Moral Laws

Moral norms are not established by Special Revelation (i.e. the Bible) they are established by General Revelation. General revelation is readily available for all people to observe in the environment around them. This is what Paul is discussing in Romans 1:20 (KJV) “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” This is commonly known as Natural Moral Law Theory. It is important for the Christian to understand this because it is a tool that can be used to witness to anyone from any religious background. It is an argument from logic that is supported by scripture.
Natural moral law theory implies that we discover morality and not invent it to fit out lifestyle. As C. S. Lewis put it, the great majority of civilizations have acknowledged “the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false….”
Both moral justice and moral law derive their origins from four principles:
1. What nature (and Nature’s God) has given to man.
Only an irrational person would claim that there is no nature by which all the universe is governed. We must distinguish then first that nature has laws that are physical and meta-physical (meta-physical means the nonobservable characteristics of the universe, such as the universe had a beginning but that cannot be observed). Physical truths such as gravity are laws that cannot be rationally denied were as meta-physical truths, such as the existence of logic, consciousness, numbers, and existence itself, require more intellectual exercise to discern. However both are immutable.
Physical and meta-physical laws cannot be denied; they are a part of the universe and can be either observed or logically discerned. Such as the sin of homosexuality, this is not a natural process from which offspring is produced. Offspring is the product of nature in order to propagate itself. It’s practice is a violation of the very nature of man.
2. From the distinctiveness of the human consciousness.
Morality solely exists for the purpose of humans. The universe does not need morality to function therefore moral laws exist for the purpose of man. This moral distinctiveness of the human consciousness means that man has an obligation to abide by moral laws. People are quick to point out when someone is in error. People jump at the opportunity to expose your faults. This is because man has an instinctual moral obligation to correct a perceived falsehood. If anyone denies this then do not bother with a rebuttal because you would be exercising the very objective moral value I am describing.
The nature of the physical and meta-physical laws shows that every idea and action has a philosophical consequence. Since man is a rational being we are bound to the laws of logic to discern moral law.
3. From the function of man.
By using the cognitive processes of your mind and the natural abilities man has through nature, a person is able to function in the world and find their purpose. For the purpose of helping others, educating the ignorant, feeding the hungry, producing goods and services for others, being a father, a mother or a sibling. There are also those more noble and higher functions of man such as worship and piety and being an example to others.
No other creature claims to have purpose. No other creature feels an obligation to do and act within the world they live in. No other creature has the ability of abstract thinking so they can determine consequences and be certain of principles they have not observed. In other words no other creature has faith that their contribution will have affects on others in the world.
4. From what serves to unite humanity as a society.
Sin divides people. The nature of truth is that it is naturally and mutually exclusive and not inclusive. Therefore truth unites people and lies divide us. Sin gives disunity. Sin corrupts the good; it is contagious on the whole population.
In the last century, the Soviet Union took atheism to its fullest conclusion. Christians were killed and imprisoned. Every human vice was allowed. The homosexual community became a normal staple in their society until it reached a point that the population growth stopped. From 1917 to 1933, Homosexuality was legal and it was reported that there was relative tolerance for it in Russia while it was still labeled as a disease. (Donald J. West, Richard Green, Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality: A Multi-Nation Comparison, Springer Science & Business Media, 1997, pg 223)
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1930 written by medical expert Sereisky states “Soviet legislation does not recognize so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest … while recognizing the incorrectness of homosexual development … our society combines prophylactic and other therapeutic measures with all the necessary conditions for making the conflicts that afflict homosexuals as painless as possible and for resolving their typical estrangement from society within the collective” (Sereisky, Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1930, p. 593). Between the years of 1917 and 1933 marked a free and legal environment for homosexuality in Russia.
1933 saw a new law called Article 121 which prohibited male homosexuality with a sentence of five years hard labor. The Soviet society had become so corrupted and family unfriendly (in just 16 years!) that harsh government intervention was required. In 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev was forced to institute new “training” laws to combat homosexuality. The public school began to teach heterosexual and family values. It stands to reason that it was one of the interior issues that eventually collapsed the Soviet Union.

