Crash the Future

In my previous blog I mentioned that I suspect the universal Truth people often wish to deny is a moral one. This blog is intended as a brief response to that denial.

The vast majority of arguments I have encountered against a Universal Moral Standard (UMS) are actually illogical and based on how a person feels. Let me explain.

The basic arguments people often present boil down to this:
A. Situation X is personally easy for me to determine what is morally right.
B. Situation Y is personally very difficult for me to determine what is morally right.
C. Therefore, there is no absolute morality.

This is actually just a series of logical non-sequitors. They might as well say something like:
A. It’s easy for me to climb a hill.
B. It’s very difficult for me to climb a mountain like Denali.
C. Therefore, Mt. Everest doesn’t exist.

Rephrased in that situation, most people would see the faulty nature of the argument, but they are not likely willing to acknowledge the unsound nature of the argument in relation to morality. Still yet, their argument is not actually based on logic, even though they would like to believe it is. However, all they have logically done is demonstrated that some situations are difficult, because of emotion, for them to personally determine what the morally correct decision or action is. They have not logically presented a case against the existence of a UMS.

On the other hand, consider this:
A. If there is no UMS (Universal – applying equally from person to person, Moral – entailing right and wrong, Standard – a rule to be followed or broken), then
B. One person’s morality does not apply to another person (because it is not universal)
C. Therefore, one person does not have the ability or right to make a moral judgment about the actions of another person (because their morality does not apply to that other person).
D. Furthermore, no person needs to apologize for anything, and no apology should be expected (because one person cannot make a moral judgment about any action taken by another person)

The thing is that every person has an ingrained knowledge that the UMS really does exist, even though we don’t want to admit it. That’s why we get offended and demand apologies from one another. We appeal to some overarching rule, to which we are all subject, that the offending party broke. And they owe us an apology for that transgression. If someone wishes to deny the existence of a Universal Moral Standard, they cannot do so logically unless they are willing to live their life without ever again taking offense at the actions of others or expecting apologies from them. You cannot: 1) deny the reality of a UMS; 2) get offended, make moral judgments, or expect apologies; and 3) truly remain logical.

At this point, it should suffice to say that the only truly logical and reasonable people are those who acknowledge the existence of a Universal Moral Standard and are willing to admit they fall short of it at times, or those who deny the UMS but consistently live without ever taking offense or passing moral judgment, even on someone like Hitler.

PS – Notice that there is no mention of Scripture or of Christianity in this argument in favor of a Universal Moral Standard. It is simply an argument based on common knowledge, experience, and logic. Most people probably don’t want to acknowledge its existence, however, because they would then also have to acknowledge that they have violated it, and that’s the beginning of the gospel… sin. So instead they deny a Universal Moral Standard, continue to take offense at perceived moral injustice, and live under the delusion that they are “logical” and “reasonable” people.