I don't listen to much talk radio anymore but yesterday on my way home I caught about five minuets of the Rush Limbaugh show. He had just taken a call from a man who was complaining that the socially conservative "right" was always seeking to impose their morality on everyone else. Rush argued that there were well established and accepted norms of behaviour and decency. I thought that sounds a little hollow. Established and accepted by whom, I thought. Normal to who?
The caller went on to explain that if he were single and wanted to enjoy the services of a prostitute he should not be thwarted in his desires, on the other hand if he were married then seeking the companionship of a prostitute would be unacceptable.
Rush rightly pointed out that he had just established a level of morality by which he would judge others and presumably himself. Rush asked why it would be OK if you were single and not if you were married. The man defended his position by appealing to the vows in marriage. Rush rightly challenged the man that he had again established a code of morality. Rush asked him why do vows mean anything. They only mean something in a system of morality. That's when I arrived home and went inside. Quite frankly I had heard enough.
Any system of morality is rendered mute unless their is an authoritative God who establishes principles of right and wrong. Atheist/evolutionist embrace a philosophy that deprives them of the ability to say anything is wrong. Whatever boundaries they impose are self-imposed and arbitrary. Their boundaries are subject to being challenged on the premise of no one having the right to impose their morality on the masses.
If there is no God I can kill and no one can question my moral authority to do so. To argue that killing or stealing is morally wrong because it imposes on another person that which they do not desire is not a consistent position. They have simply imposed another standard of morality, that is if it imposes on others that which they do not desire then the behaviour is immoral.
My question is says, who??
Who has the authority to declare such behaviour immoral?
Is it consensus that makes killing another person immoral? And why is that binding? Why should it be binding? Why should I accept the moral standard that has been arrived at by consensus? If this is true then most ethnic cleansing is morally just because it is the result of consensus.
The reality is, if there is no God then there is no moral standard!
The minute someone attempts to impose a moral standard apart from God I will always ask the question, says who?? What is your authority for saying so?
If there is no God every man is set free to kill, rape, plunder, steal, lie, assault, and exercise their might to build their own kingdom at the expense of anyone and everyone else. A man is free to walk the streets and take any woman he wants and force her. I would be free to enter my nieghbor's home armed and take what I wanted and if he tried to stop me I would simply execute him on the spot. You say, well that would just not be right. I ask, who says??
Why is certain behaviour wrong. It has nothing to do with well established and accepted norms of behaviour, or consensus, or any other insipid wrangling of logic.
It is wrong because God said:
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Though shalt not commit adultery.
It is wrong because God said it was wrong and anything short of that reality will leave us adrift on a sea of moral relativism.