The Next Level of Objective Truth: The Moral Law

In the last blog, I discussed the importance of objective truth as the foundational requirement for sustainaining and perpetuating society, along with the sanctity of having traditional marriages as the provision for biological function for its existence—among many of the biblically-centered functions traditional marriages provide. And, as I also mentioned previously, just because an argument is logically valid, it does not always account for its morality. This brings me to the next level of truth: the moral law.

Morality is defined as “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries).

What constitutes good or bad moral behavior? One way to look at this is through laws. Laws have been part of civilizations for centuries. We’ve had laws as far back as 2000 BCE according to some sources. Laws are created to regulate behavior. Why? Because human beings are, by nature, morally flawed. This isn’t to say that we don’t possess the capacity to do good. In fact, for most of society, good behavior exceeds bad ones. But without laws, we couldn’t function as a society. Criminals wouldn’t be held accountable for their crimes and no one would have the grounds to condemn their behavior if there are no laws on which to base a judgment from. Therefore, all laws legislate morality. But wait a minute. Didn’t we have laws that made discrimination on the basis of race legal not too long ago? Yes. But are we under those laws anymore? No. Why? Because it was immoral to discriminate against a human being on the basis of race. The requirement for moral or ethical behavior does not guarantee obedience. If obedience to being moral was never an issue, laws wouldn’t have been created to regulate it. What this does; however, is imply that there is an objective right or wrong to distinguish whether a behavior is morally good or bad.

All of this, then, must follow a logical conclusion: If laws are created to legislate morality, and just because there may be a law that currently violates good moral behavior which does not imply there is not an objective right and wrong; then, where do we get the standard of right and wrong from? Who decided what was objectively morally good or morally bad? Did the Founding Fathers? Did the Romans? Did the Egyptians? Did the Greeks? Did Muhammad? Did Moses? Did the Apostles?

It could’ve not been humans because, as we just concluded, humans are by nature morally flawed. One person may decide that a particular behavior is good although it ends lives. Another may think their particular behavior is morally good even though it demoralizes people. So on and so forth. So, if people aren’t the source for objective moral behavior that we as a human race must do in order to live and prosper as a society, then who or what is the source?

The only logical conclusion must be a source that is morally perfect from which moral laws come. That is whom I call God.