The Problem of Ethics

Intro

I’ve had conversations, some very heated, over Jesus and the inescapable existence of God. Many times, my atheist friends would talk with much anger, as if something was “unjust” with our conversation.

But...is there really anything good or bad if God doesn’t exist? That’s what we’re going to hash out today.

1. Defining Laws

First, let’s try to get a good definition of ‘Laws’

the system of rules which a particular community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

So there’s two key things we have here; rules, and enforcement. The rules are what guides our conduct, the enforcement is what makes sure we follow that conduct.

2. “Morality is Subjective Bro”

Many people say morality is subjective (just opinion) and completely based on the culture or society surrounding the person. Let’s test run this and see how it plays out ;)

Take an example, Hitler. We all know that Hitler was objectively wrong for slaughtering the Jewish people in world war 2. However, if morality was subjective by nature, and decided by cultures or majority agreement, Hitler would have been right.

There would be nothing objectively wrong about him slaughtering Jews, since that was the culture of the Nazis at the time.  So why do we act as if Hitler was a Monster?

Interestingly enough, in a popular debate about the existence of God, Dr. Stein, who is an atheist who holds to subjective morality based on societal consensus, was asked "What about Hitler's actions were wrong in your worldview?" He said this:

"Germany was part of the Western European tradition, it's not...Africa, or somewhere on Mars. They have the same Judeo-Christian background, and basically the same connection with the rest of the developed world, so, therefore, the standards of morality that have been worked out as consensus of that society apply to them too, …so even though morality is a consensus, it's not a consensus of 1 person, or 2 people, its a consensus of entire civilizations, and he cannot just arbitrarily do that, so what he did was evil and wrong."

So basically, Stein is asserting that since Germany was within the cultural boundary of the West and Europe, he ought to abide by the morality that was popular for that period.

A: Smuggling In An Objective Truth

Dr. Stein simply asserted that Germany ought to abide by the morality of it's nearest regions. Says who?

Why is Germany morally obligated to follow the consensus of its nearest cultural neighbors? Isn't morality subjective? There is no “ought” when things are subjective.

B: Time Destroys Morality

There is no reason anyone ought to comply with something that is subjective since it can change over time. What if all of Europe clearly told Hitler "Well, since you're close to us, you ought not to commit genocide, that is our morality you know!"

Hitler could easily just deny this, take over the entire region, and then change the law so that Genocide is ok.

Well, if that happened, is anyone right? Were the other countries right historically because, at that time, genocide was wrong? Or was Hitler objectively right because he conquered all of them, and brought in the latest morality, making genocide morally acceptable? It's just 2 opinions.

C: The Grey Area Problem

What if Hitler had been born in a country on the other side of the globe where slaughtering people of a different race was culturally acceptable and admirable?

When he sailed over to Germany to start the Nazi regime, would he then be wrong?

Is it the person's physical location that makes genocide wrong? Or is it their cultural background? Hitler killing someone in a different culture is fine but in Germany no way? There's no way to define this objectively.

3. “Morality is Objective, But Not Because of God Bro”

Usually, at this point skeptics will hold that morality is objective, but they cannot give God the credit, otherwise they’d be Christians ;) So here’s a few other theories people throw out there:

1. We get morality from our Laws

   1. Humans make laws, using what they believe is right and wrong. But how do we judge which human gets it right? By what standard can I know with certainty one lawmaker is being just and another unjust. Slavery was legal. Is slavery good now?

2. We get morality from nature

   1. Nature is a concept. Moral duties are only connected to a person. I am morally responsible to love my wife, I am not morally responsible to a rock. Why should I listen to nature? What has nature done for me?

3. We get morality from wanting human flourishing / survival

   1. Why am I obligated to humanity? What has humanity done for me? Who cares about humanity, as long as Im happy?

   2. If I rob a bank thats a pretty sweet deal for me, I’m a millionaire now, whats the harm? It harms other people. So who do I care about more? Myself

4. God is the Answer

After trying to do backflips with all of this, you can see that it’s just not possible to have an unchanging moral standard that all humans are morally accountable to apart from God.

Every time you and I make a judgement about anything, it’s us expressing that law that is written on our hearts. We already know what’s right and wrong.

If you deny God’s existence, you have no basis to get mad at anyone for anything, ever.