The Theoretical Existence of Absolute Morals: Is the Theory Really a Theory?
by Hadassah Lairmore on September 25, 2014
There have been many debates on the existence of absolute truth - whether truth is relative to each person or if there is an absolute truth that is the foundation of ethics and morals and basic right and wrong. However one would like to argue, there are some undeniable facts regarding the existence of said truth.
Absolute Truth, in its most fundamental definition is an “inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts”, according to Google’s Merriam-Webster definition. For instance, it is an undeniable, unchangeable, fixed fact that there are absolutely no corners in circles and there are absolutely no rounded edges on rectangles. Thus, in stating this, the existence of Absolute Truth must be positive. Yet, what does one base the absolute truth on? This is where falsifiability comes into play. Almost. Falsifiability, the “logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment” (Princeton) must have an absolute truth to be declared falsifiable. If there was no absolute truth, nothing would be false, nothing would have the ability to be determined falsifiable. This statement releases a massive wave of If-Then conclusions, such as if there is no absolute truth, then there can be no morals. If there are no morals, then there can be no such thing as ethics. This is because ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behavior. If there are no ethics - no morals or truth, then there are no principles. If there are no principles, there can be no laws. If there are no laws, then there are no punishments or rewards. If there are no punishments or rewards, there can be no God or evil or even good.
If there was no absolute truth, everything would be relative and nothing would be measurable.
In an article found in The Master’s Seminary Journal, written by Professor of Theology Larry Pettegrew, Pettegrew says, in his introduction to the topic of absolute truth, “...post - modernists believe that there is no absolute truth. Truth is constructed, not revealed or discovered, and it is peculiar to each society”. In the modern-day world, this is true. People do not live by the same standard of moral ethics as one another. They believe each moral dilemma is subjected to the person affiliated with the dilemma. This statement begs the question: “Is this true?” Is there only one-size-fits-all ethical standard, or is each person under their own discretion regarding right and wrong? The answer to that question is ‘yes’. Yes, there are some cases where each person is subjected to their own discretion, but their discretion must be based upon something foundational, does it not? According to Pettegrew’s research, the belief that truth and ethics is subjective is the belief of the populous. When one confers with the Barna polls, they find that “66% percent of Americans believe that ‘there is no such thing as absolute truth.’ ” Of this 66%, 72% of young adults do not believe absolutes exist. “Even worse, however, is the fact that 53% of those who call themselves evangelical Christians believe that there are no absolutes. This would mean that about half of those say that they believe in salvation through Jesus Christ, and who might be able to sign a doctrinal statement proclaiming the inerrancy of Scripture, do not believe in absolute truth,” states Pettegrew. And herein lies our problem - the utter denial of an absolute right and wrong in ethics. Let us look at an example of an absolute. Stalin, debatably one of the greatest (or worst) and most feared leaders of history commits genocide. He kills millions of people and he does so with no regret, no remorse. He leads with an iron fist and does not take ‘no’ as an adequate answer. Now, one could look at this situation and say, “Indeed, he was a fierce leader.” That statement, however, would be rare, and if ever spoken, completely disregarded, unless a heated debate ensued arguing the falsity of such a ludicrious statement. Why? Simply put, because his actions completely defy that moral code. What moral code? The one set upon us by a higher authority. Logically, one cannot create their own moral code because, in doing so, they would be above such a moral code, thus resulting in the moral code being null and void. There would be no reason for having a moral code if one could not follow it. Therefore, there must be some higher power who is exempt from this moral code because they meet the criteria to be allowed to create a moral code: they are perfect.
What is it that tells us murder or genocide is wrong? “You shall not kill.” (Exodus, 1440 b.c.) , correct? From where does this statement originate? Not our laws. Our laws were based upon something before us. Same with the laws prior to ours. If one were to trace the morals to the beginning of time, one would find a statement where “You shall not kill” became a moral conduct. The first recorded instance of this statement being put into practice as a moral law can be found in Exodus 20 verse 13, written by Moses. Since then, we have accepted that as a truth: murder is wrong. Why? Because, like all good scholars, we have tested the validity of the source of such a statement and found it firm.
These conclusions lead us to the ultimate theory - the Bible is an accurate, and truthful, measure of ethics. One could even venture as far as to say that the existence of a God is probable, even most likely. Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is the following: there is an absolute right and wrong, regardless of who you are and what your beliefs are. Everyone, one day, will be judged by the same measure of morals, those morals stemming from an absolute truth and an undeniable, foundational ethics.
There is an absolute right and wrong, and that right and wrong produces ethics.
