To say that the moral views of our nation are rapidly changing is to state the obvious. Someone once said, “Change is good.” Who was that anyway? I don’t know who said it originally but it has made the rounds and it would seem to be the basic notion behind so-called “progressivism.” Progressives hate the status quo. “Onward” is their cry, “never stop moving forward!” To them the most reprehensible idea of all, however, is not being stagnant but that we might actually need to turn around and go back to a formerly held ideal.
“Conservatism,” on the other hand, is supposedly about conserving and preserving the good things that have traditionally been a part of our culture. Conservatives resist the idea of progress simply for the sake of progress. That being said, the conservative platform is often little more than too small an anchor dragged by the relentless outboard motor of progressivism. The position of conservatism seems to be moving along with the current cultural milieu as well, just a few paces further back than the progressives.
I am something far more irritating than a progressive or a conservative; I am a Christian. I think the Bible is a direct revelation of the will of our Maker and that it directs us as to how God would have us live our lives before him and how we should act toward our neighbors. The Christian position means holding onto something that is stubbornly unchanging, namely, the immutable word of God, “once for all delivered to the saints” as our brother Jude put it.
But whether you are a progressive, a conservative, or a Christian (or think of yourself as some combination thereof) if you want to pursue “moral progress” then you are in the position of needing to acknowledge some sort of fixed moral law outside of mankind. If you don’t believe in a fixed moral law (and you are welcome to deny that there is any such thing) then you cannot argue for moral progress. Moral change and moral progress are not the same. The word progress smuggles another idea into the discussion (whether you’ve thought about it before or not). Progress requires what the Greeks called “τελος” or an “end.” In other words, in order to know that we are making progress it is first required that we know what the goal is we are trying to reach.
Imagine a race where there is no finish line. The starter pistol is fired and everyone takes off in different directions without being sure when or where to stop. Certainly we can talk about all the different directions people went, or how fast or slow they moved away from the point of origin, or how far they went from the starting place, but what we cannot talk about is how close any of them are to winning.
The idea of moral progress is no different. Moral progress requires an objective standard that says, “this is the goal.” This requires a fixed reference point of moral truth toward which we may strive and run in order to come nearer to the way things should be. Without such a fixed point all we have is people holding up their personal preferences. You might be successful in effecting change towards your preferences (and that is a certain kind of end or goal) but it doesn’t mean much to say we have progressed as the human race toward true morality.
The fact is that people disagree about what is good or right. Nothing could be more obvious than that. One person says homosexuality is wrong and another celebrates it openly. Some say surgical procedures for transsexuals helps them become who they really are and others say it is a denial of who they really are and that it is permanently damaging to otherwise healthy bodies. In cases like these, and countless other moral issues, how are we to know whether we have moved toward or away from true moral goodness?
If it is up to human persons to set the standard of morality then it will always be an ever moving goal post or finish line. No sooner than you think you have arrived at the finish line than it will have retreated five miles from where you stand. Humans deciding morality will always be hopelessly relativistic.
Two people disagree. Who is right? Why should one person’s opinion have more weight than another? So we will try again. Morality is not decided individualistically but on a societal level. Very good. What then when one society says “I think we should exterminate people with X” (let X stand for a race, religion, or some other identifier) and another society says “You should not exterminate people just for being X?” Nation versus nation is no different than individual versus individual. Societies disagree about morality just like individuals do.
Also, such a view seems to imply that “might makes right.” The majority opinion is what is moral. But this view rules out the possibility of moral reformers. The minority view would always be immoral. When William Wilberforce opposed slavery in the British parliment, for example, he was immoral because he was in the minority. But that doesn’t sound right, does it? No, owning people like one owns cattle is immoral and should always be opposed even when the majority support it. Right?
So then, from whence comes moral truth? Who draws the finish line? Who sets the direction of the race?
If moral truth exists it must be grounded outside of human individuals or societies because they often disagree. It must be founded upon something that is beyond them but also over them. It must be grounded upon something that does not change and which has legitimate and binding authority over all people. There is only one possibility if we are to properly ground morality. There must be a God who made us and all things, who is good and commands goodness be done, and who does not change.
If objective1 moral truth exists then God exists.
Objective moral truths exist.
Therefore God exists.
You are welcome, of course, to reject moral truth altogether. You are welcome to try to enforce your personal tastes by a “might makes right” approach. Just don’t talk foolishly about morality and moral progress as if that meant something objectively that all people should recognize.
If, contrarily, you really believe rape and murder are objectively wrong, and that the action of bravely sacrificing yourself to save a drowning child is objectively good, then you must believe in God in order to justify your view.2
Objectivity, in its current usage, refers to something outside of the individual (an object). It is the opposite of subjectivity. A subjective opinion refers only to what the individual thinks or feels and is not binding on other people’s conscience. An objective fact refers to something that is true regardless of any particular individuals thoughts or feelings. It is something you ought to believe as it exists outside of you in reality. For example, 2+2=4 even if you feel like or believe it equals 5.
Briefly I’ll address a common misunderstanding. You don’t have to believe in God to do something that is good anymore than you have to believe in him to do something evil. That is not the point. The argument is that if there is no place to sufficiently ground moral truths then nothing actually is good or evil at all. But if you believe that good and evil are real and objective categories that all people are subject to then you are stuck. You must believe in God because no other sufficient grounds exist for such a belief.