If right and wrong are real, what makes them real?
Some things are wrong even when the person doing them thinks they're right. Where does that standard come from, and why are we obligated to follow it?
You are viewing a shareable lesson page. Return to the full course to have this study count toward your progress and mark it complete there.
Move from the physical world to right and wrong and our ability to recognize truth.
We have looked at the universe and living things for signs of a Creator. Now consider something different: the right and wrong we recognize in everyday life.
That was wrong
At the intersection, a driver cuts directly in front of a cyclist. The cyclist brakes hard to avoid him. The driver honks, yells out the window, and speeds away.
Jordan watches the car go. “He could have seriously hurt that guy. What a jerk.”
“Would it still be wrong if the driver thought he had every right to do it?” you ask.
“Of course. He nearly hit someone.”
“What if everybody here thought the driver was justified?”
Jordan looks at you. “That wouldn't make it right either. But what does that have to do with God?”
Some actions really are wrong even when people approve of them. I believe God's goodness and His authority as Creator explain why people have worth and why we owe one another certain duties.
The universe and living things gave us reasons to believe in a Creator. Jordan's reaction to the reckless driver raises another question: why was the driver obligated to be careful, even if he didn't think he was?
What makes right and wrong real?
Think back to the driver who almost hit the cyclist. Jordan said he was wrong. Suppose the driver thought the cyclist deserved it. Would that make it right? What if everyone watching agreed with him? His actions would still be wrong. The cyclist could have been hurt, and the driver had a responsibility to be careful.
We call that objective morality: some things are right or wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. It helps to distinguish two things. Moral value concerns what is good or bad. Moral duty concerns what we ought to do. The cyclist's life has value, and the driver owed him care.
Someone might reject that and say morality is only personal or cultural preference. But that comes with a cost. If that is true, then we can say we hate slavery, abuse, or deliberately harming innocent people, and we can fight against those things, but we cannot say a society that approved of them was actually wrong. We would only be saying that its values were different from ours. Most of us do think we can say more than that. Some things should not be done to people even if a whole culture approves of them.
Our families, cultures, and biological history may help explain why we develop moral beliefs. But knowing how a belief developed doesn't tell us whether it is true. Someone can sincerely believe an injustice is right and still be mistaken.
So where does that standard come from, and why does it bind us? Christianity gives an answer to more than one part of the problem. God's character gives us a real standard of goodness. People have worth because He made them, so human value is not something a society gets to hand out or take away. And because He is our Creator, moral duties have real authority behind them. We are not only describing what we prefer. We are talking about how people really ought to be treated.
Some philosophers believe moral truths exist objectively without God. They are not simply saying morality is personal preference. That is a position worth taking seriously. My question is how moral facts, on their own, account for obligations and the worth of every person. Christianity roots goodness in God's character, our worth in being made by Him, and our duties in His authority. I think that explains more than simply saying moral facts exist.
There is also the question of final justice. If there is no God and death ends our existence, our choices may help or hurt people now, but once everyone is gone, what lasting moral difference would kindness or cruelty make? There would be no final justice or ultimate accountability. With God, what we do matters beyond this life because every person matters to Him.
The moral argument can be stated this way:
- If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
- Objective moral values and duties do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
If the first two statements are true, the conclusion follows. We have good reason to believe the second: some things really are wrong. The main disagreement concerns the first. Could objective moral duties exist without God? Some philosophers argue that they could. I think the good Creator we've already been discussing gives us a better explanation for why people have worth and why we have duties to one another.
The earlier arguments examined the universe and life. Morality asks what kind of Creator stands behind them. Being powerful does not make someone good. The Christian argument is that goodness belongs to God's character, not to a rule above Him. If He is the perfect standard of goodness, He cannot also be evil. But that is an argument we must defend; we cannot get there from the Kalam alone.
Bottom line: Some things really are right or wrong even when people disagree. I believe a perfectly good Creator best explains why people have worth and why we have duties to one another.
