Regardless of varying religious beliefs or the lack thereof, we live in a world of moral values. There is a sense of moral obligation that we all possess which compels us to label some behaviors as good and others as evil. I’m not arguing in this post that this morality is universal or objective or God given. I’m simply establishing that we virtually all feel it.
Our sense of morality affects us individually to guide our behaviors, for instance, compelling us to tell the cashier when they give us too much change. It affects us as a society to create laws against everything from arson to false advertising to murder. It even prompts militant atheists to cry out against the existence of a God that would allow the things that they see around them which are morally objectionable.
My question today is not why we have this moral sense. Some say it came to us through millions of years of evolution because it fostered the safety of the individual in the context of the group. Some say it was given to us by God or is determined by His nature. Some say it is actually all an illusion, completely constructed in human minds. There is plenty to say on these matters, but my question is more universal and more practical.
How do we determine what is right and wrong? This is an extremely practical question because we will all be required to make countless personal decisions, to formulate numerous opinions, and as members of society to collectively create laws and enforce them, all in light of moral principles.
At this point we could all immediately begin disagreeing about how to determine morality. One could claim that we should get it from the words of the Bible. Another that we must all decide for ourselves and can make no universal pronouncements. Another that a set of principles such as love or tolerance should be systematically applied to human behavior.
But I’d like to zero in on the nature of our disagreement for a moment and see if I can’t give a general answer that we can all agree on: morality is determined by purpose. One of my favorite speakers, Dr. Ravi Zacharias identifies this core principal of morality in many of his talks. That which violates the ultimate purpose of a thing is morally wrong.
So if men are meant to live in harmony, if they are intended to live in freedom, if the goal of their existence is to live in joy and peace, then violating these purposes is morally wrong.
The reason why I think we can at least all agree on this principle is because it allows either God or man to do the purposing or intending or goal setting. It simply reveals the inextricable link between purpose and morality. The desired end of our existence determines how we ought to live.
This is where we must part ways. If we differ in our opinions of our purpose, we will differ in our opinions on morality.
For those who do not believe in the supernatural, any ultimate purpose is an illusion. Our lives have personal purpose and meaning, but objectively speaking these purposes are meaningless. It follows that for atheists, morality simply must be boiled down to a matter of opinion, chance, or personal preservation. There is no universal morality if we do not all have the same purpose.
It should not be surprising, then, when great minds attempt to systematically derive a universal morality from materialism and fail.
Now let me take you a step further down this road. If morals are literally a matter of opinion with no higher authority to call upon because there is no ultimate purpose in the universe, then majority opinion goes. Or, in a less democratic system, the strongest and bravest prevail in establishing their own wills.
The believer, on the other hand, believes in a supernaturally determined universal purpose, and thus he can honestly appeal to this universal purpose in order to determine universal moral principles.
Two closing observations. 1) For the atheist, there are no moral authorities more final than personal opinion and personal power. 2) The moral argument against God is self-defeating. When an atheist claims that there is no God because of the evil in the world, he is by necessity sharing an opinion, not a proof.