Do you agree with this statment(s)?

Question

The following is taken from
http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html


1)There is a universal moral law.
2)If there is a universal moral law, then there must be a universal moral lawgiver.
3)Therefore, There must be God.
(therefore the person of Christ is the quintecential representation of that which is morally pure and upright)


I know many ideas will arise, esp from pt 1 to 2. But for more explinations see the website...

Does it make sence? If I feel murder is wrong as does my fellow man in Asia, how can it be that we both KNOW its wrong? All of us know its wrong, but when exceptions arise(physcopaths), we ALL think that persons wrong.

Answer 1

While somewhat pithy, the first premise of C.S. Lewis seems to have certain difficulties. There are two major issues: First, what is substantial proof of a universal moral law? Second, how is this universal moral law stated? Both of these must be answered before we can accept the premise.
Lewis would have it that that moral disagreements would make no sense if the universal law did not exist. This is blatantly false as anyone who subscribes to circumstantial morality, which is that which is applicable only to a particular time and place, would disagree with another set of moral rules. It might be like a society of cannibals arguing about morality with someone from the 19th century American West. It is akin to speaking different languages.
Lewis' dictum only makes sense within a very narrow range of societal influences. The behavior of Japanese Samurai speaks of a very different set of ethics than does 20th century Europe. However, it is primarily because of the second issue that Lewis cannot provide better proof for a universal moral law.
If God does exist and man is able to access his maker's will, then that access provides proof of a universal law. Nevertheless, whatever set of ethics this is, it is clear that it is not naturalist or humanist ethics: Naturalism says that there are as many different ethical codes as there are different societies. While Lewis would have us distill our history of civilization to create God, the essence of his argument only shows that various societies have not even attempted to find Him, whether He truly exists or not. Hence, his premise of universal ethics fails because it must be posited universally from all society, rather than just one. His statement for a universal moral law only works if one has accepted the existence of God as a premise.
The premise of God solves both issues: if God exists, then only He can provide a universal moral law. Most importantly, if He is a benevolent God, which is tautological to One who would give us rules of behavior for our best interests, then He has given us access to Him and absolute morality. Unfortunately, by giving one access, this does not mean that each of us has accessed God or His benevolence.
In conclusion, Lewis' argument is only a tautology: God's moral law exists because God exists. While the failure to believe in God does not negate the existence of the universal moral law, it fails to provide substantial proof of it which does, in turn, substantially reduce its effectiveness.

Answer 2

No, I do not agree with it in the slightest.
A universal moral law? That's not possible. Every single person has a different moral code. Some people are murderers. Some people are rapists. Some people are con-artists.
They have a warped sense of morals.
Some people are for abortion. Some people feel that it is murder.
Wow, pro-choicers must be defying this moral law.

Yes, all Christians may have the same moral code, a code that they choose to follow. The whole world does not believe in God.

1) There is a universal moral law for all different groups of people.
2) There must be many different universal moral law-givers-- their consciences..?
3) Therefore, everyone must have their own God.

Case closed.

Answer 3

"Universal" implies everything off the planet as well as things that
I have experience with. Therefore, I'd have to say that I just don't
know.

Certainly, evolutionarily, common morals are pretty
predictable. For instance: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is pretty
predictable - if a society had no form of this (at least,
"thou shalt not kill members of the tribe"), we wouldn't
be here any more. Any variant of us that evolved
that did not have this property would be quickly
"selected" against.

I would say that "if life exists and can interact with other
life", it will almost immediately select against behaviour
where that life will destroy life required or helpful
to its existence.

You don't kill off other members of your tribe because
your tribe is better able to fight off enemies if you stick
together. Any tribe that doesn't have that built in won't
survive.

Having babbled on about evolution for awhile, that doesn't
mean there isn't a God ... it only means that there is a lot
of thought about consistancy and how things work
together that doesn't require the existance of God.

When one talks of God and religion, you end up talking
about things which have no repeatable experiments.
Scientists are usually not happy to talk about God and
repeatable experiments in the same sentence.

I would argue that omnipotence requires the ability
to act beyond repeatable behavior... And if you "know"
things by learning through experiment, you're never
going to know there is a God.

For that matter, you won't know there isn't one either.

I would thereby argue that a truly omnipotent God would
be truly unknowable.

Most people feel that there has to be a definitive answer.
I don't. I live with the possible existance of God in some
unknown form, but I do not use it/him/her in the calculations
of how to live my life.

If you look at societies morals and consider how they might
have evolved - and you understand and follow the reasonable
ones, you end up being a pretty moral person, with or without
God.

So... You really don't have to choose.

I don't expect anyone reading this to be satisfied by it, but I have
thought an awful lots about it over many many years. I continue
to be "one" with this unknowing position.

And ... if I'm not hurting them, I would wonder why it is so important
for others to move me one way or the other.

