withallyourmind.net

Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse - so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be.

C. S. Lewis - Mere Christianity, book III, chap. 1, para. 9, p. 73.

In conclusion of this brief series on why moral relativism fails and moral objectivisim succeeds, relativism fails because the practical results of such a system produces a world in which nothing is wrong, or evil, or good for all people. There can be no true accountability, no meaningful moral discourse, and no moral tolerance. Can a person consistently live with such a system? From my observations, the answer is, “No!” People cannot help but criticize others’ actions as wrong. They cannot help but speak of the evil in the world. All day long, they praise or blame others for their actions. People constantly speak of how certain things are not “fair” or “just”. They talk about wanting to become a better person, or how someone else has become a better person. They talk about morality as if it actually means something. They actually do think of tolerance as a moral virtue. To do any of the above is to deny moral relativism and to affirm moral objectivism.

Only moral objectivism makes sense of the world in which we live. There are some things that we simply know by moral intuition as being right or wrong, that is, they are immediate and obvious. Torturing babies for fun is not just wrong for me or you, it is wrong for all people, everywhere and at all times. Some oppose moral objectivism on the basis of what seems to be different moral practices in different cultures. Upon closer inspection, the moral principles are not so different after all, only their application. And even if these principles were, in fact, different, it would only prove that there are differences of opinion about what is the true moral principle, not that objective morality does not exist. Moral objectivism is the only option available to those who wish to live consistent, rational lives.

I have previously discussed 4 of the 7 reasons why moral relativism fails and moral objectivism succeeds. Here are the final three (based on Koukl’s 7 things a moral relativist cannot do).

Fifth, under moral relativism, one cannot improve his own morality (or a society cannot if conventionalism is what is in mind). If there is no outside standard by which an action can be measured, then improvement makes no sense. Without a backboard and goal, it is meaningless for a basketball player to talk about improving his shooting percentage. There must be some standard to rescue such talk from nonsense. Now, one may change his actions, but this is not helpful as one cannot intelligently judge whether one action is better than another. Furthermore, the motive for improving oneself vanishes as there is nothing to compel us to move “upward” in any sense. Morals can change, but never improve.

Sixth, moral relativism makes it impossible to have meaningful moral discussions. A. J. Ayer argued that ethical statements are meaningless because “argument is possible on moral questions only if some system of value is presupposed.” To Ayer, moral statements are nothing more than expressions of emotion, a view called emotivism. They contain no more content than an expression of feeling. As far as one can get on this view is that morality is like ice cream – One prefers vanilla, another chocolate. To recommend one view of action as right and another is wrong is meaningless. Moral recommendations and moral education are nonsensical concepts.

Seventh, a moral relativist cannot promote tolerance. Tolerance makes sense only if there is objective moral truth. Tolerance is purported to be one of the key virtues of moral relativism. Since morals are relative, the argument goes, we ought to tolerate others moral viewpoints. However, to say that one “ought” to be tolerant is a self-refuting statement. That claim in itself is put forth as an objective moral principle which is to be followed. If there are no objective moral principles, there can exist no “ought” concerning tolerance. Relativists further violate their own principle of tolerance when they do not tolerate the views of those whose morality is non-relativistic.

Next, a brief conclusion to this topic.

Continuing with a fuller discussion of Greg Koukl’s seven things a moral relativist cannot do, I present reasons number three and four why moral relativism fails and moral objectivism succeeds.

Third, if moral relativism is true then blame can neither be placed nor can praise be accepted. Men would be wrong to praise Mother Theresa and Gandhi. They would also be wrong to condemn men like Hitler and Stalin. When we praise Mother Theresa, are we simply saying that she performed actions that we like or prefer, or are we saying that there is something objectively praiseworthy in her actions? For a moral relativist, there is no objective goodness or badness. But when we praise or blame another, we are making a moral judgment about the goodness or badness of their actions. The relativist must remove such concepts as praise or blame from her vocabulary. If it is right to praise or blame others for certain actions, relativism is false.

Fourth, a moral relativist cannot claim anything is unfair or unjust. Like objective evil, justice and fairness are incoherent under relativism. The words have no meaning. These very concepts imply the equal treatment of people based on an external standard of rightness, which is the very thing denied by moral relativists. It cannot be wrong to punish an innocent person, nor immoral to let the guilty go free. This, of course, also destroys the concept of true moral guilt. If nothing is objectively immoral, then there can be no true moral blame, and subsequently no moral guilt.

