The Moral Argument
The Moral Argument
In his memoir "The True History of the Conquest of New Spain," Bernal Díaz del Castillo vividly described an Aztec ritual:
When they were upon the point of sacrificing a child or woman, they would stretch it on a very smooth stone and open the breast with a cut that reached from the chest to the belly; then tearing out the palpitating heart, they offered it to the idols. They cut off the arms and legs and head of the dead body, and ate the arms and legs at ceremonial banquets.
Are acts like this cultural preferences or in defiance of some real law which we all know and are meant to abide by? When we say, "You shouldn't sacrifice a woman on a temple," do we mean, "I don't like it that you plan on murdering that woman," or "You know as well as I that no one should tear a woman open on a temple"? If no one should kill women on an alter, we are acknowledging some rule that we all know is there, and that it has real authority. Unless that authority comes from something greater than man, it has little value, because whoever has the most power can simply say that he or she will decide what is right and wrong. Also, if the moral law is merely something we all agree to until we die, we might as well defy it when we feel like it, but if it has its source in a higher authority, we best beware of defying it.1
Put another way, if right and wrong are real, then there is something unacceptable about child sacrifice, pedophillia, etc. If morality is just a feeling we have because of evolution or a set of cultural beliefs, then the murderer and the paedophile are really free to do as they choose, provided they don't get caught. In fact, there is no reason other than how you would like to spend your time and what risks you are willing to take to not rape and steal, unless you owe it to others to not rape or steal from them; and who could decide what everyone from a king to a slave owes others but a being with authority over them all?
Therefore, a choice is before you: either acknowledge that there is a moral law we are aware of, or deny it and admit that Nazis and cannibals are not really worse than people who have sacrificed themselves to save others from death. And if there is a law, there is a law-giver, and He must have authority over us and the power to give us each a conscience. He is God.
Is Morality Just a Social Construct? Is It Relative?
To say that morality is relative or a social construct is to say that it is a set of personal or social preferences. If true, then every disgusting, reprehensible thing imaginable is only offensive to our feelings, rather than right or wrong. Rape, incest, murder, slander, kidnapping, slavery, and torture for entertainment would all only be things most of us find unpleasant. If you can imagine any of those things happening to someone you love, or a little child, you would have to be a monster not to understand that something as real as your sight is telling you that these things are wrong.
Regardless of one's view, few people really believe that there is no right or wrong in practice. As C. S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, people who say they do not believe in a real moral law have quite the habit of changing their minds when evil affects them personally. They bicker, complain, and really believe that they were wronged; they aren't just mad that they lost. For example, a woman who cheats on her husband on the grounds that, "It's only bad if you get caught," will often be outraged if she finds out her husband was doing the same. Suffering from an evil act yourself after doing it to others wakes you up to the reality of it. It shows you the truth of your own error.
Therefore, consider this: Neither you, nor almost anyone, acts like morality isn't real. If your ideas go against the real-world evidence, they are probably wrong.
Evolutionary Morality
Nature Understands Nothing
The irrational forces of physics and natural selection cannot tell us anything true about how we ought to behave, since nature can't know anything, let alone have a purpose for us, so any evolution-based morality could justifiably be ignored. Only something rational could understand us and know what is best for us, so really, that something is someone.
We All Die Anyway
Why wouldn't we dismiss any "instructions" from the universe or preferences of culture, if that's all morality comes down to? We shall die either way. It is only if we shall be judged after this life that our decisions will have eternal consequences, and somehow, most of us seem to know in our heart of hearts that we won't get away with anything, ultimately.
What Would We Expect Evolutionary Morality to Look Like?
If you still suppose that morality came from nature, consider that nature does not have a habit of encouraging kindness, selflessness, and chastity. It is rather brutal. Consider also that a very evil person is more destructive than any animal, and a very good person, far more helpful. There is more at play than instincts that favour the indivdual or the pack.
Scientific Morality
In trying to escape the conclusion that God is real, Sam Harris has said that science can tell us how to act morally (which is completely nonsensical from his vantage point anyway, since he is a determinist). He says that it is very simple: Science can determine how to maximise wellbeing for everyone. However, he might as well say that math can determine how we should cook: it can determine the quantities of ingredients to add. The problem in both cases is ignoring the knowledge and beliefs that are required before the science or math comes in: wellbeing for all is good according to whom? Who decided wellbeing was important? We are back where we began, with the murderer saying, "No thanks, I'll just keep murdering," and you having nothing solid to appeal to. You just don't like murder, but he's not violating anything more important than human preferences, apparently.