocolate ice cream with lasagna. Just because we may not like it doesn't make it evil. Evil? By whose standard? No one's subjective opinion is more authoritative than another's.

Although many people may profess to subscribe to moral relativism, it is very rare to find a consistent moral relativist. Just about everyone believes in some absolute truths. That absolute truth may only be that it is wrong to hurt others, or that there are no absolutes. The point is that just about everyone is convinced that there is some form of absolute truth, whatever that truth may be. Most of us, it seems, are not moral relativists.

Not too many of us believe that killing an innocent person is just a matter of taste that can change according to whim. Most of us think it is an act that is intrinsically wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks. According to this view, the standard of morality is an unchangeable reality that transcends humanity, not subject to our approval.

An absolute standard of morality can only stem from an infinite source. Why is that?

When we describe murder as being immoral, we do not mean it is wrong just for now, with the possibility of it becoming "right" some time in the future. Absolute means unchangeable, not unchanging.

My dislike for olives is unchanging. I'll never start liking them. That doesn't mean it is impossible for my taste to change, even though it's highly unlikely. Since it could change, it is not absolute. It is changeable.

The term "absolute" means without the ability to change. It is utterly permanent, unchangeable.

Think of something absolute. Take for example an icon of permanence and stability -- the Rock of Gibraltar. "Get a piece of the rock" -- it lasts forever!

The nature of absolute is a bit tricky to grasp because we find ourselves running into the same problem of our finite selves attempting to perceive the infinite, a topic we have discussed in a previous article in this series. Everything that exists within time undergoes change. That's what time is -- a measurement of change. In Hebrew, shanah means "year," sharing the same root shinah, "change."

If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change -- since it exists within time -- where can we find the quality of absolute?

Its source cannot be in time, which is constantly undergoing change. It must be beyond time, in the infinite dimension. Only God, the infinite being that exists beyond time, is absolute and unchangeable.

Therefore an absolute standard of morality can exist only if it stems from an infinite dimension -- a realm that is eternal, beyond time, with no beginning and no end.

In addition to the demise of morality, moral relativism inevitably leads to the death of education and genuine open-mindedness. The thirst for real learning comes from the recognition that the truth is out there waiting to be discovered -- and I am all the more impoverished with its absence.

If everything is relative, then it makes no difference what anyone thinks. Ideas no longer matter. With no absolute standard of right and wrong or truth and falsehood, the pursuit of wisdom becomes nonsensical. What are we searching for? If no idea is more valid than another, there is no purpose in re-evaluating one's belief system and being open to exploring new concepts -- since there is no possibility of ever being wrong.

A common argument often heard for supporting relativism is that in the world at large we see a plethora of differing positions on a wide range of moral issues. Try to find one issue all cultures universally agree to!

Only the unhistorical and inhuman belief that opinions are held for no reason would prevent the undertaking of such an exciting activity.

The plethora of disagreements demonstrates exactly the opposite point. If everything is relative, what on earth are we arguing about?

Imagine walking down the street and you hear a ferocious argument taking place behind a door. People are yelling at each other in a fit of rage. You ask a bystander what the commotion is all about. He tells you this is a Ben & Jerry's ice cream store and they're fighting over what is the best flavor of ice cream.

Real debates and disagreements occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions, not mere preferences of flavors. Think of a time you experienced moral outrage. The force behind that anger is the conviction that your position is the correct one. Matters of preference, like music and interior design, do not provoke moral outrage.

What provokes our moral outrage? Injustice? Cruelty? Oppression? There is the sense that an absolute standard of morality is being violated, an objective standard that transcends humanity, that stems from an infinite and absolute Being.

Mr. OWK observes as a matter of Objective Fact, "I am Alive; and I desire to continue Living".

Your entire argument is built on sand: one person's desire for continued existence is not an objective fact. First, OWK may change his mind. Second -- and this is crucial -- my desire to keep living is not binding on how I treat others.

(Note that in the real world, outside of this example, our desire to remain alive is probably not even the highest moral imperative for most of us -- consider the contempt in which we hold those who would, say, betray their children to save their own skins. Clearly there's more to it than a simple desire to stay alive.)

He does not assign any Moral Value to his existence or his desire to continue existing; he simply recognizes his existence and his desire for continued existence to be an Objective Fact.