Answer 4

There may very well be a "universal moral law"...however the link to God is ridiculous. Humanity has over time developed SECULAR laws that are "universal" in nature and they weren't given to us by any God. If there was in fact a God why isn't he/she/it here governing us and enforcing the law?

In particular the idea that Christ is "the quintiecential representation of that which is morally pure and upright" offends. Many are not believers in Christ...Christ was a MAN...nothing more or less...a great teacher, ahead of his time...but just a MAN. He didn't die for our sins as we're still here and still sinning. So here's the reality for those that have done any theological researh at all...Why are the Jews referred to as the "chosen" people in the Bible? Answer: The Jews suffer in the HERE and NOW for the sins of man kind. That's their lot in life and what they were chosen for. FYI the writer here isn't a Jewish person..suggest to all you Religious people out there you check the following Web site www.uua.org. PEACE!

Answer 5

assumption 1 :"1) There is a universal moral law."

why should it be ? Moral is dependent on culture. If everyone feels murder is wrong why are there so many murderers (or "soldiers" to take a euphemism for it) in our tiny world. Seems like murder is often justified by higher "moral" goals.
Good and evil are words like bubblegum. One mans evil is another mans good. Yes, the most of us would agree to "murder is wrong" but perhaps that`s just in the biology of a species living in a herd and dependent on others.
To quote the webpage "Without a universal moral law, this judgment is a matter of opinion. However, it seems clear that the moral status of certain actions (e.g., the Nazis) is not a matter of subjective opinion, and this is because we presume there is a universal moral law.".
This seems a strong argument at first, however it bears its own undoing within.
The Nazis were no aliens in spaceships forcing their will on the germany that carried off after they lost world war 2. They were carrid by what the majority of germany found moral and just.
Euqal was the spanish Inquisition for example, even if the did not industrialize killing to such a degree.

For me ,i think you have to make up your own moral, everyone for himself. For example i would find it absolutely ok to shoot someone like Hitler to prevent genocide or just get rid of a dictator forcing his will on others.
So i cannot get a universal law like "Thou should not kill".

If i like it or not, it really is (!) my opinion.

Another nice statement is "thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil."

Did you know that Mother Theresa prevented patients in her hospital in calcutta to take medicamentation that could have saved their lives, because "in their suffering they are nearer to our lord jesus christ "(original quote), therefore killing them.
Or that she was good friends of a lot of fascict dictators (for example Franco in Spain) and thought of democracy as "the devils work".
One mans hero is another mans villain.
And all moral is subjective. Kill your idols , think for yourself...

2) If there is no law why should there be a lawgiver ?
Do the laws of nature (evolution, gravity etc) need a lawgiver ?
A more relevant question perhaps, but i`m not here to answer this now.

3) If there is a lawgiver why should it be Christ/God ?
Why not Bhudda , or Allah, Brahma, a Shinto Deity, Manitou, Quetzacoatl, Satan, Odin , Ma`at ,the world spirit, Marduk, Zeus, Jupiter,Karl Marx, the spaghetti monster, Kutulu or Santa Claus. Perhaps I am just the creator of my very personal "universal laws".

Answer 6

a million-Lita, Sable, Fabuloose Moolah, Chyna, and Trish are overrated no i disagree 2-Sting and HBK deserve a million greater international identify reign formerly they retire. i sure i agree 3- the hot ECW is robust and underrated. sure i agree 4- Triple H may be a important Eventer without Stephanie McMahon, yet he does not be a 12 time international champ. no i disagree 5- certain For Glory 2008 would be better than WM 24. sure i agree 6- side desires a clean Finisher. sure i agree 7- Jeff Hardy isn't the wonderful extreme-flyer ever. sure i agree

Answer 7

Just because most AMERICANS today believe that murder is wrong, doesn't mean that a god gave us that morality. I brush my teeth every night - is that a moral law that a god gave me?

Moral values change over time (the inquisition anyone? How bout Salem?), over border lines (you can be killed legally for speaking out against the Chinese gov't while in China), and over reason (war?).

Answer 8

I absolutely agree. The Bible says that "when the Gentiles, having not the law, do those things contained in the law, they are a law unto themselves, showing the law of God written on their heart so that they are without excuse." The conscience is a part of us that God has given to every man and on the day of judgment we will not be able to stand before him and say, "I did not know." We are all without excuse. Now, the next question should be...are we all law breakers?

Answer 9

i don't believe there is a universal moral law, but if i did, it wouldn't necessarily imply that there is a universal moral lawgiver. this universal law could be innate. furthermore, if this lawgiver were god, it doesn't imply anything about the existence of christ.

Answer 10

Moral was much difference 3000 years ago, it was even much difference 300 years ago. If it was provided by God, wouldn't that mean that moral would have always been the same?

To me it's more proof of evolution...