The Case for Objective Morality

The Christian Model of Truth (Formerly the Dominant view)

Truth is defined by God. He is the author & judge of right & wrong for everyone. Moral absolutes are “objective” standards of right & wrong or good and evil—which are the same for all people regardless of whether any person or culture believes them to be true.

The Relativistic Model of Truth

   Defined by the individual: Subjective and situational. Truth and morality vary from person to person & culture to culture. One’s personal perspective determines what is right & wrong. Believing in absolute truth or morality today is considered to be narrow-minded and bigoted

Relativism is being propagated in schools and universities all over America. A recent survey done by the Barna Research Group revealed that among those who said they believe in Jesus Christ, and have a relationship with Him; 3 out of 4 adults DENYED that there was OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTE moral truth.

   Think that scars you? 9 out of 10 teenagers in the same group also denied it. It also showed that a majority of American adults believe there is no such thing as absolute truth—different people can define truth in contradictory ways and be correct.

How does this impact our message?- The message of the gospel? The problem of mankind- the fall- “original sin”, and mankind’s depravity- and the solution to it? Our solution to this dilemma depends on the necessity of the idea that there is REAL SIN!

   And there can only be REAL SIN if there is real MORALITY- and if there is no REAL MORALITY- than there’s no real SIN—then there’s no real need for forgiveness from sin

Which might make you wonder—what is in the minds of all these people who say they are believing in Christ for their salvation? Such that he forgives their sin—So they can get into Heaven—When at the same time they deny that there is anything really called sin. 3 to 1 in the adult population. 9 to 1 in the teenage population. This doesn’t make much sense. How could a Christian not believe there is really moral guilt that Jesus forgives you for. That’s the centerpiece of the whole Christian message.

Confusion on Tolerance

   Many today are confused about what tolerance is. “Tolerance means to allow or to permit, to recognize and respect others’ beliefs & practices without sharing them, to bear or put up with someone or something not necessarily liked." (Websters New World Dictionary).

   Tolerance then, involves permitting or allowing a conduct or point of view you think is wrong while respecting the person in the process. So, we can’t "tolerate" others unless we disagree with them. We don’t tolerate people who share our views. Tolerance is for those we think are wrong.

   Today’s culture presents us a curious problem: Judging someone as wrong makes one intolerant, yet one must first think another is wrong in order to be tolerant. It’s a catch 22. According to this approach, true tolerance is impossible. Some behavior is immoral and a threat to the common good and so is not tolerated, but restricted by law.

   Tolerating people should be distinguished from tolerating ideas. civic tolerance says that all views should get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person’s ideas are any better or truer than those of another is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.

   Today, these categories are frequently muddled by people. If we reject another’s idea or behavior, we are automatically accused of rejecting the person and of being disrespectful or bigoted, or hateful. To say we’re intolerant of the person because we disagree with his idea is confused.

Historically, our society has usually emphasized tolerance of all persons, but not tolerance of all behavior. Most of what passes for tolerance today is not tolerance at all, but actually intellectual cowardice.. Those who hide behind “tolerance” are often afraid of intelligent engagement and don’t engage or even consider contrary opinions. It’s easier to hurl an insult than to confront the idea and either refute it or allow our ideas to be changed.

   R. C. Sproul noted- that “People embrace relativism when objective truth is a threat to them. They know that if the holiness of God is real, then they are in real trouble.”

The classical rule of tolerance is still a good guideline:

   “Tolerate persons in all circumstances by according them respect and courtesy. Tolerate behavior that is moral and consistent with the common good, and tolerate ideas that are sound.”

The Myth of Tolerance

   Many hold to the mistaken notion that there is morally neutral ground. Like there is an island that you stand on, in which you hold your own moral point of view and you keep it to yourself—you live by your morals; and so you are very careful not to violate tolerance. You will be quickly marginalized by society with all of it’s peer pressure. You’ll be called names like: Bigoted! Narrow-minded! Intolerant!. Arrogant!

   The problem is those who claim to be on an island of neutrality are not on some kind of neutral island. They campaign for their ideas, politically and morally. They believe those who don’t hold to different views are wrong. That doesn’t sound very “tolerant”. That’s really the point. There is no neutrality! Everybody has a point of view.

