Morality

Morality is a concern with what is right and what is wrong. An example would be that some people think that the "marriage" of a man to another man is moral based on the principles of utilitarianism. However, others think that such a thing is wrong, or immoral, usually on the basis of God's standards. Some people believe that marriage of any sort is amoral (without morality). Therefore, these people would have differing moral codes.

Morality versus law

Morality is distinct from the law, which is, or should be, based on morality. Slavery, for example, was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality. But morality is actually the basis for much of the law. Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

Morality based on theistic religion

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the Ten Commandments or the Code of Hammurabi were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.

Only by basing morals on God's standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis. Janine M. Ramsey:

Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.

Morality based on evolution

Some biologists argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution. They see social behaviors displayed by some primates as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as rhesus monkeys which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to starve themselves for a considerable time.

Dr. Frans de Waal argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both empathy and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others.

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true. The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.

Morality based on atheism

The basis of morality for atheists is their own opinion. Bertrand Russell, for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage. Richard Dawkins said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people. Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people. As mass murderer Jeffrey Dahmer said in an interview:

If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...

The effects of atheism

Atheists frequently criticise "religion", by which they usually mean Christianity, for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the Inquisition and the Crusades. But when atrocities committed by atheists such as Stalin and Mao are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.

Whilst atheism didn't directly cause these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it allows these atrocities to occur.

...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.

Bibliography

• Morris, Grantley, A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage.
• Ramsey, Janine M., What basis, morality?, 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
• Sarfati, Jonathan, Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation, 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)