Think about it: If someone says morality is only personal or cultural preference, what follows from that view?
Why that duty matters
Jordan glances back toward the intersection. “I could say traffic rules are just agreements. But I do not think that explains everything. If a whole group decided it was fine to hurt somebody for no reason, I would still say they were wrong.”
“Right,” you say. “If some things are really wrong regardless of what anyone thinks, then morality is more than preference.”
You explain that Christianity grounds goodness in God's character, human worth in the fact that He made us, and moral duty in His authority as Creator.
Jordan thinks about it. “I do not think I can reduce all of that to opinion. Some things really are wrong. And I can see why a good Creator gives you a foundation for saying that.”
He pauses. “You also said that explaining where a moral belief came from does not tell us whether it is true. Does that same problem come up with reason itself? If our brains have a physical history, why should I trust the conclusions they give me?”
Use what you learned in a different situation
A coworker says, “I don't believe in God, but I know it's wrong for a boss to take advantage of employees. Why would we need God to know that?” How would you explain what the moral argument actually claims?
The full course lets you write your response, compare it with a model, and track your progress.
Practice this inside the full courseQuestions this argument still has to face
“There is no objective morality. Right and wrong are just opinions.”
If that is true, then you can say you dislike slavery, abuse, or deliberately harming innocent people, but you cannot say a culture that approves of those things is actually wrong. You can still oppose them, but only from your own preferences or chosen rules. If even one thing can be truly wrong regardless of what anyone thinks, then objective morality exists at least somewhere.
“I don't believe in God, and I still know right from wrong.”
You can recognize right and wrong without first answering why those duties exist. The moral argument asks what makes them true and binding.
“Evolution explains morality.”
Evolution may help explain how our moral instincts developed. That tells us something about why people hold certain beliefs, but it doesn't settle whether those beliefs are true or why we ought to act on them.
“Couldn't moral truths exist without God?”
Some philosophers do believe objective moral truths exist without God, so we should not treat their position as mere preference. The Christian account grounds goodness in God's character and our duties in the authority of the Creator. The question is which account better explains moral obligation and the worth of persons.
“Is something good just because God commands it?”
God's commands flow from His perfectly good character. He doesn't make cruelty good by deciding to approve of it, and He doesn't answer to a moral standard above Himself. That is the Christian answer to the Euthyphro problem.
Use this in a real conversation
- Use the driver and cyclist as the concrete example. Ask whether the driver's actions would still be wrong if everyone approved.
- Use that example to distinguish value from duty. The cyclist's life matters, and the driver owed him care.
- If someone says morality is only opinion, ask whether a whole culture could make slavery, abuse, or deliberately harming innocent people right simply by approving of it.
- Someone can recognize wrongdoing without believing in God. Ask what makes that wrongdoing real even when people deny it.
- If someone thinks moral truths can exist without God, ask what gives those truths authority over us and what makes every person objectively valuable. Then explain why you believe a good personal Creator is the better foundation.
Keep knowing right from wrong separate from what makes it right or wrong. The argument is about the foundation of morality, not whether people who reject God can act morally.
Sources for further study
- Reasonable Faith Equip | The Moral Argument: A full course on objective values and duties, moral ontology, Euthyphro, Platonism, evolution, and objections.
- Impact Apologetics | The Moral Argument: Asks what makes right and wrong objectively true rather than a matter of personal preference.
- Biola | The Moral Argument for God: Discusses moral realism, objective values and duties, evolution, and competing metaethical accounts.
- Stand to Reason | God, Evolution, and Morality: Distinguishes objective morality from subjective preference and evolutionary explanations.
- Stand to Reason | A Response to Atheistic Moral Platonism: Engages the proposal that objective moral values exist as brute abstract facts without God.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Moral Arguments for God: Examines theistic moral arguments alongside non-theistic accounts of objective morality.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Perfect Goodness: Analyzes why classical theists describe God as perfectly good and what this requires.
Continue in the full course to track your progress and explore more lessons.
Return to full course for more lessons