Objections to the Moral Law

In the previous blog, we finished answering the question: Does morality point to God? The answer was "yes." However, even with the moral argument being sound,  there are two common objections when it comes to an objective moral law. 

Here they are:

The first objection is morals are simply relative to the individual. Some people call this ethical subjectivism. We typically refer to it as moral relativism.

You could say it’s the belief that whatever a person thinks, feels, desires is right. Rightness is relative to the individual. It’s subjective. But if this were true, no one could ever be wrong about his or her moral views. So no one could claim that Adolph Hitler’s racism and his murdering of 6 million people was wrong. It was just simply his preference and no one should put up a fuss about it. It’s all relative.

The Parkland shootings wouldn’t be wrong, because it was the shooter’s preference. He felt it was right to attack and kill those kids and teachers. Moral relativist have nothing to say about it, because it’s all relative to the individual.

The reality is moral relativism is unlivable. It would be pure anarchy. No thought, belief, word or action could ever be deemed wrong. There would be no law.

Steal or buy. Your choice.

Love or rape. Your choice.

Kill or let live, your choice.

Nurture or torture. Your choice.

Here’s the problem, we all do condemn certain actions or beliefs. People don’t believe in moral relativism, because in one way or another they will impose their beliefs upon you. This contradicts what they say.

The second objection is that morals are just things that one culture or people group agree on from time to time. This is known as ethical conventionalism or cultural relativism.

Another way of saying it is whatever a person’s culture says is right is right. Now, it is true that government, school, church, the home are vehicles or modes to learn about morality, but that doesn’t give evidence that they are the source of the morals.

But there are greater problems with cultural relativism. 

First, if morals are simply the construct of one culture to the next, no other culture could argue against their moral convictions. In other words, no culture could denounce another culture’s ways. You couldn’t declare war, because there would be no grounds for war.  Think about this: the Nuremberg Trials – the 1940’s trials where the world courts tried 22 Nazi’s couldn’t have happened, because they would have been a violation of Germany’s cultural morals. Under cultural relativism, you can’t impose your cultural convictions on another culture.

Second, cultural relativism means that moral reform of a culture is not possible. In cultural relativism, slavery should be left untouched. The sex trade should be tolerated and not messed with. The #metoo movement shouldn’t exist because there exists a culture where the preference was to sexually harass, inappropriately touch, or rape. The #metoo movement goes against the cultural relativist’s position.

Third, it’s very difficult to know where one culture ends and another begins. Islam says that a sure way to heaven is to commit Jihad. Well this concept clearly goes against the beliefs of Christianity. Yet, there are both Muslims and Christians in homes right next to each other across America.

These are legitimate push backs, but there are adequate and quite powerful answers for each.

I think we'd all agree that a world without objective morality is absurd and quite unlivable. Let's admit what we live and what we know to be true: A moral law exists and it is written on each and every heart.