The Objectivity and Universality of Morality or the Moral Law Joshua Koens PHL-210-B: Faith and Philosophy Prof. Barkman October 10, 2022 2 At face value, naturalism and evolutionary theory present a reasonable explanation for the origins of the earth without sacrificing the ethical values and civility of present world. However, critically exploring the logical out workings of a naturalistic worldview shows gaping holes that deviate from what is observed in reality. A scientific person could scuttle the Darwinian ship by revealing its serious scientific, evidence-based flaws regarding its evolutionary theory. However, a more practical and experiential argument for the downfall of naturalism is presented through ethics and morality. The logical implications of a naturalistic worldview concerning morality is a morality which is either non-existent or subjective to an individual. However, conclusions and arguments based on our common human experience are sufficient to show that there must be an objective morality or universal Moral Law superseding the actions of every person. The primary basis for objective morality is that there are unchanging standards of truth which we appeal to daily. Plato demonstrates this in part of his theory of recollection, saying that the true meaning of things which we try to describe do not ever change. He provides example of this is with equality: a stick will always be equal with another stick and the essence of equality between them does not change with time. Additionally, the equal relationship between two sticks is not what we mean specifically when we refer to equality. Equality is not defined by two sticks, but there is an unchanging and perfect standard of equality to which we refer when we say the two sticks are “equal”.1 We refer to unchanging standards in all of our reasoning. In order to carry any sort of intellectual conversation, someone must refer to a basic truth to which all the others agree exists. There is objectivity surrounding truths such as justice or equality. Philosophers in all of history, over periods of thousands of years, have referred to and debated 1 Plato. "Phaedo." In Plato: The Last Days of Socrates, Translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant, 97-199. Penguin Books Ltd. 2003. 139, 74a-74e. 3 the practical out workings of certain concepts in their individual worldviews. The unchanging factor in all philosophies are the concepts which they debate. To say that these unchanging factors are subjective to the individual would mean that any sort of argument or explanation of reality is futile since there would be no meaning attached to it. It would be like two people arguing that apples taste better than oranges. Any disagreement would ultimately not be a disagreement at all because it boils down to each person’s preferences. To put it succinctly, in order for there to be any sort of disagreement at all, there must be something objective to disagree about. Since there are such things as debate and disagreement about morality and truths in our universal, human experience, the existence of objectivity of truths is certain. Ironically, the very fact that I am debating this topic is evidence that there is a true and objective answer. Consequently, there must be an objective standard of truth and morality to which we appeal. Some objections to this argument for morality could be made with regard the function of objective truths to morality. It is all well and good that there is objectivity in reality. However, the existence of objective truth does not necessarily imply that these truths are moral. For example, 1 + 1 = 2. The concept of 2, or the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 is not morally wrong or right. If a person said 1 + 1 = 3, they would be factually incorrect but not morally wrong. Similarly, the essential idea of the color red is neither moral nor immoral. A person who says red is actually green is only factually incorrect, not morally wrong. The fundamental error that this first objection makes is a categorical one. Comparing the lack of morality in mathematics to morality itself in order to disprove it would be like saying, “since the law that governs gravity is amoral, then all laws are amoral”. The categories of natural law and moral law, while they overlap in many areas, are distinct laws. I am using the terms “natural laws” in the modern sense, meaning repeatable, scientific laws of nature and 4 reality. Natural laws describe how reality behaves while the moral law tells us how we ought to behave, implying we can break the law. Objective truths means that there are unchanging standards to which we appeal. These standards can be ignored, obeyed, or misunderstood. We appeal to these standards as evidence for or against certain propositions in order to understand how they must work out in our lives. However, a certain concession must be made to the objection: merely the reality of objective truth does not solely prove a moral law. But in addition to evidence of morality in the world, we conclude that there is an objective Moral Law. Morality is a reality which is present in every moment of life and there is an objective standard of it. Even those who do not believe in objective morality must concede that there is such thing as morality to begin with. If a person were to observe any society, they would observe a set of etiquettes and behaviours which people follow and hold each other to. Each society has a standard of morality in place which did not differ in essence from standards of morality of its neighbors. Similarly, each person has an understanding or a standard of morality which they adhere themselves and others to. This is often referred to as a conscience, and it manifests its presence in a person’s speech and actions, assisting them to be a moral person. A person might say they do not believe that there is a moral law in one moment but claim that another person’s actions against them is “unjust” or wrong in the next. One can only