Overview: Our morals are essentially relative and non-binding, if not for the fact there’s a God Who determines right from wrong. This absolute morality coincides with our subjective understanding of morality since we both share the same end-goal.
What are morals?
We refer to morals as notions of “right” and “wrong.” Murder is “wrong” and charity is “right.” Basic rules of all civilizations were based on this notion of right and wrong and prohibitions against murder, theft, and rape were all considered wrong and thus outlawed.
Many at first glance believe that these morals are absolute, that they are objectively “right” and “wrong.” But some thought into these ideas will reveal that these notions we have of right and wrong are subjective and relative in a sense.
What about murder, for example, is “wrong”? Why shouldn’t John kill Jack if he will benefit from it? Is there some objective cloud out there in space called “wrong,” into which murder falls into?
If you think about it, the concept of “wrong” isn’t a real one. It merely means something that we tend to denounce or feel guilty doing. But is there really actually something wrong with it? If we were to take God out of the picture, then we wouldn’t be able to say something is objectively wrong.
You see, civilization as a whole developed this concept of “morals” which are basically rules that we all abide by for the sake of living in a safe and healthy environment. Murder became wrong since if we were to all feel free to kill, humanity wouldn’t survive and we would constantly feel insecure. For the same reason, morals like theft and rape are also shunned and outlawed by humanity and positive acts like charity and pity are commended.
But let’s suppose that John doesn’t care about the governing laws and civilization’s prohibition of murder. Would there be an objective explanation for why murder is wrong? No. It’s only “wrong” because that’s what civilization wants. Telling John that “you wouldn’t want to be killed yourself so don’t kill others” isn’t a convincing reason since what if he will figure out a way to protect himself against murder from others.
However, much to civilization’s advantage, over the generations we have developed something called a “conscience.” It’s basically this guilty feeling we get from committing “evil” and this satisfaction we get from doing “good.” Our social norms and education got us to believe that murder is wrong and compassion is right.[1] This deeply-embedded notion is healthy for a society and assures that we will survive and benefit from one another. It is important that, just like our parents and educators did with us, we teach our children this concept of “morality” even though it is not a real concept. Like this we can be sure that humanity will continue to be a safe place where people care for one another.
It cannot be said that “logic” teaches us to act morally, since that would destroy the very definition of “logic.” Logic is merely a calculator; it tells us 1+1=2. It tells us that if we want to eat, this is how you make food. It doesn’t tell us to eat; for that we have hormones in the brain (not logic) that trigger a starvation. Logic only tells us how to achieve a pre-existing desire we already have. So it cannot be said that logic demands us to do something.[2]
This is what we would call “relative morality.” It’s the idea that morality is not a real “right” and “wrong,” but merely that as society we decided to embrace these behaviours. It’s the subjective feelings that we have, there is no logical reason that says that murder is wrong and compassion is right.
“Absolute morality” comes along when we introduce God into the picture. Now that there’s a Creator of the world, He also created an objective concept of “right” and “wrong.” It’s not just that people with their subjective feelings decided that murder should be wrong, but it’s God Himself Who decided it should be wrong. Thus is becomes an absolute moral.[3]
Without God—the Creator of morals—and His Torah—the manual guide for morals,—there would be no concept of morals that are actually objectively binding upon us.
Based on this, it becomes ridiculous when an atheist complains that the Torah isn’t moral. By what standards can the atheist call something “moral” (i.e. “right” and “wrong”)? For the atheist, morality is just a means for a healthy civilization. Therefore, there’s no reason to say that God is bound by that definition of morality. One cannot question God’s existence by questioning His morality, since our definition of morality is relative and His is absolute. We shall discuss this concept more at length more in the upcoming chapter “God is Not Bound by Our Morality.”
So what are God’s morals as described in His Torah?
To our luck, God’s absolute definition of morality coincides with our definition of morality. It doesn’t contradict it; rather the Torah preaches morality as we know it. As we shall later explain at length, God’s allowance for suffering in this world, isn’t a contradiction to this that God preaches morality in His Torah. We will also go through examples of seemingly immoral laws or concepts in the Torah and explain them in light of our understanding of morality.
We see that Torah affirms our understanding of morality over and over. It teaches us to be compassionate, to give charity, not to abuse the underprivileged, and to love each-other. It also prohibits murder, theft, and all acts of violence. From this, and much more, we see how Torah embraces our understanding of morality, even though our morality is subjective and relative. It is only since the Torah affirms it, that the morality now becomes objective and absolute.
Why does Torah coincide with our morality? Since we both share the same goal. As explained, civilization developed and taught these moralities because these moralities keep us safe and assure mankind’s survival. Well, being that God created the world and gave mankind a mission in it, He too wants the survival of the world. He therefore commands morality that will ensure the survival of civilization.[4]
___________________
[1] This is why infants and toddlers tend to be very selfish with no regard to others. It’s because they are exercising their animalistic nature of survival. It’s only once they are taught by their parents, educators, and society, that they begin to act with compassion and empathy. Note that being that animals also contain some level of intellect, they too have some moral instincts and empathetic tendencies.
There is a school-of-thought out there that morals are embedded into us not only by society but by our DNA. When we are born, we have a sense of morality that comes along together with our other survival skills. This would explain why some animals have some level of empathy. See https://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/index.html for a study on infants, in which they were found to have elements of morality, despite not having been influenced by society yet.
Be as it may, the point is that morality isn’t absolute, if there is no God. It is merely part of our survival mechanism implanted into us by society and/or our DNA.
Similarly, history teaches us that the earlier we go back into history, the more brutal and immoral people become. The earlier generations felt much less guilt with slavery, murder, rape, and theft. As history progressed, we vividly see how the generations became more and more moral and civilized. This is because as time passes, the idea of morality becomes more and more embedded in us.
[2] Now one might argue that we have the pre-existing desire to act moral. That may be true for many people. But that doesn’t mean we can impose our desires on someone who doesn’t share that same desire, just as we won’t impose on others what we like to eat.
[3] It can be argued that this as well is considered “relative.” True from God’s perspective it is wrong since He doesn’t want it; but from John’s perspective, there’s nothing wrong with murder. This brings us to a whole new discussion on the definition of “objective,” a discussion we will avoid. But be as it may, all agree that with a God in the picture, murder becomes at least more of an objective moral issue. And even if it weren’t a more absolute moral issue, it would at least be a more convincing relative morality than society’s relative morality (granted that you care about God’s rules).
[4] Another reason is given not to murder a fellow human being: Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in His image Did God make man. (Genesis 9:6) Perhaps these reasons are essentially the same since the Image of the Lord inside each human is his or her mission in this world. But this is a topic far beyond the scope of our discussion.
See ACJA discussion of Proof of God From Morality.