18 thoughts on “Moral Laws

      1. I mean to say that what you wrote is rubbish; lacking in any serious attempt of reflection or critical thought. What you have achieved to do is compile a bunch of weak ideas and assumptions that lead you towards a misguided set of conclusion that misrepresent historical realities. By assuming thought brings about absolute moral conclusions, to creating a reality where the fall of the USSR was due to the acceptance of homosexuality.
        I say it is frivolous because it contributes to no discourse or conversation, instead it stands as a justification for an unchanging absolute truth you claim to have.


    1. If I understand what you wrote correctly, I am perplexed by your statements. Perhaps your comments need further expanding on.
      #1. You wrote “lacking in any serious attempt of reflection or critical thought.” You go on to use such adjectives as “weak ideas and assumptions” without demonstrating where there are assumptions and weak ideas.
      #2 You wrote “By assuming thought brings about absolute moral conclusions” I would be curious as how you believe conclusions are made if not by thought. Thinking is the human tool for using logic which makes conclusions. You are trying to use it in your rebuttal so my point is self-evident. I should point out that you also are trying to use your thoughts to make a moral conclusion that I am in error. If you don’t believe in thoughts making moral conclusion then why debate me on this.
      #3 You wrote “stands as a justification for an unchanging absolute truth you claim to have” Are you suggesting that absolute truth whether in the context of morality or other metaphysical context, does not exist. This is self refuting. To say that absolute truth does not exists would have to be a truth in itself.

      On all points your thinking seems to be arbitrary. If you believe that is ok, then again, why debate me, I can’t be wrong according to your position.


    1. Sarcasm does not make for intelligent conversation. You are committing the fallacy of argumentum ad passions. I do appreciate your dialogue and your opinion. I chose to live by the truth so that I am not a slave to anti-realism.


      1. You are right, yet I do not think there is any need or reason to discuss the ontology of knowledge if you use linguistic circles. I could explain how knowledge is not absolute, that it is the best possible explanation derived from reflection and pragmatic thinking. And that indeed the ‘knowledge’ that no knowledge can be absolute is in itself the best possible pragmatic explanation for describing the world; and if there was a better one we would use that one instead, hence not making it absolute.

        If to that you say that stating that it is not absolute makes it an absolute, then you might as well be asking yourself what the smell of the color yellow is because it does not mean anything other than a silly linguistic circle.


      2. Your comments are very confusing to me. You may need to explain further. I find pragmatism fallacious because “success” and “what works” is completely arbitrary. You wrote “that indeed the ‘knowledge’ that no knowledge can be absolute is in itself the best possible pragmatic explanation for describing the world” But that isn’t pragmatism that is absolutism because you have to have knowledge of something to make this claim. I realize that you put the word knowledge in quotes. If you suggest by these quotes, that you can only know nothing, again, why debate me? Your dialogue demands that you are attempting to assert knowledge that you claim does not exist.

        You are also committing the fallacy of a false comparison. A color is a physical attribute of a physical object. Knowledge and logic are metaphysical realities that have different attributes. In other words an apple is not an orange. They have different physical properties but you said that you did not see a need to discuss ontology (the nature of being or existence) and you are discussing it anyway.

        I would agree that we cannot have knowledge of everything, but it is self refuting to say that I know nothing. I know my social security number. If I told the IRS that I can’t know anything, they won’t believe that because that is not reality. Atheist philosopher John Searle wrote: “I have to confess, however, that I think there is a much deeper reason for the persistent appeal of all forms of anti-realism [in which we create our own reality and everything anyone believes is a matter of personal preference, interpretation, and spin], and this has become obvious in the twentieth century: it satisfies a basic urge to power. It just seems to disgusting, somehow, that we should have to be at the mercy of the ‘real world.’ It seems too awful that our representations should have to be answerable to anything but us.” (John R. Searle, Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World, New York: Basic, 1998, pg 17)


      3. I said there was no point disscusing ontology or anything else for that matter is all you where interested in dooing was making linguistic circles.

