Law: Transcendent Objective Moral Laws PDF

Law: Transcendent Objective Moral Laws ====================================== *For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,* *do by nature the things contained in the law,* *these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:* *Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts...* *Rom...

Law: Transcendent Objective Moral Laws ====================================== *For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,* *do by nature the things contained in the law,* *these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:* *Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts...* *Romans 2:14-15* Cabbage and green beans are good, while spinach and collard greens are bad. Of course, this is just my personal opinion. I am not making a moral distinction between these different green vegetables; these are just personal preferences based on my particular tastes. But who's to say that moral distinctions are not also personal subjective opinions? For instance, some people where I come from think Carolina Blue is a vile color, while others think Duke Blue is demonic. Then again, some people believe it is *morally wrong to kill* unborn children, while others say it is *morally wrong to take away a woman's right to choose to kill* her unborn babies. Who is right? Is anything right and wrong, or is every action simply a personal choice? Do moral laws exist that are objectively right and wrong regardless of what individuals believe or what the majority popular opinion is at the time? There are only three options: 1. There are *no* objective moral laws, and nothing is right or wrong. 2. Morality is entirely *subjective* and based on a. cultural opinions or b. personal opinions.[^1^](#fn1){#fnref1.footnote-ref} 3. There *are* objective moral laws that determine right and wrong. If you believe *supposition number one*, that *nothing* is morally right or wrong, then this paper is not for you. Like Richard Dawkins, if you think that there is "no purpose, *no evil and no good*, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference," then this book is not for you (*italics added*).[^2^](#fn2){#fnref2.footnote-ref} If you believe *supposition number two,* that morality is purely subjective; then you think that individuals and cultures determine good and evil. You consider all right or wrong actions to be determined by the people living in that time and place. Consequently, you believe that the holocaust, the murder and torture of millions of Jews just because they were Jewish, was not immoral since it was culturally acceptable to the German people. You also believe that southern slavery was not morally wrong because it was socially acceptable and justified in the south. Additionally, you acknowledge that the forceful mutilation of the genitalia of young girls in some Muslim nations (so that these girls do not become sexually promiscuous since they cannot enjoy sex) is not morally wrong because it is generally acceptable in those Muslim nations. On the other hand, if you believe that any of these actions are evil and wrong in and of themselves, regardless of subjective opinions, then you think there is a transcendent objective moral law. A transcendent objective moral law is above (i.e., it transcends) subjective personal or cultural opinions. An objective morality says that specific actions like torturing little children for fun are evil, regardless of time, place, or custom. These transcendent moral laws require a transcendent moral Lawgiver! In other words, even if there is only one objective moral law that says A is right and B is wrong, then the question is, "who says so?" And the answer is that *God says so* (Deuteronomy 11:1). We inherently know that right and wrong exist because we have an inward knowledge of a moral Lawgiver and an inward understanding that some actions are right while others are wrong (Romans 1:19-20 and 2:14-15). On the other hand, as I have said before and will probably say again, *subjective* *moral laws* do not prove that God exists because, like Dawkins, we can deny the existence of right and wrong. However, *objective moral laws* prove that there must be a Moral Lawgiver. Only the presence of God can explain why some acts are virtuous and some actions are evil, regardless of our personal opinions. Furthermore, in order to know that some things are objectively evil and some things are objectively good, we had to be created with special knowledge that animals do not have. And we were. God has created each of us in His image so that we know enough about God that we are without excuse if we deny Him and His laws (Genesis 1:27; Romans 1:20). That inner knowledge of right and wrong is an inward knowledge of the God who created you. ::: {.section.footnotes} ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ::: {#fn1} Cultures can be expanded in order to cancel out disagreeable moral distinctions; however, there will still be different moral absolutes based on different larger cultures, not to mention different cultural time frames. In other words, this does not change the fact that the morality in question is subjective. Likewise, one might argue that morality is not based on subjective opinion but on some type of rational analysis. Once again, this raises the question of whose rationalization? For example, one person might find or invent reasons (they rationalize) that abortion is good while another does not. Either way, this becomes a subjective morality with the illusion of objective rationalization because of the terminology employed.[↩](#fnref1){.footnote-back} ::: 2. ::: {#fn2} Richard Dawkins, *River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life* (New York: Basic Books, 1995), 133.[↩](#fnref2){.footnote-back} ::: :::