Is rejection of moral absolutes emotional rather than intellectual?

by Robert Weston

In the last several posts, I have tried to paint a picture showing that without God, morality is entirely subjective.  Thus, without God, differences in moral standards are no more that differences in personal preferences.

  • If societies get to define morality, then war is not right or wrong.  It’s merely a struggle for power.
  • If morals are defined by how a family raises their children, then there is nothing wrong when a family raises their kids to be cop killers.
  • If individuals each get to decide their own morality, then there is no instance in which any person is justified in condemning the attitudes or actions of another.

But our experience tells us that there are absolute moral laws that apply to everyone.  And if we were to poll people of all faiths, including atheism (faith that God does not exist), I think we would find that almost everyone agrees that the last six of the Ten Commandments are absolutely correct as moral laws.

Honor your father and mother.

Do not kill.

Do not commit adultery.

Do not steal.

Do not lie against your neighbor.

Do not covet your neighbors’ possessions.

People disagree on the origin of these laws, but they accept them as moral duties we should follow…


Is rejection of moral absolutes emotional rather than intellectual? | Real Life Apologetics