say this if there is an objective standard of justice to compare the action which they call unjust. Furthermore, the standard of justice must be authoritative for both the victim and the perpetrator. Otherwise, the unjust action is only unjust according to the victim, which means it is not unjust at all. The reality of an objective moral standard is inescapable unless all forms and concepts of morality, such as justice, were non-existent in our reality and imagination, like a four-sided triangle or a fourth dimension. A person who claims that “unjust” and “just” are subjective concepts uses an 5 objective understanding and standard of justice to argue for the lack of the very thing. The very fact that we understand and refer to moral concepts in reality make subjective morality an impossible argument. Many argue that objective morality is impossible because of the wide variety of understandings of morality between societies and people. Each society has a different standard to which their citizens are morally bound, and each person has a standard to which they bind themselves and others. A Muslim believes eating pork is unclean while Christians don’t. Christians believe that sex before marriage is adultery while most naturalists don’t. If morality were truly objective, then there would be no subjective ideas or perspectives concerning morality. Since morality is understood and taught differently by everyone, it must be subjective. Rather than a universal law, morality is a social construct which has similarities among societies. It is merely a framework that is taught to us by society as to what we should believe and how we should behave for the betterment of society. It is an evolutionary trait or advantage which was used for beneficial and peaceful cooperation as a species for survival.2 This argument has its basis on a misunderstanding regarding things that are taught by society or parents. Although a thing can be taught by parents or educators does not immediately infer that the thing is a human invention. C.S. Lewis directly addresses this in Mere Christianity, saying, “We all learned the multiplication table at school. A child who grew up alone on a desert island would not know it. But surely it does not follow that the multiplication table is 2 Coel Hellier. "Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense." Coelsblog: Defending Scientism. Last modified July 29, 2013. 6 simply a human convention, something human beings have made up for themselves and might have made different if they had liked?”3 Additionally, there is good reason to argue that morality can be considered in the same way. Just as one society might teach mathematics in a slightly different form from another, the same facts and laws do not change. Similarly, each society writes a moral code slightly differently from the next, but person is still able to observe the same law that unites them all. This is much different from real societal inventions such as clothing styles or eating habits, which varies much more. Even though there are differences in the outworking and understanding of morality between societies does not negate the reality of an objective Moral Law. This can be demonstrated by comparing different moralities. Lewis demonstrates this by comparing Nazi morality and Christian morality. If a person were to say that Nazi morality was worse than Christian morality, then they would be comparing both moralities to a Morality that is neither of them. Both moralities are being measured against a Morality that is perfectly right. Lewis compares this to one person’s idea of New York against another person’s idea of New York. One person’s idea would be more or less true than the other since there is a real New York to compare those ideas to.4 Similarly, there must be a true Morality if societal ideas of morality can be compared to each other as better or worse. However, I have not yet addressed the argument against objective morality regarding morality as an evolutionary product for societal survival. This theory of morality is fallacious because it relies on circular reasoning. For example, why should a person not be selfish? If it is for the benefit of society, then a person might ask why I should care for the benefit of society rather than my personal benefit? According to this theory, the answer should be, because that 3 4 C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins. 2001, 12. C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins. 2001, 13-14. 7 person should not be selfish.5 Ultimately, a discussion of any type of morality would end up at this point, because ultimately society is only a beneficiary of morality. The argument takes a beneficiary of morality and uses it to replace the Moral Law, which it originally benefits from. This theory recognizes that there is a Moral Law but attempts to explain away its objectivity unsuccessfully with a beneficiary of it to fit it within an evolutionary framework. It leads us back to the argument for objective truth and morality, which was addressed earlier. According to the arguments that have been given, it is most reasonable to conclude that there is objective morality in the form of a universal Moral Law, which is subconsciously recognized by every person. This is observed in society and history, and evolutionary explanations of it lead back to arguments concerning objective truth. Thus, I must conclude that there is objective Moral Law. 5 C.S. Lewis. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins. 2001. 19. 8 Bibliography Hellier, Coel. "Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense." Coelsblog: Defending Scientism. Last modified July 29, 2013. Accessed October 8, 2022. https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/six-reasons-why-objective-morality-isnonsense/. Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins. 2001. Plato. "Phaedo." In Plato: The Last Days of Socrates, Translated by Hugh Tredennick and Harold Tarrant, 97-199. Penguin Books Ltd. 2003.
