Morality: Who Needs God?

Advertisements
Advertisements
January 4, 2023

6 min read

FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintFriendlyShare

A look at relative and objective morality, and where God fits into the picture.

Imagine a food substance that could taste like whatever you want. Your desire creates the flavor. It could be chocolate one minute, lasagna the next. There is no objective taste; it’s all relative to the eater.

According to Jewish literature, the manna the Hebrews ate in the desert had this unique quality. Its flavor was wholly subjective. You want daiquiri ice with a twist a lemon? Voila. Steak with portobello mushrooms? You’re good to go.

One desert evening under the starry sky, you overhear some kids having a ferocious argument.

“What are you guys arguing about?” you ask.

Jake says, “Sarah thinks the manna tastes like strawberries in cream. She’s totally wrong! It tastes like a hamburger!”

“No it doesn’t,” Sarah yells. “It tastes like strawberries!”

“Both of you are wrong!” pipes up Zach. “It tastes like a Budweiser.”

You can’t believe what you’re hearing.

“Guys, the manna can simultaneously taste like all those flavors since it has no objective taste. It tastes like whatever you want it to taste like. It’s relative. None of you are right – or wrong. It’s all a matter of personal preference.”

Morality: Relative or Objective?

Manna’s peculiar quality gives us an insight into understanding the nature of morality. Many people profess to believe that morality is relative, subjective, that there is no single objective standard of right and wrong. After all, different societies have different views about what is right and wrong. Even within the same society people have very divergent views on abortion, gender issues, religion and politics.
Professor Allan Bloom’s words are even more applicable today than when he wrote them decades ago in his book The Closing of the American Mind:

There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. If this belief is put to the test, one can count on the students' reaction: they will be uncomprehending. That anyone should regard the proposition as not self-evident astonishes them, as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4.

Let’s clearly define moral relativity. Like the manna that has no objective taste, good and evil, right and wrong, are subjective, meaning each individual creates his or her own standard based on one’s personal preferences and tastes. So the Aztecs performed child sacrifice; the Hindu widow was burned alive on her dead husband’s pyre and considered it heroic; the Papuan enjoyed feasting on human flesh. None of these may be your cup of tea; no one is asking you to like it. Different strokes for different folks.

Like the manna that has no objective taste, good and evil are subjective, each individual creates his own standard based on personal preferences and tastes.

And since there is no objective standard of good and evil, you can’t call out someone’s preference as wrong; the most you could say is that you don’t like it. It’s similar to my intense revulsion toward olives. They’re gross and disgusting, please get them away from me… but evil? Immoral? 

Interestingly, even though many people say they believe that morality is relative, it seems that the vast majority deep down don’t truly believe it, nor live their lives in concert with that belief.

How can one see that?

By the fact that most people, at some point in their lives, vociferously and passionately argue over moral issues. If they believed morality is relative, what are they arguing about? There is no right or wrong! It’s whatever each of us wants it to be, like the manna in the desert.

When people have a heated exchange or experience moral outrage, they are not merely expressing their distaste; they believe their position is the right and true one, and that the other person is absolutely wrong. They are arguing about what is the actual truth.

That kind of intense discussion is predicated on the belief that there is a truth out there, and it’s our responsibility to use our reasoning and thinking capabilities to discern it, substantiate it and demonstrate it to others. It is only if an objective truth exists (regardless of what that truth may be) can we begin to attempt to discern it and passionately argue about it.

Moral relativism means the individual himself creates his standard of morality based on his preferences; objective morality means that standard exists outside of us, independent and absolute, and it’s the individual’s responsibility to discern it.

Creating and discerning are two very different things.

It’s rare to find a consistent moral relativist.

Believing there is an objective morality doesn’t mean that your position is necessarily the correct one. You can make mistakes and be wrong. That’s why it’s essential to be a truth seeker, committed to hearing various viewpoints with humility, and putting in your best effort to discern truth from falsehood.

It is certainly possible to believe morality is relative, but it’s rare to find a consistent moral relativist.

Who Creates Objective Morality?

If you believe there is some objective standard of right and wrong, who creates it?

What makes something true, as opposed to being merely in vogue, is its sense of permanence. Murdering an innocent child isn’t just wrong for now, with the possibility of it becoming "right" some time in the future. It’s immoral in an absolute sense, permanent, eternal.

Absolute means unchangeable, cannot change.

But what is unchangeable? Everything in existence is undergoing change. Things get older, they erode, and if they don’t change, that doesn’t mean they couldn’t potentially change. There’s a difference between being unchangeable and unchanging. My dislike for olives is unchanging, but it’s not unchangeable.

Only an Infinite God who exists beyond time is absolute and unchangeable.

Everything in our finite universe is bounded by time, which means it’s undergoing constant change. After all, time is a measurement of change. In Hebrew, shanah means "year," sharing the same root shinah, which means "change."
Only an Infinite God who exists beyond time, and has no beginning or end, is absolute and unchangeable. “I am God, I do not change”' (Malachi 3:6).

For an objective, absolute standard of morality to exist, there needs to be an Infinite Being Who is eternal, beyond time, and impervious to change from which it stems.

So if you believe there is some objective standard of right and wrong, even though we may argue about it, chances are you have an underlying belief in an Infinite Being who exists beyond time and is absolute and unchangeable, without even realizing it.

Click here to comment on this article
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marina
Marina
1 month ago

This reminds me of the very first semester, when I started my law degree. Our professor asked us ‚What is the absolute norm =law?‘. He went on to explain the problem of morality or religious beliefs to be taken as the basis from which to require us to obey the law. These kind of philosophical arguments in history lead to the establishment of constitutions as the basic laws in democratic countries. All other regulations must adhere to its rules.

Last edited 1 month ago by Marina
EXPLORE
LEARN
MORE
Explore
Learn
Resources
Next Steps
About
Donate
Menu
Languages
Menu
oo
Social
.