Which of the following groups do you think has the correct answer?

Sources for Morals

There are just 5 possible sources for morals:

• Viewpoint #1 - Morals come from each person's own opinion (Subjective)
• Viewpoint #2 - Morals come from society's majority opinion (Subjective)
• Viewpoint #3 - Morals are an evolutionary trait and not based on what people think (Objective)
• Viewpoint #4 - Morals come from God
• Viewpoint #5 - Morals are objective and distinct from society's and God's opinion (Objective, Universal Morality)

Viewpoint #1

If you were the only one that set the standard for determining that what you do is right or wrong...

• There would be no right or wrong - what one person considers to be "right" and "wrong" would not apply to any other person.
• A person that sets their own morals cannot be trusted - their self-justification would overrule abiding by anyone else's morals.
• Proverbs 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

Examples of people with Viewpoint #1 include Absolute Monarchs, Dictators, Anarchists, and Sociopaths to name a few.

Viewpoint #2

If society sets the standard for determining that what you do is right or wrong...

• For society to define a moral standard, it requires a majority of individuals to agree on the standard and put aside their Viewpoint #1.
• Individual rights, where "right" actions (i.e. Freedom of Speech) are protected from a "wrong" (i.e. censored speech) majority consensus are not supported.
• There would be no action that is always "right" or always "wrong"" as those concepts are defined simply by whatever actions the majority defines
• A majority opinion does not define right or wrong, it just defines a majority opinion of "acceptable" norms.
• Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil;

Examples of people with Viewpoint #2 are those in true Democracies and Socialism.

Viewpoint #3

If there was a single, evolutionary set of moral standards, then all of humanity would express the same standards - and morality would have to be associated with the base genetics that the entire population shares

These 7 morals are consistent worldwide:
These are generally consistent worldwide, but not implemented in the same way everywhere. These rules cannot be applied to specific situations as the observed variations preclude arriving at the same "right" and "wrong" assessment across different populations. This viewpoint has been proven to not exist.

Viewpoint #5

If there is an objective standard for determining that what you do is right or wrong. The objective standard would have to be independent of, and separate from, humanity - otherwise, it would just be Society's opinion (see Viewpoint #2).

• If there was an objective standard for morality, it would be a law
• It would be something in effect regardless of human opinion - by definition - a law
• Something outside humanity needs to inform humanity about it - a command

Physical laws are self-enforcing - for example, gravity occurs whether you believe it exists or not.

An objective "right" is not self-enforcing, so it must be a "moral law" that prescribes a proper action, but individuals are free to violate the law if they so choose. A moral law describes what "should" be the case - it makes an obligation or command of what "should" be done.

To be objective, it must be independent of humanity and apply equally to previous generations, the current generation, and future generations. Since an objective moral law transcends humanity, the moral obligations would supersede any deviant, human political and societal definitions of "right" and "wrong" - it does not adhere to Viewpoints #1 and #2.

Command (definition): to give an authoritative order.

• The order should be carried out but can be disobeyed, but there are consequences for not doing it.

A command requires that two entities are involved, one giving the command and one receiving it (i.e. humanity).

If an objective moral law has the property of being a command that we receive and the command originates outside of humanity, then there must be an objective entity beyond any individual or collective humanity that gives the command.

• Objectivity requires that the law applies to all generations.
• Objectivity requires consistency - no changes.

If the origin of the moral law is an abstract entity, we would have no reason to feel guilt. For it is personal attachment to a personal entity, not rules or principles, that elicit feelings of guilt and shame in us.

Viewpoint #4

God is independent of Humanity:

• Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
• Isaiah 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God has communicated to us the complete, simple moral law:

• Matthew 22:36 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart
• Matthew 22:38 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself

The Simple Answer

The second point of God's Laws is that "right" is anything which is unselfish (love others as yourself). "Wrong" is anything which is selfish. The selfishness in any situation will be the "wrong." The unselfishness in a situation is the "right."

God's moral law does not change:

• Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not

God's moral law is for all generations:

• Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endures forever.

We have a choice to follow God's laws

• Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

People feel guilt when they don't follow the laws - but God provides for correcting it

• Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
• Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent

God provides a means to correct our failures to execute His law correctly

• 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Test It

• Murder requires a selfish motive.
• Theft requires selfish desire.
• Divorce occurs because one or both spouses do something selfish.
  • Adultery,
  • Lack of commitment (me vs. us),
  • My money vs. our money, etc.
• All of the "wrong" actions listed in Mark 7:21-23 require selfishness.
  • Mark 7:21-23 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

"If God did not exist, then we would have to invent him," said the French philosopher Voltaire. His point: that without a divine being to check right and wrong, any number of atrocities are possible and could go unpunished.

A recent study (of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries) published in the journal Nature Human Behavior echoes Voltaire's maxim. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-017-0151

People in most--but not all-- of these countries viewed extreme moral violations as representative of atheists. Notably, anti-atheist prejudice was even evident among atheist participants around the world.

The "Logic" of the Atheists Position is Debunked

Statement made by Atheists about objective and subjective morality:

• (Objective Morality - Viewpoint #5) If God is merely an agent advocating some universal morality, then morality exists independently of God and, given enough time, humans could discover it through reasoning. In this case, we would not need God--the only role for God would be to help speed up the process of discovery. God would be unnecessary.
• Objective morality must have a non-human lawgiver (it is not a physical law)
• A non-human lawgiver is called God
• Morality does not exist independently from God
• (Subjective Morality) On the other hand, if something is moral because God commands it, and for no other reason, then morality is arbitrary. We would be unable to reason our way to such a morality because it would not be based on reason. Furthermore, God could change his mind at any time, and reverse earlier moral commands. In this case, God would be necessary for morality, but morality would not be objective, it would be wholly subjective.
• If morality is arbitrary or subjective, then it doesn't exist - see Viewpoint #1 (morals from self) and Viewpint #2 (morals from society) for the reasons why subjective "morals" do not justify "right" or "wrong".
• The law God has commanded meets all criteria for Objective Morals (see Viewpoint #5 and Viewpoint #4)
• By definition, an objective moral is unalterable (i.e. perfect) since it exists outside of humanity and exists for all generations - and perfection is not arbitrary nor does it change (or it wouldn't be objective or perfect)

Questions for Atheists about Objective Morals

1. If an objective moral existed outside of God, who would communicate the moral to humans?
• An objective moral requires that it be communicated
2. If an objective moral existed outside of God and is waiting for humans to find it...
• There is no guarantee that it would ever be found
• How would humans determine that the objective moral had indeed been found (as we would have no basis for evaluating it given our existence without it)?
• Of what use is an objective moral that can't be found or understood?
• If it existed outside of humanity, what would be the format of the record to enable humanity to be able to find it? If there was any physical format to be "found", who outside of humanity would have made the record of it?

If it is found and somehow understood, we would know there is a non-human lawgiver (the law originated from some non-human entity) - an entity we would call God.

• Both answers come back to God

Accept Jesus and pursue a life of choosing "right" actions.

• Isaiah 33:22 For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King; he will save us.