You've made an error here. Despite your assertion to the contrary, your whole argument tacitly rests on the assumption that OWK does assign a Moral Value to his (subjective) desire to continue existing. To say otherwise doesn't make any sense -- is it rational to form Social Compacts on the basis of things with no Moral Value?

For that reason, your description of the genesis of OWK's "Social Compact" is artificial and completely unconvincing. It's certainly not absolute, as you claim it to be. What you've described is not an objective system at all, but merely a convenient arrangement -- one among many possible.

For example, various empires have thrived for thousands of years on the basis of a social compact called Might Makes Right, and many individuals within those cultures died rich and happy after a life of conquest and enslavement. (Think of a happy Pharaoh.)

In the case of Might Makes Right, Mr. OWK has a couple of alternatives to your proposed social compact between moral equals. He could work to become one of the strong, or he could find his own proper level within the heirarchy, and toe the line in order to stay alive. And he need not worry about whether or not the other folks have a similar desire to continue existing.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Facts are not values. Is the fact 2+2=4 an "evil" fact? Use your head, laredo.

I disagree. 2+2=4 is more closely an assumption than anything else. All of mathematics is based on assumptions called axioms or postualtes. Acceptance of them is a belief and by definition, not proved. Very similar to a belief in God.

You are free to disagree with any or all assumptions. You are free to base a mathematics on the equivalent of 2+2=5 if you like, and you are free to use conclusions based on that in your architecture, medicine, physics, etc. I doubt you'll have much of a successful civilization.

Mathematicians don't expend effort proving things like, "Given a line and a point not on the line, there is one and only one line containing the point and perpendicular to the given line." This is a belief, not a fact. It is a basis for Euclidean geometry. You are free to reject it. You are free to reject all of Euclidean geometry derived from that postulate. But it is just a belief.

I state this because I see too much nonsense going unrefuted about how, without God, one opinion is just as good as another. All opinions are not equal. It is time to stop saying, implying, and inferring that they are.

This appears to me to be an attempt by some to assert that their belief in God places them in a position to judge what is moral/right/good, and the rest of us are nothing more than wanderers in the wilderness. Nonsense and rubbish!

Now, answer me this. If abortion is murder, then you have an obligation to stop it. But if my personal belief is that an embryo is not a human being, and yours is that it is, who is right?

Oh, gee whillikers, that's difficult -- how about, the one of us whose "belief" commensurates with the fact of Medical Science -- that a human embryo is a human being.

In which case, it's not a question of "personal beliefs", but of objective facts.

If it were not an Objective Fact that the human embryo is a human being, then it wouldn't be Murder to kill it. The whole matter of "personal beliefs" on the subject is just a red herring.

The Fact-Value problem has never been solved, and never will. Repeat: the Fact-Value problem has never been solved.

You can repeat it 'till you're blue in the face... that doesn't change the fact that a resolution of the fact-value gap is not even required for the derivation of absolute (unexceptioned) maxims of self-interest.

It is not necessary to solve the Fact-Value Gap to observe that 2 + 2 = 4.
Likewise, it is not necessary to solve the Fact-Value Gap to observe that if I am in a room with four other people, and we all have guns with one bullet each, my odds of survival are greatest if nobody shoots anybody. That is a mathematical truth regardless of the Fact-Value Gap, and it is an absolute mathematical truth.

You don't need that old bat Ayn Rand in your life, believe me...

I've never even read Ayn Rand.
Not a single book or short story.

I have, however, read the Apostle Paul:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:... For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

And I know a blasphemer who dares to DENY the express teaching of Saint Paul on the rightful authority of Caesar, when I read one.

I'm going to convert you back to Christianity yet, OP.

I'm still hoping that I can convert you to Christianity in the first place.

Because, in case you’re wondering, it would NOT be a moral action for you to blow your neighbor’s head off for viewing a “playboy” magazine or drinking intoxicating liquors to excess, on his own property. And if it would be a private immorality for you to blow your neighbor’s head off for viewing a “playboy” magazine or drinking intoxicating liquors to excess, on his own property – then it is equally immoral for you to hire the State, as a Contract Murderer, to do it for you.

And as long as you set your own love for State-murder above the Law of God, you're not Following Jesus.