  Here’s a tactic you can use- If somebody comes up to you and says- “You’re arrogant-thinking that your views are right, and those with contrary views are wrong”.

Ask them- Why would you call me arrogant? If they say- “You think your views are right, and others who disagree are wrong.” You could say, Well, I do think I’m right, that’s why I hold the views I do. If I thought my views were wrong, I would change them.

   You could ask: “Are the views that you hold, correct or incorrect?” A very good question to ask somebody. What do you think they would tell me? They believe their views are correct! That’s why they hold them. "Let me see if I get this straight. When I Think I’M correct, just in virtue of thinking I’m correct; I’m arrogant. But when you think you're right.. As you do right now; you’re not arrogant--you’re just right?  You know how they justify this kind of craziness- The reason they know that they’re not arrogant and I am is because they’re actually right! (Think they are) Nobody is neutral!

  Greg Koukl’s explains that his brother had one of his children in a public elementary school. The teacher was using Values Clarification exercises, wherein- the instructors give moral problems to the third and fourth graders that they have to solve. In this case, the example was an elderly man who’s wife is sick and dying, and in pain. So the man kills his wife in a mercy killing situation- (euthanasia) to ease her suffering. And the question given to the third and fourth graders is: Should this man be punished for what he did? This is a very manipulative example to begin with.

They’re not given any guidelines. They’re not saying, here is the right answer, here are the rules, to help you figure this out. The idea is that they clarify their own values. "It’s up to you", they say. There is no wrong answer. You just need to work it out.

   His brother got real upset when he heard about this, and he went down to talk to the teacher. Now what was the teacher’s defense? That he was “neutral”. Remember this is the whole idea of tolerance-- We're neutral! We tolerate all views!

   Teacher- “We’re not pushing our views on somebody else, we’re not telling them how to think, we’re telling them, it’s up to them." What's the problem with this statement?

   His brother said to the teacher- “Do you realize that when you give my children the most difficult kinds of moral problems that they could ever have to think about. And then you tell them “There are no principles to guide them. There are no objective absolutes to help them out; there are no right answers". That’s not NEUTRAL! That’s a PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW... It's called MORAL RELATIVISM. Most people would never teach their children this way. Nor would that teacher teach his kids like this. However, they have no problem teaching other people's children this way.

People will SAY they are relativist, but they do not live their life that way in the real world.

The Case for the Moral Law

   The moral law tells us what we OUGHT to do. There is an influence or command inside each of us trying to get us to behave in a certain way.

Romans 1:18-20... READ Romans 2:12-15- Those who have not the law Do by NATURE the things contained IN the law...Law WRITTEN ON THEIR HEARTS.

   We can see that there is a surprising consensus from civilization to civilization about what is moral decency. Certain evils are wrong in all cultures like murder, rape, theft, and lying. A UNIVERSAL standard of behavior has been shown to exist in ALL PEOPLE, REGARDLESS of their culture, religion, or their period in HISTORY.

   Some will say that there can’t be a natural law, because ALL different cultures have completely different moral IDEAS. If there were a natural law we’re told— Then every culture would have all the SAME moral ideas.

   But this argument is absurd. Because all cultures DON’T have all different moral ideas. C. S... He said, JUST TRY... JUST TRY... To find a culture—Look wherever you want! Go to the South Pacific, look around in Asia, look in Europe, try Canada, Mexico.. The West Coast of the United States.... Just try to find a CULTURE which ADMIRES a man for RUNNING AWAY in battle.

TACTIC: We would not know what EVIL is, in any UNIVERSAL sense, unless a moral standard exists OUTSIDE of us. Without a moral ABSOLUTE--there would be no CRITERIA to DETERMINE what is right or wrong. C. S. LEWIS- atheist- “injustice” what’s that. “There must be an ultimate standard BEYOND THE WORLD IMPINGING down upon the world with His Moral Law.”

   EVERYONE expects others to follow some moral CODES, even those who try to DENY THEM. But MORAL LAW is an UNDENIABLE FACT. 