        I never said we you can only know nothing.

        Thanks for clearing up the difference between an apple and an orange, that was particularly enlightening.

        Just because things like apples and oranges have a physical certainty, does not mean morality does or has to….

        Or perhaps because a thought is based on a thought based on a thought based on a thought; it suddenly becomes absolute.


      4. You wrote “Just because things like apples and oranges have a physical certainty, does not mean morality does or has to”. I appreciate that you conceded on the point that this was a false comparison. Let me point out that you are proving that morality exists in reality because if it did not, it would be impossible for you to:
        1) communicate meaning of it were otherwise
        2) identify it
        3) have an obligation to prove me wrong
        4) to know what is wrong through observation
        You can call this “linguistic circles”, but it sounds like you don’t want to really think through your position or my comments. This would lead me to believe that you are committing the fallacy of an apriori and using “linguistic circles” as your rescuing device.

        What I was pointing out is that metaphysical realities have very different properties and attributes than physical realities do. You agreed that metaphysical realities do not have the same properties, if any at all, but your reply only proves that this metaphysical reality (morality) can have an attribute, that is the attribute of meaning. So again, your arguement is self-refuting and only shows a denial of reality.

        You also wrote “because a thought is based on a thought based on a thought based on a thought; it suddenly becomes absolute.” I don’t believe that. In fact I would conclude that this is your practice, so I am confused at the meaning of this remark. The mind can too easily succumb to an arbitrary state. Therefore, these metaphysical realities such as logic, mathematics, and morality must be relied upon.

        Some properties of metaphysical realities would include: rationality, immateriality, universality, and verity to name a few.


      5. By “physical certainty” I mean the certainty you can find in physical laws, which are close to absolute (note close). Morality is only ever the manner in which we make difficult decisions, based on thought.

        1: “communicate meaning of it where otherwise”? :-S

        2: I can identify it and describe it through language, yet it is not absolute in its meaning as my meaning for it might be different to anthers.

        3: I have no obligation to do anything, I have motives.

        4: Again I never said we can only know nothing.

        When you say:
        “This would lead me to believe that you are committing the fallacy of an apriori and using “linguistic circles” as your rescuing device”.
        You are actually making what is referred to as an ‘assumption error’ which makes an ass out of you and me. hahaha

        The worst of these mistakes is in assuming “metaphysical realities” (this time I put it in parentheses to imply it is not well defined) like mathematics can be dumped in with morality, which is subjective by nature (requires thought reflection and knowledge).

        Just a quick question, are you also a creationist? Because that would be the icing on the cake 🙂


      6. You wrote “Morality is only ever the manner in which we make difficult decisions, based on thought.” Your reasoning seems arbitrary. That definition allows the whims of human emotion (because thoughts are influenced by emotion) to determine a moral act. If your thinking is your ultimate standard then your standard is arbitrary because thinking is mostly based on perception instead of founded principles and everyone perceives differently and thinks differently (hence the necessity of external metaphysical realities). This arbitrary thinking is an abdication of reason and fails to make intelligible sense of reality. Thinking that is not based on external metaphysical realities lack enough information to process moral decisions correctly. Essentially you are left we circular reasoning (another fallacy); you think it is moral for no other reason than your thinking. You are not able to distinguish between a criminal and a citizen because most criminals “think” there was nothing immoral in what they did (I would suggest this is narcissistic in nature at the least existential). You have motives? Yes, which is a product of the influence from a metaphysical reality (I don’t presume to know your cause). Motives come from something, such as feeding the homeless is motivated by compassion (an emotion cause by moral obligation) and judgement.
        Each time your reasoning has been pointed out as self-refuting, yet you continue into irrationality. That is an apriori.
        You are ignoring the prescriptive question of morality and only focusing on the limited descriptive methodology. In other words you are only trying to show how people form moral judgements without showing people why they ought to think. This leads to your omission of several moral components such as objective truth. You are committing a non sequitur because the reduction of morality down to thoughts, feelings or instinct is unjustified. It just doesn’t follow that that is all there is to it. Your argument shows that you are falling for the “is/ought” problem. You will never be able to communicate how a person ought to think without relying on a metaphysical reality.
        I also noticed that you are making claims without reasons. I have pointed out my reasons by showing how your reasoning is self-refuting but you don’t do anything like that. You claim I am making an assumption err but don’t explain why. This is a common theme in your writings. Because of this, I am losing faith in you ability to be rational. Don’t presume I am being mean or spightful, I certainly do not wish to communicate any enmity toward you by that statement (although I don’t believe this is reciprocated). I have been praying for you though this whole encounter.
        If thought is to be your ultimate standard for morality, then, as I pointed out several times now, why are you arguing with me? Motives? Motives come from something. Therefore, it seems that your actions betray your reasoning, because you behave as though external metaphysical realities do exits by trying to use logic (the metaphysical medium between us) to communicate reason. Again you are self-refuted.


