This discussion should not refer to “objective moral values.” That is a self-contradictory phrase. For the word “values” implies a chosen preference rather than a moral imperative. In the realm of piedom, blueberry pie is one of my values. But this value has no relation to whether or not it is morally right for me to eat blueberry pie.
As I see it morality is objective rather than subjective. If morality were subjective then what’s right for me may be wrong for you. For example, maybe it’s right for me to steal a tool when I need it, but wrong for you in the same of similar circumstances. In other words, the morality or immorality of stealing is depends upon our thoughts and beliefs and has no objective reality. But the objectivist, believes that if a moral imperative holds, it holds equally well for everyone.
I have problems with the concept that morality cannot exist unless a lawgiver exists who commands a list of moral behaviours, both those that ought to be practised and those that ought to be avoided. From eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Adam and Eve gained a knowledge of good and evil.
If morally right behaviour is defined as that behaviour that benefits other people as well as ourselves, and morally wrong behaviour is defined as that which harms others as well as ourselves, cannot morality exist independently of God?
God knows how the Universe functions. After all, He created it. So He knows what will benefit people and what will harm people. So He gave commandments through Christ that benefit people and avoid harming people. He doesn’t simply throw out commands upon a whim, and those commands define morality.
However, there are at least three distinct types of objective morality.
- Absolutism
In this view, a moral imperative is independent of all circumstances or relation to other moral imperatives. For example, the moral imperative to avoid lying always holds.
Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, is an absolutist. He wrote a book on the matter. He said that if you live your life correctly, you will seldom encounter moral conflicts. And example of a moral conflict: If you lie, you can save someone’s life. If you don’t, the person is sure to be killed. Lutzer said that he would probably lie to save a life, but he would still have committed the sin of lying. So he would need to ask God for forgiveness. If Lutzer had chosen not to lie, but to let the person die, he would then have to ask God to forgive him for allowing someone to die whom he could have saved.
- Situationism
What is normally morally wrong might be morally right in certain situations. For example, Joe Bloe, a situationist, considers adultery normally wrong, but in his situation it is right, since his wife hates him, and he and his friend Sally love each other.
- Hierarchalism
In this view, moral imperatives exist in a hierarchy where some imperatives take precedence over others. For example the imperative to save a life takes precedence over the imperative to refrain from lying. Therefore it is morally right to lie in order to save a life. You haven’t sinned in doing so. Rather, if you had chosen not to lie, and to let a person die as a result, you would have made an immoral choice.
My own moral position is that of hierarchalist obectivism.