A. All people are conscious of an objective moral law. 

B. Moral laws imply a moral Lawgiver. 

C. Therefore, therefore, there must be supreme moral Lawgiver. Some have the idea that God’s basic moral requirements are only revealed in the Bible.

   The Bible doesn’t make that claim. It makes the OPPOSITE claim. The Bible tells of at LEAST five other ways in which God HAS MADE His own reality and His requirements KNOWN to people generally.

Acts 14:17-God has not left Himself WITHOUT A WITNESS among the non-believers. THE FIVE WITNESS: Because of these no human being can HONESTLY claim to be altogether ignorant of right and wrong.

1. The Witness of Conscience- Even the pagans know God’s basic moral law. “Written on their Heart”. Rm. 2:14- Their conscience also bearing them witness

Paul said in the chapter earlier- Rom. 1:18- They HOLD the truth down in unrighteousness, they suppress it by their wickedness. The charge against the pagans is – NOT- you did not KNOW about God. You pretended to yourselves that you didn’t KNOW. 

2. The Witness of Godward Longing- 

Acts 17.. built an altar to the UNKNOWN GOD. At some level they Knew that none of their idols could ever save...they had an intuition of some HOLY one who COULD, a God- “In whom we live and breathe, and have our being.” And, who is somehow our Father. 

3. The Witness of God’s Handiwork- David and Paul both say that CREATION cries out about it’s ETERNAL, glorious, powerful and merciful Creator. Psalm 19 and Rom. 10 -- “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

4. The Witness of the Harvest- Every sin is linked with consequences. Whatever we SOW we REAP. People may PRETENT ignorance of these consequences. People of our own culture still pretend ignorance of the harvest of the sexual revolution.

They pretend to be ignorant of the disease, the divorce, the mistrust, the abortion, the fatherlessness, teen violence... THE INCREASING violence against CHILDREN! That this culture of the sexual revolution has SPAWNED. ALL THAT and we still say- “IT DOESN’T HURT ANYONE?” 

5. The Witness of Our Design- God’s makes some of his intentions PLAIN, JUST THROUGH THE WAY THAT HE MADE US! He stamps them on the BLUEPRINT, the PLAN of our physical and our emotional design. 

Some say: “Human nature is just a collection of things that look designed, but really aren’t. No, They LOOK designed, because they ARE designed.

CONCLUSION:  “And so it is that “UNCONVERTED GENTILES, who have NEITHER waited at the foot of SINAI, like the JEWS, NOR sat at the feet of JESUS, like the CHRISTIANS.. are STILL accountable to God. All too often, Christians ACCEPT the world’s assumption, that the problem with human sin is people don’t KNOW what’s RIGHT!  The problem is not that we don’t KNOW what’s right, but we don’t WANT what’s right. We KNOW, but we pretend NOT to know.

   So in the area of moral and Cultural apologetics, the task is not to a PROVING operation, where the task is to PROVE stuff... It is a DREDGING operation. The task is to BRING THINGS TO THE SURFACE. That they’ve been pushing DOWN.

What should we do when absolutes conflict with each other?

Norman Geisler explains Heirarchical Ethics in his book Christian Ethics. He refers to what he calls “The Greater Good Ethic”. IT was developed in the 60’s as a response to Joseph Flether’s Situation Ethics.

   There are many examples in Bible- Abraham & Isaac, Daniel, Rahab, Shadrach, Mishac & Ibindigo were faced with two options – The lesser evil, or the greater good. In unavoidable situations, where there are conflicts, there must be a heirarchy of values.

   When a higher and a lower principle in unavoidable conflict, it’s our obligation to do the higher one. (God will approve of us doing the higher)-Illustrations:

Example: -“Obey Government” 1 Peter 2:13, Romans 13, Titus 3:1 In Daniel 3 and Daniel 6 they disobeyed the Government and God approved of what they did. Because the government said worship an idol, or pray only to me.

Illustration: Two cars approaching- intersection at the same time—“Right Away” God has built into his system "ethical right away” signs. When two moral principles come into conflict and you can’t keep both of them. There is an ethical right away sign, you suspend one, and keep the other... keep the higher.

Heirarchy is a Pyramind with God on the top, persons are underneath, and things are on the bottom. GOD..... PERSONS..... THINGS.....

