If Moral Decisions Are Dependent on Circumstances, Are There No Objective Moral Truths?
When teaching the difference between objective and subjective truth
claims to groups across the country, the issue of moral truth is often
an area of confusion. Are there any objective moral absolutes? As I described yesterday,
moral actions (such as killing) are sometimes justified under certain
circumstances (i.e. when protecting the life of an innocent child). The
Bible affirms this reasoning and scripture allows for similar
justification of other moral actions as well. Rahab, for example, hid
two Israelite spies from the King of Jericho and lied about their
presence in her home (Joshua 2:1-7). The author of Hebrews later
included Rahab with other faithful people of faith (Hebrews 11:31), and
James also spoke highly of her effort to deceive the King: “In the same
way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received
the messengers and sent them out by another way?” (James 2:25). Rahab’s
lie was justified by the same principle scripture uses to justify some
homicides. Rahab acted to save the life of two innocent humans; as a
result, her actions were warranted.
Moral decisions are often
dependent upon the circumstances in which they are made. Does this mean
there are no transcendent, objective moral truths? No. Moral
justifications are, in fact, evidence of the existence of objective
moral facts. We recognize there is something about killing or lying that
is objectively wrong, and this is why we seek to justify our actions in
the first place. If there was not an innate objective truth about the
action, there would be no reason to justify any deviation from this
reality. When we find ourselves having to justify our actions, we are
acknowledging an objective moral fact. But what are these facts? When
teaching groups on the topic, I typically write two or three moral
claims on the board:
Killing Is Never “OK”
Lying Is Never “OK”
Since
we’ve already discussed the circumstances that might justify such
actions (and provided some Biblical examples), most attendees
immediately recognize the problem with these first two claims. There are
times (albeit very few) when either of these two behaviors might be
justified. But the justifications for these actions reveal a
foundational truth better expressed in the following way:
Killing “for the Fun of It” Is Never “OK”
Lying “for the Fun of It” Is Never “OK”
When we simply insert the expression “for the fun of it” into our descriptions of these moral actions, we discover the objective moral absolutes
foundational to the claims. In other words, we’ve just discovered two
objective moral absolutes: “It’s never OK to kill or lie without proper
justification.” Our own human experience confirms these truths.
Regardless of geographic location, place in history or form of culture,
it’s never been morally acceptable to kill or lie without proper
justification. Humans have historically recognized these two objective
moral absolutes; these principles transcend culture, location and
history.
The presence of objective, transcendent moral truths
ought to cause us to think deeply about their source. All laws require
law givers. Transcendent laws require transcendent law givers. That’s
why the existence of objective moral truths is an excellent evidence for the existence of God, the transcendent Law Giver whose very nature is reflected in the moral laws we still enforce today.
Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email
By the way, J. Warner’s book is on sale for less than $4.00 (Kindle and eBook) for a very limited time.