I've just read more of of your response. I'm not going to read any more....

Well, you gotta know when to fold 'em...
Know when to walk away; know when to run.

You can repeat it 'till you're blue in the face... that doesn't change the fact that a resolution of the fact-value gap is not even required for the derivation of absolute (unexceptioned) maxims of self-interest.

I only need to say it once. The fact-value gap completely negates the derivation of non-exceptioned, absolute values. Period. Professional philosophers have been trying to solve this problem for over three hundred years. They haven't yet.

You answered my question on abortion, but you didn't explain how your views would prevail if someone having an abortion didn't agree with your evaluation of an embryo as human life. But someone's view would have to prevail, and would have to be backed up with...force or coercion (implied force). Right?

Ok, here's another question: recently, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of virtual child pornography. In other words, manufactured images of children having sex are Constitutional because 'no children are harmed in the making of this material'. Ok, so let's say that I decide to make an 18' by 20' billboard of the vilest simulated child pornography I can think of and then place it in my front yard facing right at your house. Now, according to the First Amendment, this 'speech' is protected. And it's on my property, and I'm not initiating force against anyone. Would you object to this?

How about if I also opened up a brothel and crackhouse in my basement, right next door to you? Again, I'm on my property, not 'hurting' anyone? I mean, under your formulation of libertarianism, as long as the hookers and crack addicts aren't hurting anyone except themselves, you have no right to initiate force to stop this.

Pretty ridiculous doctrine, libertarianism. Isn't it? The Bible instructs against 'sexual immorality', but there you are, condoning it. You cannot serve both G-d and Mammon, OP...

Your entire argument is built on sand: one person's desire for continued existence is not an objective fact.

Sure it is. If I am hungry, it is an objective fact that I desire food. That may change in the future; but as long as I am hungry, it is an Objective Fact that I desire food.

First, OWK may change his mind.

Okay... and?

What you are telling me is, "2+3 only equals 5 as long as you retain the 3 in the equation!! Otherwise, 2+ (nothing) does not equal 5!!" Well, yes, that's true; but as long as you do have both a 2 and a 3 in that additive equation, it absolutely equals 5.

In like manner, if it is true (as it is) that OWK does desire to continue living, then any Social Compact which he contracts with those of like desire, must necessarily be absolute (admitting of neither alteration nor exception).

To say otherwise doesn't make any sense -- is it rational to form Social Compacts on the basis of things with no Moral Value?

Is it rational to eat when one is hungry?

The rationality in OWK's social compact is simply this: it satisfies his desire for protection against being Murdered, as eating satisfies hunger.

For that reason, your description of the genesis of OWK's "Social Compact" is artificial and completely unconvincing. It's certainly not absolute, as you claim it to be. What you've described is not an objective system at all, but merely a convenient arrangement -- one among many possible. For example, various empires have thrived for thousands of years on the basis of a social compact called Might Makes Right, and many individuals within those cultures died rich and happy after a life of conquest and enslavement.

True; but "Might makes Right" offers OWK no absolute institutional guarantee of Not Being Murdered or subjugated. If everyone in the Social Compact "Might makes Right" does what the Compact demands, then in fact OWK has a very high likelihood of being murdered or subjugated.

By contrast, in the "Non-Aggression Social Compact", if everyone in the Social Compact does what the Compact demands, then OWK enjoys an absolute institutional guarantee of Not Being Murdered or subjugated by those within the Compact (if nobody in the Compact is murdering or subjugating anybody else, then it is an absolute certainty that OWK is himself Not Being Murdered or subjugated by those within the Compact).

That's why it's called enlightened self-interest.

It is a basis for Euclidean geometry. You are free to reject it. You are free to reject all of Euclidean geometry derived from that postulate. But it is just a belief.

FWIW, for a long time folks believed that Euclidean geometry was the only kind of geometry there was. From here, for example, we read that Kant considered Euclidean geometry as "the inevitable necessity of thought," which sounds rather suspiciously like those on this thread who make similar claims about "objective morality."

You're not doing much refuting with this comment. We're not talking about "opinions" in general, but about certain elements of morality, such as whether or not it's OK to kill somebody if you think it will benefit you in some manner. The problem is, without an injunction against murder imposed by some external "I AM," there's no logical reason for considering murder to be anything other than a matter of personal preference.