  1. “Hence the necessity of external metaphysical realities” is not proof, it is wishfull thinking.

    “Thinking that is not based on external metaphysical realities lack(s) enough information to process moral decision making” is as vague as it can be, what do you mean by this statement? Do you mean it is impossible to think without a metaphysical reality? And if so how do you know this, do you have any positive proof of this affirmation?

    The sentiment is similar, yet not reciprocated. I do still think what you claim is mostly frivolous wishfull thinking, and indeed actually harmfull to social thinking. To think that homosexuality brought down the USSR is not only a grave misunderstanding, and indeed an epistemological error. It is unhelpful and harmfull to grater society. And to then base it all on vague ‘logic’ is just counterproductive to the conversations about how best to live our lives. Indeed most conversations in the modern world about social desitions do not involve the need of a God or metaphysical reality, and I can understand how this may be alienating for you.

    I can understand how frustrating it may be seeing the open inclusion of gay marriage and sexual freedom be adopted into society when your metaphysical ‘logic’ tells you otherwise. The only reason I see you need this metafisical ‘reality’ is to be able to justify your feeling towards people you cannot pragmatically disent against. This is to say: if we had a conversation about gay marriage without invoking a metaphysical reality, there would be nothing wrong with it, or at least nothing worse than any other heterosexual couple. You NEED your metaphysical reality in order to conclude there is a problem.

    Thanks for the prayers yet I would prefer you used that time for true reflection.

    And if you believe I cannot be rational, then is my unbeliefe in God and the acceptance of Jesus my fault or gods? If God made me knowing my rational would be ‘broken’, that would be like condemning me from the start.

    Stop blaming people for things they are not responsible for.


    1. Self refuting again sir. You said “Do you mean it is impossible to think without a metaphysical reality? And if so how do you know this, do you have any positive proof of this affirmation?” You are ask for an external reality to affirm your thinking! And again you have surcomb to the “is/ought” dilemma

      If you don’t value reason, what reason can I give you that would show you the value of reason?
      If I give you a reason, that reason came from an exterior source such as logic. Logic has laws and properties, therefore logic is a metaphysical reality external from human thought.
      If you don’t value evidence, what evidence can I give you that would show the value of evidence?
      If you don’t value absolute truth, what absolute truth can I give you that would show the value of absolute truth?


      1. If that’s the best you can do, then that’s the best you can do. If it makes you feel better that’s fine, don’t pretend others have to accept this rubish, or think this rubish actually leads to anything helpful in society. If you want an example of linguistic circles just re read the paragraph you just wrote. With classics like “if you don’t value reason, what reason can I give you that would show you the value of reason” exelent grammar, no practical meaning.

        I’m sorry to say it is just frivolous garbage.

        I know I’m not being polite, yet I don’t think I’m being unfair either.

        This reasoning belongs in the fringes of human thought where it has little to no influence on the daily lives of others.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s