God=highest value, then comes persons, then things. If Conflict-Higher over lower Matt. 22- “The first and greatest commandment is a vertical one, to love the Lord they God, with all of your heart, mind, soul, and strength. The 2 commandment is a horizontal one.. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 6:33- Seek ye first the kingdom... all of these THINGS.... added Jesus- “A persons life doesn’t consist in the abundance of the things he possesses.”

Pyramid of values=        GOD-               PERSONS-           THINGS

   When in a conflict- Always choose the highest value. Example- Mercy is higher than truth in God’s attributes. Corrie Ten Boom-lying to save Jews from Nazis. Mercy to the innocent is higher than telling the truth to the guilty. Corrie Ten Boom was suspended in her obligation to tell the truth to the Nazis, because she had a higher obligation to show mercy to the Jews.

Illustration- Do you leave your lights on when you go on vacation? To whom are you lying ? Would be thieves.

   An intentional falsification for the purpose of saving your property. If you wouldn’t lie to save a PERSON, but you would lie to save your PROPERTY, then you think JEWELS are higher than JEWS.

If you zero in one one moral principle, with a fixation on that one moral principle and neglects the greater good, it tends to legalism. Pharisess- Fixated on the Sabbath and neglected helping people.

Jesus deliberately said.. “Here is a higher law, don’t fixate on that lower law” because you become legalistically set on doing unmerciful things.

Tactics to Refute Relativism: Christians should boldly proclaim that relativism is false and contradictory—And self-refuting—a serious affront to our moral intuition... impossible to live it out in the real world. 1. The statement “There are no moral absolutes” is an absolute truth .

Here is a principle you USE, and can do HAVOC with EVERY FALSE philosophy... Once you get this principle under your belt, all you have to do is to analyze the self-defeating nature of the arguments or assertions that people give you.

1 Timothy 6:20- avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge. Amplified- AVOID the subtleties and the CONTRADICTIONS

It comes from. 

2 Cor. 10:5- the Apostle Paul said, “We DESTROY arguments - How do we Destroy arguments? You let them destroy themselves. You don’t have to destroy them.

You just state the argument clearly—turn it back on itself—and it cuts it own throat. This just means the argument is SELF-DEFEATING, it CUTS ITS OWN THROAT the argument PULLS THE CARPET out from under ITSELF.

For example- One of the favorites of our culture. ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE! IS THAT TRUE? .... You see, if ALL truth is relative, how about that truth? That “All truth is relative.” ..... If ALL truth is relative, then that’s also a relative truth!

"EVERYTHING is both TRUE and FALSE at the same time. Ask them". “Is THAT statement, both TRUE and FALSE? “I can’t speak a word of English. What would you say? You JUST did! And if they say to us, You can’t EXPRESS ultimately reality in words. Say “You JUST did”

Agnostic- “You can’t know anything” How do you KNOW that you cannot KNOW?

You don’t have to be afraid of error. Just whip out this principle and stick it in the statement And see if it BLEEDS. If it BLEEDS ITSELF TO DEATH. You have nothing to fear from it

2. Second Strategy- Everybody believes certain things are true for all people at all times in all places. People will act like they are relativists to justify their behavior, But deep down in their heart, all people know, that some acts are absolutely wrong.

3. Relativism is morally unthinkable, Followed through logically: “If nothing is TRUE, NOTHING is immoral in any absolute sense.  

4. Relativism is unreasonable. Reality is not determined by our beliefs. Even a very sincere belief, does not determine truth.  

5. True tolerance does not mean that all values, lifestyles, & truth claims are equal. We can tolerate those we disagree with while respecting them in the process. To argue- some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly, does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance.

6. Moral progress. If morality is relative, there could not be any moral progress—Societies would not be able to “IMPROVE”. If there is no “BETTER” in terms of societal norms, how could a society get “better”.

7. Reformer fallacy. There can’t be real moral reformers-Wilberforce, M. L. King.

Conclusion: Watchman Nee: “The truth is absolute, and it demands undeviating loyalty of all people under all circumstances. All we possess we can sacrifice if need be, but the Truth we dare not sacrifice. We must never seek to bend it to our purpose, but must always bow to it.”