The Self-Evident Nature of Objective Moral Truths

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

227I occasionally encounter someone who rejects the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths. For many people, all moral truth is merely perspectival; a matter of flexible, cultural convention. Yet there appear to be a number of moral absolutes that transcend culture and history. These objective truths beckon us to seek justification when we attempt to circumvent their prescriptions. “Did you steal the hammer from that man?” “Yes, dad, but he was going to hit me with it!” We intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal “for the fun of it”. This action requires proper justification before any of us would find it tolerable or morally appropriate. Still, some folks are unconvinced that such a transcendent Law exists at all.

I’ve talked to people who refuse to accept some of the transcendent moral principles I’ve proposed. In one recent conversation, a female graduate student said she could imagine a culture that might accept (as virtuous) the moral principles I typically offer as transcendent moral taboos:

It’s never OK to steal “for the fun of it”
It’s never OK to lie “for the fun of it”
It’s never OK to kill “for the fun of it”

When people seek to reject the transcendent nature of these claims, I take the following approach. First, I ask them for an historical example. While there are many cultures that have justified their actions with rationalizations we might reject as insufficient, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a culture that used “for the fun of it” as a justification. Secondly, it’s sometimes important to “super-size” an issue to illustrate the point. That’s why I occasionally ask the question, “Is it ever OK to torture babies for fun?” If it isn’t, we’ve just identified a transcendent moral principle we can agree on. You’d be surprised, however, to discover how many people will still reject this “extreme” moral truth claim. The aforementioned graduate student told me, “Well, I would never so such a thing and I would never say it was OK, but I don’t think there’s necessarily an objective truth about it.” Really? I asked her, “So, are you saying there’s a scenario in which it might be appropriate to torture a baby for fun?” She still hesitated. “So, you’re saying that there could be a scenario in which it is morally acceptable to torture babies merely for the fun of it? Do you see how that sounds?”

When people still refuse to affirm something as self-evident as, “It’s never OK to torture babies for fun,” it’s time to offer them an additional piece of advice: “Get some help!” When your intuitive ability to recognize self-evident truth is inoperative, it’s time to get some counseling. Or, at least, start asking what it is that is causing you to hesitate in the first place. As this graduate student became more and more uncomfortable with her position, she began to recognize the weight of the moral truth she was trying to deny. She intuitively understood the need for proper justification because she felt the gravity of the transcendent claim. If there are such transcendent truths, I think we owe it to ourselves to attribute them to a proper and foundationally reasonable source.

When people still refuse to affirm something as self-evident as, 'It’s never OK to torture babies for fun,' it’s time to offer them an additional piece of advice: 'Get some help!' Click To Tweet

For more information about the scientific and philosophical evidence pointing to a Divine Creator, please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. This book employs a simple crime scene strategy to investigate eight pieces of evidence in the universe to determine the most reasonable explanation. The book is accompanied by an eight-session God’s Crime Scene DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.

J. Warner Wallace is a Dateline featured Cold-Case Detective, Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, Adj. Professor of Christian Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Cold-Case ChristianityGod’s Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, and creator of the Case Makers Academy for kids.

Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily EmailSave

Save

Check Also

Why Would Anyone Get a Degree in Apologetics?

I feel honored to be a very small part of the faculty at Biola University …

29 comments

  1. Pingback: Objective Truth Is One Thing, But Objective Moral Truth Is Another | Cold Case Christianity

  2. Pingback: Three M’s That Naturalism Can’t Provide | Cold Case Christianity

  3. Pingback: Are Objective Moral Truths Merely a Matter of Cultural Agreement? | Cold Case Christianity

  4. Pingback: Does Disagreement Prove There Are No Objective Moral Truths? | The Christian Apologetics Alliance

  5. Pingback: Objective moral truth and killing ‘for the fun of it’ | s k a n d a l o n

  6. Pingback: If Moral Decisions Are Dependent on Circumstances, Are There No Objective Moral Truths? | Cold Case Christianity

  7. Pingback: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”? | A disciple's study

  8. Pingback: Did a Concern for the Species Influence Our Moral Development? | Cold Case Christianity

  9. Pingback: Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”? | Cold Case Christianity

  10. Pingback: Are Moral Truths Encoded in Our DNA? | Cold Case Christianity

  11. Pingback: Why Would a Good God Allow So Much “Christian” Evil? | Cold Case Christianity

  12. Pingback: Why Would a Good God Behave So Badly? | Cold Case Christianity

  13. Pingback: Two Signs From Your Opposition Your Argument Is Sound | Cold Case Christianity

  14. Pingback: Does Disagreement Prove There Are No Objective Moral Truths? | Cold Case Christianity

  15. Pingback: The Perilous Pitfalls Facing “Tent-Making” Christian Case Makers | Cold Case Christianity

  16. Pingback: The Perilous Pitfalls Facing “Tent-Making” Christian Case Makers | Apologetics ForumApologetics Forum

  17. Pingback: God Didn’t Create Moral Law, It Is Simply a Reflection of His Character | Cold Case Christianity

  18. Pingback: The Problem With Answering the Problem of Evil | Cold Case Christianity

  19. Pingback: Is God Real? God is the Best Explanation for Objective Moral Laws | Cold Case Christianity

  20. Pingback: Is God Real? God is the Best Explanation for Objective Moral Laws | Apologetics ForumApologetics Forum

  21. Pingback: Is God Real? God is the Best Explanation for Objective Moral Laws | Apologetics.com

  22. Pingback: Is God Real? God is the Best Explanation for Objective Moral Laws - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers

  23. Pingback: Are There Different Degrees of Punishment in Hell? | Cold Case Christianity

  24. Pingback: Are There Different Degrees of Punishment in Hell? | Apologetics.com

  25. Pingback: What Criminal Trials Teach Us About Objective Moral Truth | Cold Case Christianity

  26. Pingback: extra-20161029-all | News Archive

  27. Pingback: Can we be good without God? – Cyber Penance

  28. Pingback: The Self-Evident Nature of Objective Moral Truths | Cold Case Christianity – Elders Scrolls

  29. Pingback: What Criminal Trials Teach Us About Objective Moral Truth – Uncaged Lion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *