Most atheists and agnostics believe in moral relativism:
Morality is created or invented relative to our desires, upbringing, feelings,
and the dictates of our society. And because it is created, rather than discovered
(existing objectively apart from ourselves), it changes as we and our society
change. This means that torturing babies might be “wrong” for one society but
not for another.
However, some atheists and agnostics are objective moral
realists. They believe in an unchanging objective set of moral laws, which
exist apart from ourselves and are therefore discovered rather than created.
Consequently, they believe that torturing babies is wrong no matter what time
or in what culture you might live.
As a Christian, I also believe that there are immutable and
universal objective moral laws. Therefore, I applaud others who believe in
moral laws and regard them as real and immutable as the law of gravity.
However, I must point out the problems in believing in moral law without a
moral law-Giver.
The atheist cannot adequately account for such laws in his
exclusively materialistic worldview. While the atheist might insist that the
moral laws are merely a part of the material universe, this seems unlikely:
MATERIALS ARE MOLECULES-IN-MOTION. Meanwhile, moral law, as are the
physical laws, is immutable.
MATERIAL REALITY DIFFERS GREATLY FROM PLACE-TO-PLACE. The Goby Desert is
greatly different from the bottom of the Indian Ocean or Mars. Moral absolutes
could not be objective or absolute if they differed in Alaska and the Congo. So
too, the law of gravity! What then would explain the fact that moral law is
universal? Consequently, the moral laws must rest upon something that
transcends this varied material universe.
MATERIAL REALITY CANNOT EXPLAIN OR ACCOUNT FOR OUR ELEGANT
AND THEREFORE KNOWABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS AND MORALITY. Even the chemical table exhibits profound
elegance and design. What can explain such elegance in the material world apart
from an intelligent Designer? Besides, a changing material world cannot begin
to explain the existence of unchanging laws.
There is also elegance in the operation of the moral laws. Following
the moral laws bring harmony, order, and peace. We do wrong, and we feel
guilty. We confess our sin (and perhaps make necessary reparations), and we
feel better. Relationships are restored. Or instead, we attempt to justify
ourselves and must harden our conscience accordingly, as we obsessively wage an
inner war to prove ourselves right and, in the process, weaken relationships.
MORAL LAW ALSO MUST BE AUTHORITATIVE. It must carry the
authority to tell us that we have done either wrongly and to require a price
for wrongdoing. It communicates through the compelling feelings of guilt and
shame. Consequently, we are coerced to make excuses and justify ourselves.
However, there is nothing in the merely physical world that can communicate our
guilt with any authority.
For one thing, the physical world reveals what is, not what ought to be (morality). My computer might flash a screen at me
reading, “You have not treated me properly.” However, these words carry no
authority. Although it might shut itself down if I didn’t follow the proper
procedures, it cannot censure me morally. I can simply have it repaired without
any damage to my conscience.
Besides, what is impersonal (the physical world) cannot be
morally offended like what is personal. If the physical universe is the source
of moral law, I cannot offend it by yelling at it. I can curse at my computer
without breaking a moral law. However, if I scream at my wife or my
subordinate, this is entirely a different matter.
Buddhists and Hindus also believe in a moral law – karma.
However, without a law-Giver, how can karma be justly administered? Without
Intelligence, how is karmic justice to be administered in light of the many
moral nuances that must be considered?
Besides, we can defy physical laws like gravity, without
consequence, by flying on a plane. However, we cannot take a pill to cleanse a
guilty conscience, not for long, at least. Morality cannot be successfully
side-stepped.
Moral problems must be addressed with moral answers.
However, a material world can offer no explanation or remedy (just palliatives)
for moral problems. We can take an antibiotic to cure giardia, but there does
not exist an antibiotic for guilt.
In his essay “Fact and Value,” Leonard Peikoff argued that
there are objective moral principles or laws embedded in the physical reality –
the “is” - of this cosmos:
•
As Ayn Rand states the point in “The Objectivist
Ethics”: “Knowledge, for any conscious organism, is the means of survival; to a
living consciousness, every ‘is‘ implies an ‘ought.’”
(http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articles/fact-and-value/)
But how it is that “every ‘is‘ implies an ‘ought?’” A car
can place no demand on us that it “ought” to be driven. Nor can an apple demand
that it “ought” to be eaten. Instead, it seems that the “is” and the “ought”
occupy separate worlds.
Ordinarily, they do, but Peikoff unites them by quietly introducing
his own “ought” to connect the non-moral
“is” to the “ought”:
•
Every fact of reality which we discover has,
directly or indirectly, an implication for man’s self-preservation and thus for
his proper course of action. In relation to the goal of staying alive, the fact
demands specific kinds of actions and prohibits others; i.e., it entails a
definite set of evaluations. For instance, sunlight is a fact of metaphysical
reality; but once its effects are discovered by man and integrated to his goals,
a long series of evaluations follows: the sun is a good thing.
“The fact demands specific kinds of actions and prohibits
others” only because Peikoff’s
“ought” requires the facts to do so. The facts are to serve
his “ought” – “man’s self-preservation.” Consequently, “the sun is a good
thing.” Why? Because it serves our “ought” of “self-preservation!”
But from where did this “ought” of “self-preservation” come?
Not from the facts! The facts of existence are silent about human priority or
exceptionalism. They say nothing of a human value or importance that exceeds
the value of termites, mosquitos, bacteria, or hogs. (The concept of value
requires us to question – “Valuable to whom?” Certainly to humans, but this is
just a subjective assessment.) Instead,
in order to salvage “The Objectivist Ethics,” Peikoff was forced to inject his
own subjective value of “man’s self-preservation.” (If the hog could speak,
he’d speak of “hogs’ preservation.) However, this makes his entire moral system
subjective. All of the facts are subjectively coerced into serving his own
value of “man’s self-preservation.”
Yet, I appreciate Peikoff’s attempt at trying to formulate
an objective system of morality. However, moral law requires a moral law-Giver.
There is only one objective basis for morality, the “ought” – the One
immutable, omniscient, and universal God, who demands the very morality He has
written on our conscience.
A world without God is a world where anything goes, and the
worst deeds are met with silence. The humanist Max Hocutt had aptly written:
·
“To me [the non-existence of God] means that
there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions
devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a morality written up in
the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no good reason why anyone
should pay it any heed.” (David Noebel, Understanding
the Times)
