- Joined
- Jan 1, 2024
1- Quarreling between two or more individuals.When misunderstanding occurs, individuals assume there is an objective standard of right and wrong, of which each person is aware and one has broken. Why quarrel if no objective standard exists?
By definition, quarreling (or arguing) involves trying to show another person that he is in the wrong. And as Lewis indicates, there is no point in trying to do that unless there is some sort of agreement as to what right and wrong actually are, just like there is no sense in saying a football player has committed a foul if there is no agreement about the rules of football
2- It’s obvious that an objective moral standard exists. Throughout history, mankind has generally agreed that “the human idea of decent behavior [is] obvious to everyone.”For example, it’s obvious (or self-evident) that torturing a child for fun is morally reprehensible.
As the father of two children, a daughter who is five and a son who is three, I have noticed that even my young children recognize that certain things are obviously right or wrong. For example, while watching a show like PJ Masks, my children can easily point out the good characters as well as the bad ones – even without my help. In short, the overwhelming obviousness that certain acts are clearly right or wrong indicates that an objective moral standard exists.
3- Attempting to improve morally. Certainly, many people strive to improve their moral character every day. No rational person begins their day with the intention, "Today, I'm going to be more immoral!" If there is no absolute standard of good which exists, then talk of moral improvement is nonsensical and actual moral progress is impossible. If no ultimate standard of right and wrong exists, then one might change his actions, but he can never improve his morality.
If there is hope of moral improvement, then there must be some sort of absolute standard of good that exists above and outside the process of improvement. In other words, there must be a target for humans to aim their moral efforts at and also a ruler by which to measure moral progress. Without an objective moral standard of behavior, then “[t]here is no sense in talking of ‘becoming better’ if better means simply ‘what we are becoming’ – it is like congratulating yourself on reaching your destination and defining destination as ‘the place you have reached.’”
for an objective moral system to exist, God must exist. For a moral system to be truly objective, moral law must stem from a source external to humanity. Otherwise, all we have is subjective human moral opinion, no matter how it is dressed up. The implications of this are particularly fascinating, most unbelievers live and act as though they believe in objective moral standards, yet their worldview illogically denies the possibility of such standards existing.
In this framework, moral truths are objective and absolute, meaning that they do not change based on individual opinions, cultures, or time periods. What is morally right or wrong is not determined by human preference but by God's nature or will.
Because God is seen as a perfect, all-knowing, and benevolent being, His nature provides a standard for what is "good." Therefore, morality isn't a human invention, but a reflection of God's will and character. Morality exists independently of humans and is rooted in a divine reality.
For many religious traditions, God's nature is viewed as inherently good, perfect, and just. Therefore, moral values are understood to reflect God's intrinsic nature. What is morally right is in harmony with God's character—goodness, justice, mercy, and love.
The Problem of Evil: If God is the source of all morality, then how do we reconcile the existence of evil and suffering in the world? The presence of moral evil, like suffering, injustice, and cruelty, challenges the notion of a perfectly good and omnipotent God. This is the classic problem of evil, which theologians have attempted to address in various ways.
Last edited:
