How do we know what is good from evil?

1. How do we know what is good from evil? An introductory Survey to the Moral Law Argument www.prshockley.org

2. Consider the following quote: “The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.” Albert Einstein.

3. Moral Absolutism: Biblical Christianity embraces moral absolutism which posits the following beliefs: 1. Absolute standards against which moral questions are evaluated; 2. Certain actions are considered right or wrong; 3. Opposed to philosophical and moral relativism (all truths are relative to social, cultural, historical constructs, paradigms, or preferences; 4. The infinite-personal God is the source of moral absolutism; 5. Moral laws are discoverable and knowable regardless of time, place, or context.

4. What do we mean by Moral Absolutes? 1. Moral obligation is a duty that is good in itself. 2. It is something we ought to pursue, a duty. 3. Morality is prescriptive (an “ought”), not merely descriptive (an “is”). • Morality deals with what is right, as opposed to what is wrong. • It is an obligation, that for which a person is accountable. 6. It is demoralizing not to obey these moral absolutes.

5. What do we mean by Moral Absolutes? • The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. • A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3. Virtuous conduct. 4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

6. What do we mean by Moral Absolutes?An absolute duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places. Moral absolutists believe that a moral absolute involves three qualities: 1. Is objective (not subjective) - a duty for all persons; 2. Is eternal (not temporal) - a duty at all times; 3. Is universal (not local) - a duty for all places. Now, let’s turn to the moral law argument:

7. The Moral Law Argument: The belief in an objective moral law finds expression in Judaism (Amos 1; Tosefta; Cain’s defensive response to God after murdering Abel in Genesis). In the N.T. the moral law is articulated in Romans 2:12-15 in which humanity is said to stand unexcused since there is “a law written on the hearts.” Moral laws don’t describe what is, they prescribe what ought to be. In the early writings of the early church fathers (even in Origen’s Commentary of Romans) this view is taught.

8. The Moral Law Argument: • Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver. 2. There is an objective moral law. 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

9. There exists an objective moral law: What if someone denies objective moral laws? Consider the following eight points:

10. Have you ever been done wrong? • Absolutes are undeniable. Consider…we know right from wrong best by our reactions to wrongs committed against us (e.g., criminal acts of Dahmer; stealing my car).

11. Is there any action or event that is universally unjust? • We wouldn’t know injustice if there was no absolute sense of justice (you only know something is wrong by comparing it to an unchanging standard of what is right); it is the unchanging standard or basis of justice.

12. The Standard of Justice [As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Straight Line = Standard C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, p 45.

13. Is every moral issue just an opinion?: 3. Real moral disagreements would not be possible without the Moral Law. Every moral issue would be a matter of opinion if you deny objective morality.

15. Can you measure moral judgments? 4. Everything can’t be relative if there is nothing to be relative to. There must be some independent standard otherwise nothing could be measured (e.g., Nuremberg Trials).

16. Any self-defense mechanism will do. 5. We would not make excuses for breaking the Moral Law if it didn’t exist.

17. How do you know? • 6. We wouldn’t know the world was getting worse (or better) if there was no moral law.

18. Is it ever right to disobey govt.? 7. The Moral Law is the “prescriptive” basis for political and social dissent.

19. Is there any moral judgment that is always right? 8. Therefore, since we know what’s absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard or basis of rightness.

20. We know it, but we can deny it. It seems then we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. First, human beings all over the earth have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way. Second, they do not in fact behave in that way. The truth is, we believe in decency so much that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity, p 21.

21. Other Expressions of The Moral Law Argument: Hastings Rashdall 1858-1924 English Philosopher at Oxford University. Embraced (and was the first to use the term) Ideal Utilitarianism. 1858-1924, English Philosopher, Fellow at Oxford & ideal Utilitarian.

22. Other Expressions of The Moral Law Argument: Ideal Utilitarian is an ethical theory that denies that the exclusive concern is the consequential maximization of pleasure. Other things have intrinsic value such as beauty and friendship which should be sought while pain, hatred, and appetites that lead to destructive behaviors should be rejected. 1858-1924, English Philosopher, Fellow at Oxford & ideal Utilitarian.

23. 1.      An absolutely perfect moral ideal exists (at least psychologically in our minds). 2.      An absolutely perfect moral law can exist only if there is an absolutely perfect moral Mind: (a) Ideas can exist only if there are minds (thoughts depend on thinkers). (b) And absolute ideas depend on an absolute Mind (not on individual [finite] minds like ours). 3.      Hence, it is rationally necessary to postulate an absolute Mind as the basis for the absolutely perfect moral idea. The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall (1858-1924):Beginning with the objectivity of the moral law, Rashdall reasons to an absolutely perfect Mind:

24. 1.     Morality is generally understood as objectively binding. 2.     Mature minds understand morality as being objectively binding (i.e., binding on all, not just some). 3.     Moral objectivity is a rationally necessary postulate (because something cannot be judged as better or worse unless there is an objective standard of comparison). 4.     Objective moral ideals are practically necessary to postulate. The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:Rashdall’s argument for the objectivity of the absolute moral ideas is argued this way:

25. If an objective moral law exists independent of individual minds, then it must ultimately come from a Mind that exists independently of finite minds. It is rationally necessary to postulate such a Mind in order to account for the objective existence of this moral law. The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:Rashdall’s argument for the objectivity of the absolute moral ideas is argued this way:

26. Moral Law Argument according to Dr. W. R. Sorley: William Ritchie Sorley 1855-1935 British Idealist; Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy in the University of Cambridge; Author of A History of British Philosophy to 1900.

