The Wildebeest Stop Bleating: Why "Ought" Means God is the Source of Morals

Let’s admit that no matter what one’s political, religious, or philosophical bent, we all talk in oughts.  In this political season, politicians everywhere are claiming the moral high ground for their positions.  Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both speak about things the United States ought to do.  Partisans from all walks of political, religious, and philosophical life make demands as if their demands are self-evident.

In my last post, I suggested objective morals simply cannot exist in an evolutionary framework.  That should leave us wondering, why then do so many people seem to think they’re, well, right about so many moral issues? 

If morals have any objective basis, they can’t depend on perception or taste.  The sun exists – it’s an objective fact because it doesn’t depend on my perception.  If I can’t see, the sun is still there.  Sometimes the sun is hidden by clouds.  For many hours every day, the earth turns away from the sun and I don’t see it.  If I live underground my entire life, never coming above ground to see the sun, that doesn’t negate its existence.  None of these experiences mean the sun doesn’t exist.  My perception doesn’t alter the reality.

I like vanilla ice cream.  Really.  Just plain vanilla ice cream in a bowl – no fruit, no fudge, no nuts, no toppings of any kind.  This is simply a matter of taste.  No one can reasonably argue that my desire to eat vanilla ice cream is somehow morally inferior to their desire to eat jamoca almond fudge because this is just a matter of taste.  That said, whether one prefers vanilla or jamoca almond fudge, taste does not negate the reality that either type of ice cream in fact exists.  Taste doesn’t alter the reality.

Likewise, morals have to come from some other source than our perceptions and tastes.  Our perceptions are often incorrect and our tastes are not prescriptive.  From where, then, do morals arise?

Before answering, think about the following: no one likes it when someone cuts in front of them in line at the grocery store (or wherever they might be in line).  We don’t care for it when others lie to us.  If morals simply arise because of a “crocodiles eat and wildebeest bleat” kind of power over others to decide our morals then why does it seem that no one likes it when someone lies to them or cheats them or steals from them or even does something as simple as cut in line?  These moral “feelings” have to arise from somewhere, but their near universality indicates they’re not simply a matter of perception or taste.  These “feelings” live within our very souls.

All Ford automobiles have distinctive qualities that make them Fords – if nothing else, the word Ford appears on them.  How do we distinguish Fords from Chevrolets, from Chryslers, from Toyotas, from Hondas?  At bare minimum, the words on the cars, but more than that, each line of cars has distinctive features that people recognize as belonging to that brand.  These cars are created – they are designed and built to exacting specifications.  As a result we are able to recognize them as distinct.

Morals are a mark of our creator God.  That’s one of the distinctive marks of human beings.  We can (even if we don’t always do it) exercise restraint and remain in our place in line despite the temptation to cut.  We can tell the truth even when a lie seems more palatable.  We don’t need to cheat on the test or on our taxes and more often than not, even when we know the odds favor cheating without getting caught, we nonetheless don’t.  Why?  Evolution?  Are you kidding?  There are, of course, those who will try to make the rather weak-kneed argument that somehow, at some time long ago, under some circumstances of which we really aren’t fully aware, these traits helped perpetuate the species and thus made sense.  But if these traits helped perpetuate the species way back then, why wouldn’t they still work to do so now? 

The reality is that a creator God gave us an amazingly complex set of instructions known as genetic code which tells the material parts of us (the chemical and physical components) how to organize.  This code includes a moral component that contains things like empathy, sympathy, and honesty.  While, as a Christian, I believe this moral component was corrupted by the fall of humanity due to original sin, nonetheless significant vestiges remain.  Thus, even atheists get aggravated by lying, stealing, and cheating and, yes, even cutting in line.

Given that atheists, humanists, and “free” thinkers all claim some sort of monopoly on rationality and logic (at least as opposed to Christians), then the simple question boils down to this: if you think you can be moral, but morals are simply defined by those in power, would you still get mad if someone lied to you, cheated you, or cut in front of you in line even though those in power had declared all these actions morally acceptable?  Wouldn’t rationality and logic indicate that if those in power said so, then it would be reasonable and sensible to just accept it?  Yet, my guess is even atheists, humanists, and “free” thinkers would all argue against this.

The only meaningful answer to why this is true is because an intelligence lies behind our existence and put things into place in a meaningful and sensible way that helps us navigate through the stormy seas of life on this tiny blue planet.  That intelligence is the creator God of the universe.  He put his stamp on his creation, particularly human beings (we Christians refer to this as the imago dei).  He made us to be like him, although we are not exact duplicates.  Thus, we understand the concept of morals when no other creature on this planet does.

More importantly, as the creator, God gets to determine what is and is not moral, even when we think we know better.  Since we are less than the creator, this puts us in a position to accept that morals are an objective reality.  I suppose one could argue God simply has more power than anyone else, so my view is no different than the evolutionary view.  Almost true except for one unbelievably important reason: God instituted morals for our good and for our benefit.  Evolution never lifted a finger to help me or anyone else on this planet.  God also provided a means to satisfy the requirements of his moral code even when we have broken it in the worst possible ways.  Rather than punish us as we deserve for transgressing the moral code, God provided a uniquely perfect substitute to stand in our place: Jesus, the God-man, the king of the universe.  He lived a perfect life, was tortured on a Roman cross as punishment for the moral failures of all humanity, died for those sins, but was raised to life on the third day to provide us with hope.  All we must do is repent of our sins and believe that this is true.

God provides objective moral standards – the only reason so many reject those standards is because they cannot and will not live up to them on their own.  Jesus is the only possible way to solve that dilemma.  The wildebeest need no longer bleat.