I'd agree that some folks will do that -- though your own post demonstrates that belief in God need not be the sole catalyst for such unpleasantness. However, the real issue is whether those who deny the existence of God are in any position to make a rational, logical argument concerning the existence of absolute moral principles. And the bottom line is that they are not.

I only need to say it once. The fact-value gap completely negates the derivation of non-exceptioned, absolute values. Period.

Which is irrelevant -- because OWK is not claiming to derive absolute values.

He is claiming to derive un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to his Objective of Not Being Murdered. The very term "value" implies a Moral Judgment which isn't even required for the derivation of un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to accomplish an Objective.

Assuming no ski-lifts, helicopters, etc... if it is your Objective to reach the top of a mountain, it is an un-exceptioned behavioral maxim that you must climb up the mountain. The Fact-Value Gap has got nothing to do with it (or, necessarily, with the derivation of un-exceptioned behavioral maxims in general).

Well, duh.

If you are trying to kill me, then I shall have to employ Defensive Force to stop you.

Which is exactly irrelevant to the discussion. Libertarianism stands opposed to the initiation of aggression (your attempt to kill me), not the employment of Defensive Force.

As usual, you're attempting to "refute" libertarianism by making points which support the libertarian case.

Of course I would morally object to it.

And, per Exodus 21 and 22, I'd have the Right to demand you put a Fence around your Property, in order to contain your Externalities.

Of course, per the Bible, that's all that I could do. An ancient Hebrew in Israel could, if he were a good painter with a depraved mind, make a "billboard of the vilest simulated child pornography I can think of" and set it up on his property, and aside from a likely order to "keep it behind his fence" (a derivation from Exodus 21 and 22) there would be no legal penalty for such an action.

Do you believe that there should have been?
Was the Law of God for Israel incomplete, would you say?

Again, under the Old Testament, while Intoxication was recognized as a Moral Sin there would be no legal penalty whatsoever for consuming intoxicating drugs on one's own property (despite the fact that hashish, opium, and other powerful drugs were well-known and commonly used in the Middle East).

Do you believe that there should have been?
Was the Law of God for Israel incomplete, would you say?

Same story with Prostitution. Aside from the daughters of the Temple priests, while prostitution was recognized as a Moral Sin there would be no legal penalty whatsoever for prostitution (well, they were forbidden to Tithe their earnings to the Temple and were essentially "excommunicated" from all religious ceremonies; but there was no Civil penalty).

Do you believe that there should have been?
Was the Law of God for Israel incomplete, would you say?

Pretty ridiculous doctrine, libertarianism. Isn't it? The Bible instructs against 'sexual immorality', but there you are, condoning it. You cannot serve both G-d and Mammon, OP...

The funny thing is, I am certainly NOT condoning intoxication or sexual immorality. That is, unless you think that God HIMSELF was "condoning intoxication or sexual immorality" simply because HE did not assign any Civil Penalty to a lot of the sins for which you seek to justify State-Murder.

I am simply observing that you do not have the Right to hire the State as your own personal Contract-Murderer to employ coercion, slavery, and death against those whose Private Vices you would have NO RIGHT to employ Force as a Private Christian.

When it all comes down, HumanaeVitae, you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to employ coercion, slavery, and death against Private Vices which God Himself did not. But you are not ashamed -- because ultimately, you are more in love with the idea of using the State as your own Contract-Murderer than you are in love with God.

Of course, per the Bible, that's all that I could do. An ancient Hebrew in Israel could, if he were a good painter with a depraved mind, make a "billboard of the vilest simulated child pornography I can think of" and set it up on his property, and aside from a likely order to "keep it behind his fence" (a derivation from Exodus 21 and 22) there would be no legal penalty for such an action.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So, you're willing to: a) allow children to freely see vile pornography; b) allow a house of prostitution in your neighborhood; c) allow drugs to be marketed freely in your neighborhood. Some Christian.

Another example: you talk about the right to freely contract...recently there was a case out of Germany where one homosexual man freely allowed another homosexual man to shoot him and then eat his corpse. The man, who effectively committed "assisted" suicide, did this of his own free will. Should the man who shot and ate him be tried? Did he commit a crime?