27. British idealism is generally distinguished by several ideas: 1. A belief in an Absolute (a single all- encompassing reality that in some sense formed a coherent and all-inclusive system); A high view of reason as both the faculty by which the Absolute's structure is grasped and as that structure itself; 3. A rejection of a dichotomy between thought and object. Rather, reality consisting of thought-and- object together in a strongly coherent unity. The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:

28. Introduction to Sorley’s argument: 1. It depends on the objectivity of the moral law. 2. Since there exists a moral ideal prior to, superior to, and independent of all finite minds, there must be a supreme moral Mind from which this moral ideal is derived. The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:

29. 1.      There is an objective moral law that is independent of human consciousness of it and that exists in spite of human lack of conformity to it: (a) Persons are conscious of such a law beyond themselves; (b) Persons admit its validity is prior to their recognition of it; (c) Persons acknowledge its claim on them, even while not yielding to it; (d) no finite mind completely grasps its significance; (e) all finite minds together have not reached complete agreement on its meaning, nor conformity with its ideal. The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:

30. 2.     But ideas exist only in minds. 3.     Therefore, there must be a supreme Mind (beyond all finite minds) in which this objective moral law exists. The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:“

31. Moral Law Argument according to Dr. David Elton Trueblood: Popular 20th Century American Quaker, philosopher, & Evangelical theologian. Chaplain to both Harvard & Stanford University. Senior advisor to President David Eisenhower; close friends with President Hoover. Founder of the Yokefellow Movement Author of 33 books including the Humor of Christ, The Predicament of Modern Man, Abraham Lincoln: Theologian of American Anguish; Trustworthiness of Religious Experience

32. 1.     There must be an objective moral law; otherwise: (a) There would not be such great agreement on its meaning. (b) No real moral disagreements would ever have occurred, each person being right from his own moral perspective. (c) No moral judgment would ever have been wrong, each being subjectively right. (d) No ethical question could ever be discussed, there being no objective meaning to any ethical terms. (e) Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct. The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:

33. 2.     This moral law is beyond individual persons and beyond humanity as a whole: (a) It is beyond individual persons, since they often sense a conflict with it. (b) It is beyond humanity as a whole, for they collectively fall short of it and even measure the progress of the whole race by it. The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:

34. 3.     This moral law must come from a moral Legislator because: (a) A law has no meaning unless it comes from a mind; only minds emit meaning. (b) Disloyalty makes no sense unless it is to a person, yet people die in loyalty to what is morally right. (c) Truth is meaningless unless it is a meeting of mind with mind, yet people die for the truth. (d) Hence, discovery of and duty to the moral law make sense only if there is a Mind or Person behind it. 4.     Therefore, there must be a moral, personal Mind behind this moral law. The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:

35. Dr. Zagzebski is Linda is Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics & George Lynn Cross Research Professor at University of Oklahoma. Author of approx. 8 books including Virtues of the MindFaith. President of the Society of Christian Philosophers; 2004-7. The Moral Law Argument by Linda Zagzebski:An argument from moral order.

36. 1. Morality is a rational enterprise. 2. Morality would not be a rational if moral skepticism were true. 3. There is much too much unresolved moral disagreement for us to suppose that moral skepticism can be avoided if human sources of moral knowledge are all that we have. 4. Therefore we must assume that there is an extra-human, divine source of moral wisdom. The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Zagzebski: Zagzebski's version is rooted in the idea that naturalism entails moral skepticism.

37. If there is no source of moral order morality will collapse. In other words, morality cease to be a sustainable enterprise. 1. It would be demoralizing not to believe there is a moral order to the universe. 2. Demoralization is morally undesirable. 3. There is a moral advantage in believing that there is a moral order in the universe. 4. Theism provides the best theory of the source of moral order. 5. Therefore there is a moral advantage in accepting theism. (Adams, Virtues of Faith, 151) . A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Robert Adams

38. In essence, Douglas Drabkin argues that the moral problems and ills that would afflict humanity if there was no God give justification to pause and seriously investigate, not for the belief that there is a God, but whether one's reasons for rejecting belief in God has been carefully thought out. A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.

39. 1. Morality demands that we ought to aspire to become as good as we can be. 2. If there is no source of moral order in the world, then the project of becoming as good as we can be is fraught with difficulties. 3. These difficulties would be taken away if we were assured of the truth of theism. 4. Therefore we have a moral reason for getting ourselves in a state whereby we can come to be believe in the truth of theism. (Drabkin, “A moral argument for undertaking theism”,169) The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.

40. If the Theist is wrong, this doesn’t mean the humanist is right by default. Nihilism must be considered as well. Nihilism says there is no basis for morality. If Theism is true, then we have a sound foundation for morality. a. If Theism is true, then we have an objective basis for moral values. b. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral duties. c. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral accountability. If Theism is false, then there is no sound foundation for morality. a. If Theism is false, then why think human values are special? b. If Theism is false, then where is the basis for objectivity duty? c. If Theism is false, then what is the basis for moral accountability? The Moral Law Argument by William Lane Craig in debate with Paul Kurtz titled, Goodness without God is good enough which took place at Franklin & Marshall College, Oct. 24, 2001.

41. Adams, Robert, The Virtue of Faith, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) 144-163; Budziszewski, J., Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press), 1997. Drabkin, Douglas, 1994, “A moral argument for undertaking theism”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 31: 169-175 . Geisler, Norman L.: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Baker Books, 1999 (Baker Reference Library), 498-99. ______ & Frank Turek: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 169-83. Linda Zagzebski, “Does ethics need God?”, Faith and Philosophy (1987) 4: 294-303. BIBLIOGRAPHY