Next…more reasons to reject relativism.

Not too long ago, I posted a quick blurb on Greg Koukl’s 7 things a moral relativist cannot do. I would like to expand on that topic over a few posts.

What are morals? Are they merely conventions of society? Are they products of different cultures? Are they the fabrication of individuals? These are all variations on the theme of moral relativism. Moral relativism claims that there are no such things as objective moral values. Morals do not exist as objective truths. They are subjective and their existence depends on the subject, or the holder of these values. Therefore, what is moral to one person might be immoral to another. The same action may be either immoral or moral depending upon the time and place in which it was carried out. Greg Koukl has enumerated seven fatal flaws which refute moral relativism, and in so doing establish moral objectivism as the only viable alternative.

First of all, if morality is relative, then one can never say that an action is wrong in and of itself. A thing cannot be objectively or intrinsically wrong for all people on this view. No matter how offensive another’s actions may be, one cannot criticize another as having done something wrong. One might state that another’s actions are distasteful to him, or that the act has offended his preferences, but not that another’s actions are morally wrong. Racism and slavery, for example, cannot be criticized as immoral, only that they are not preferred the one opposing them. If right and wrong are merely conventions or personal choice, we cannot morally judge others’ actions.

Second, if moral relativism is true, then one cannot complain about the problem of evil. The existence of evil in the world is often raised as an argument against Christianity. Christianity does not deny the existence of evil, and the problem is not always easy to deal with. However, moral relativism has a different problem of evil. On that view, evil does not exist as an objectively real thing. Evil would be relative to the individual and cannot be real in an objective sense. If relativism is true, then the very concept of evil becomes superfluous. There is nothing to discuss but preferences, what is pleasant or unpleasant, and what is desired or not desired. Moral relativism and objective evil cannot both be true at the same time.

Next, further reasons why moral relativism fails.

Here is a wonderful parable concerning the existence of the atheist Richard Dawkins. Quite entertaining.

HT: Thinking Christian.

I have posted here on several occasions on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has an excellent post at Townhall.com on “The Confusing Moral Logic of ESCR“. Here is an excerpt:

Only one question needs to be answered to resolve what many think is a complex moral problem. That question is, “What is it?” Both abortion and ESCR kill something that is alive. In fact, both destroy the same thing at different stages of development. Whether it’s right or not to take that life depends entirely on what it is we’re killing.

Let me put it as clearly as I know how. If the zygote or embryo or fetus is not a human being, then no justification for either abortion or ESCR is necessary. Use it or abuse it as you please. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for taking her life is adequate.

Here’s why. We do not justify harming any other human beings for the reasons people routinely give for abortion. And we don’t carve up innocent human beings on the hope that it might benefit someone else who is sick.

Several websites I frequent have promoted a National Geographic special which will air on Sunday. According to N.G., the viewer will “journey into the incredible fetal world of twins, triplets, and quads in the womb.” The images are supposedly amazing. I will either watch or tape the program depending on when it airs.

I was looking at Justin Taylor’s blog, Between Two Worlds, and came across a couple of interesting posts.

1. A question and answer session on N. T. Wright by New Testament professor Jim Hamilton.

2. The 50 most influential Christians in America by the Church Report.

In my last post, I briefly discussed how that an atheist must either live inconsistently with his worldview or live a life of devoid of true happiness. In contrast, the Christian worldview provides the two conditions which are necessary in order for one’s life to have meaning, value and purpose: The existence of God and the immortality of man. With these two conditions in place, one can live a happy, consistent life. The Bible affirms the ultimate significance of human life. Man has eternal life, knowing God forever, the very purpose for which man was made. Morality is grounded in God’s nature. His moral commands become our objective duties. The moral choices we make have eternal significance, and we are held accountable for them all. Man’s life has purpose, that is, to gloridy God and enjoy Him forever.

Christianity succeeds where atheism fails. Does this mean it is true? Not hardly. The last three posts do not attempt to prove that Christianity is true and atheism is false. They merely attempt to clearly elucidate the alternatives. If God does not exist, life is futile and absurd. If the Christian God does exist, life has meaning. Only if there is a God like the one described in the Bible can man live happily and consistently with his worldview. William Lane Craig argues that even if both options are equal in value, a rational person ought to choose biblical Christianity. For it is irrational to choose death, futility, and despair over hope, meaningfulness, and happiness.