Finally, here is how you dismiss the "fact-value" problem:

He is claiming to derive un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to his Objective of Not Being Murdered. The very term "value" implies a Moral Judgment which isn't even required for the derivation of un-exceptioned behavioral maxims necessary to accomplish an Objective.

Apparently you don't realize that "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are values. Okay? This problem is also referred to as the "ought-is" problem. Same thing. OWK is saying that he "ought not" be murdered. You cannot derive an ought from an is.

Example: 2+2=4 is a fact. I ought not be murdered is a value. You cannot get from facts to values, or values to facts.

Again, 2+2=4 is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact, or a "noble" fact, or a "kind" fact. It is a fact. The law of gravity is a fact. It is not an "evil" fact or a "good" fact. It's a fact. The existence of a gun is a fact. The existence of this gun does not tell you anything about how you ought to use that gun. You can use it for good or evil, but the gun itself is neither good nor evil.

Please examine this. I don't think you fully understand the implications of this...the reason that you're giving absurd answers like "I'd allow a giant billboard of child pornography in my neighborhood" is because you don't want to concede that libertarianism is absurd precisely because objective values, oughts or maxims are not derivable from facts.

QED

Same thing. OWK is saying that he "ought not" be murdered.

No, OWK is saying that he desires to not be murdered.

That is entirely different from a statement of "ought", which is a statement of Moral Value. OWK is not assigning any Moral Value to his desire to not be murdered; he is just acknowledging that this is his desire.

Apparently you don't realize that "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are values.

No, they aren't.

Assuming no ski-lifts, helicopters, etc... if it is your Objective to reach the top of a Mountain, it is an un-exceptioned behavioral maxim that you must climb up the Mountain.

The behavioral maxim is un-exceptioned; you cannot reach the the top of the mountain by sitting on your tuckus, you cannot reach the the top of the mountain by climbing down, reach the the top of the mountain by walking around the base in a circle... if it is your Objective to reach the top of a Mountain, it is an un-exceptioned behavioral maxim that you must climb up the Mountain.

No assignation of Moral Value is necessary. And yet the behavioral maxim necessary to accomplishment of the Objective is un-exceptioned. Ergo, "un-exceptioned behavioral maxims" are NOT Values.

You hate this fact, because it blows your entire Fact-Value Gap argument out of the water. And yet, it is true.

As to your (A), I already stated that a man must Fence in his property sufficient to contain his Externalities (e.g., the Fence must be high enough to hide the obscene billboard).

As for drugs and prostitution...

When God wrote the Civil Laws of ancient Israel, He instituted no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, even though alcohol, hashish, opium, etc., were well known and commonly used in the Middle East. Likewise, He instituted no civil penalty whatsoever for (non-priestly) prostitution.

So let me ask you something, you who profess to be some kind of "Christian":

Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God incomplete?

Answer the question.

I've asked you already, and I am going to keep asking you until you either repent of your State-Idolatry, or admit the fact that you are more in love with the idea of using the State as your own Contract-Murderer than you are in love with God.

Let me ask you a question: when the Christians finally succeeded in getting the Roman Coliseum closed down--imposing their view that murder is wrong--was that the right thing to do? Many of the gladiators "freely agreed" to fight to the death. Is dueling to the death wrong? Would you stop that? Another example: you talk about the right to freely contract...recently there was a case out of Germany where one homosexual man freely allowed another homosexual man to shoot him and then eat his corpse. The man, who effectively committed "assisted" suicide, did this of his own free will. Should the man who shot and ate him be tried? Did he commit a crime?

As a Christian Libertarian, these "challenges" aren't even difficult -- both are Violations of the Sixth Commandment.

I supposed that some Randians might have to chew on them a little, but for a Christian Libertarian the answer is as obvious as Romans 13:9-10:

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

So, having tossed away yet another red herring from your kettle of fish, I have to go back to the question you are dodging:

violent immorality

NOT

Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God incomplete?

I'm just gonna keep hammering you with this, HV. Answer the question.

Right now, you are more in love with the idea of using the State as your own Contract-Murderer than you are in love with God. But you can Repent and become a Christian even yet.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


*Random acts of cruelty may not be your* cup of tea, but who says your standards are for everyone?**


If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change, where can we find the quality of absolute?


Heated debates occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions.