Morality and theism

The existence of God provides us the only executable explanation of the necessary conditions as an objective morality. Only with the belief in God you can say about the objective morality. There are many things which we cannot explain without God as Voltaire said “If there is no God then you must invent him” this statement show that how important the belief in God is, that you can’t deny the main law giver who provides you moral laws.

Because If God is dead then all things are permissible but people do not act as though they believe that “all things are permissible”. Therefore, people are living as through God is not dead.
There are some conditions:

  • There must be some transcendent standard.
  • Human freedom & Choice.


Transcendent Standard which is above us all and we know that is ≠ ought. Now everyone know that we are obligate to do good things like we know that murder hurts people, hurting people is wrong therefore murdering people is wrong. But who decide Right and Wrong?
William provine said “human free will is non-existence free will is a disaster and a social myth”.
Materialists says that “we are composed of matter and energy, therefore our actions are determined by that matter and energy”
one Darwinian says “if you take Darwin theory seriously then the idea of free will is complete illustration” therefore he says “its cruel to prosecute people for crime”  but wait a mint !
Where this CRUEL” came from -_- he makes moral judgement!

Its impossible to live with the philosophy of moral relativism.Clarence barrow (1920), he says that morality is a myth, when two boys killed a boy for thrill, he tries to save them by presenting  his reasoning that, “Is dickie lobe to blame because of infinite force that were at work producing him age before he was born? Is he blamed because his machine is imperfect”, this is the result of the evolutionary process. They says no one is guilty by the reason of year of evolutionary selection for aggressive.

Objective morality means that you have authority of choice. it’s all up to you that how do you want to treat human, kill them, betray them or what so ever, it’s up to you, as they have no worth… like one Darwinian, Peter singer from printon university said “humans do not have a special value of life of a new born baby is of less value then the life of a full grown pig or a dog or a chimpanzee”.

The Logic behind the animal rights

There is no qualitative difference between humans and animals.
We kill animals when it suits our purposes and when they are no longer useful.
Therefore it is permitted to kill humans when it suits our purposes or when they are no longer useful.

The relativist’s argument

if different people make different ethical judgement, then different people have different ethical values, therefore, people have different ethical values.

like we have ancient times people who used to kill their children and not just this, Hitler thought he was doing good but this was a ideology.
Its non-sequitur, when people do not abide the premises and make conclusion without evidence.
By having different opinion its doesn’t mean that there is no objective reality, no one can live as a relativist.

But doesn’t evolution explains morality?

-moral rules develop from moral sentiments or moral emotions. (From lower animals from which we evolved).these includes sympathy, love, guilt, shame and indignation. These sentiments evolved (by natural selection) to promote human survival and reproduction. (Competition between genes).moral sentiments (and the rules that derive from them) are an expression of an instinct that has evolved to promote human survival.

So morality programmed into us from long Darwinian evolution, to promote survival of the race.

Problems with evolutionary ethics:

Destroy any reason to obey moral norms when one’s interest contradicts with that of society. (If ethics is programmed in me by evolution do i have any reason to obey society? Why do I care?)

Cannot establish which instincts to indulge and which to suppress. (Some people have an instinct to murder, and some have not, so which I have to obey and which not to obey. all came from same source that is ‘evolution’)

Cannot account for altruism (self giving). Altruism helps in reproductive success.

So neither relativism, naturalism, nor evolutionary ethics give explanations of morality! Only theism can give coherent explanations of morality.

0 Replies to “Morality?”

    • By an objective moral values we describes the values like ”love” ,”hate”, kindness”, mercy etc
      Now if someone claim that ”Love is an evil, awful act, we should stay away form it” than 100% he will be wrong, why? Because we all know loving people, animals, nature is inbred it can’t be wrong. If the whole world will say love is evil than simply it wouldn’t make it evil. This is what a subjective moral value. Now these inherent moral values the sene which cannot be define without God!

      By the argument we conclud
      If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
      Objective moral values and duties do exist.
      Therefore, God exists.

      There are three terms we use while having morality a topic,
      1- objective 2- subjective and 3- absolute

      I Will describe them in next blog.(By the will of Allah)
      Stay tuned!

      Fasiha Khan

      • What if somobe told you that love can be good, yet sometimes can be bad.

        Is gay love good?
        And loving your daughter like a wife good?

        You can either say one of two things, both of which requite objectivity to get to an absolute conclusion:

        The first one can be that this is not love, and is something else. Which requires the use of objective thought to asertain this, ideed others may say it is love to them why are you right and they are wrong? Once you start to identify what is and what is not love according to anything other than a subjective knowledge, it no longe is subjective, it’s objective.

        The second point is this, if you say that it is subjective because you know it to be true even if others disagree, you are only describing your own “personal authority of choice” not a subjective morality.

        What do you think ☺.

        Walking Around Human

        The second is that

  • There were two things which I showed in my article
    -there must be some transcendent standard
    -human freedom and choice
    In the details I describe ”objective morality” we mean;
    Objective moral values
    Objective moral duties
    By objective moral values we mean that there exist moral values- like mercy is good, love is good etc.- and their objectivity is independent of anyone’s opinion about them. On the other hand, moral duties has to do with what is right or wrong, so killing an innocent child is wrong. Remember the claim is that we need the existence of God for these to be objective and not mere belief in God.
    Also, attached to these concepts are two other concepts: moral epistemology( ow you get to know these moral values and duties) and moral ontology( whether they really exist)

    So whether gay love is good or bad concerns moral epistemology- how do define moral values and know that they are bad or good- but i was not talking about moral epistemology- defining problem- rather moral ontology- that these values and duties dont exist objectively once u take God out of the picture.

    Now once we have established that you need God as an ontological foundation to maintain the objectivity of these moral values and duties, then you can ask “okay how would you get to know(define) them”. Now this is an epistemological question and then i will say that without establishing that a a particular religion is correct human beings will most have subjective definitions.

Leave a Reply