Rom 3:10  as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

Natural ethics is a form of Secular Ethics that is often put forth by evolutionists and even some “religious” leaders such as the current Dalai Lama. It asserts that we all are in inherently “good” and that is why we typically want to do good. Doing good has helped us to survive (evolutionarily) and in order to be “happy” we must follow basic principles based on our inherent “human” goodness (by the way, these “principles” are eerily similar to the principles that God puts forth in the Bible).

This, of course, is completely against the Bible. We are not good, only God is good. Our time should be spent striving to improve and do better, but even then only Jesus blood will allow us to make it to Heaven. 

How can we dispute this ethical theory? 

Well, first we should ask, who defines “good”? By what objective yardstick is “good” measured? It certainly cannot be measured by any man (except Jesus). That is what led the philosopher Plato towards his theory of “forms” (as ridiculous as it was), he needed to find some measuring stick for things like goodness and virtue, etc. This is because if we base our morality on man it is purely subjective – and “good” depends on which man you talk to. 

Here’s a Minder Bender…

What if something is “good” to a specific culture, but not deemed good by a second culture – and that second culture prides itself on being accepting of all other culture’s beliefs? Now, it is faced with a dilemma. Let’s say that it seems to the second culture that the first culture is being bigoted by believing what they do (maybe they hold a belief about women’s rights or some other controversial topic).

Therefore, they refuse to accept the first culture’s beliefs (on the basis of their declaring it to be bigoted). Does that make the second culture the arbiter of what is “good”? If so, what makes the second culture’s beliefs better than the first culture’s (if they are both based on manmade opinions)? Have they not now determined that they accept every culture and belief except the first culture’s? Isn’t that being bigoted against the first culture’s beliefs? Aren’t we back at square one? With no objective truth there is only subjective truth (man’s opinion).

What does that mean? Well, it means that nothing is objectively right or wrong. That mean’s that the Nazi’s just had a different opinion than the other people of the world about what was “good”. We, as humans, know this is a ridiculous statement and that what the Nazi’s did in killing 5 million Jews was objectively WRONG!

Some say that our ethics are based in survival, and that being “good” is what has allowed our species to thrive and survive. This also falls short of the mark, as much of what we see as objectively good is often evolutionarily counterproductive.

For example, the Nazi’s also had what was called the “useless eaters” program. This program mercilessly killed those with mental disabilities and those who had hereditary blindness, deafness, etc. According to evolution this might be a good idea, there would be more food for the healthy “workers” and the gene pool would grow stronger by removing those with disabilities – however we know that this is also ridiculous and objectively WRONG!

You would be hard pressed to find a supporter of “natural ethics” who would agree to the validity of the “useless eaters” program. As humans we instinctively know that every person has inherent value despite disabilities. This is true regardless of whether a specific action would be evolutionarily beneficial for the human species. I won’t go deeper here, but basing morality in mankind or in evolution has many pitfalls and is, in the end, contradictory.

I think these excerpts about situation ethics by Wayne Jackson are applicable here:

“Situation ethics claims there are no rules save the rule to love, yet by their own rules the situationists would define love. Second, God is removed from the throne as the moral Sovereign of the Universe, and man is enthroned in His place. Man, then, with his own subjective sense of “love,” makes all final moral judgments. Situationism thus ignores the biblical view that man is lacking in sufficient wisdom to guide his earthly activities (Jeremiah 10:23)”. -Wayne Jackson

“…situationism assumes that “love” is some sort of ambiguous, no-rule essence that is a cure-all for moral problems. That is like suggesting that two football teams play a game in which there will be no rules except the rule of “fairness.” Fairness according to whose judgment? Team A? Team B? The referees? The spectators? That is utter nonsense! …even when one suggests that “love” be the criterion for ethical decisions, he presupposes some standard for determining what love is. Situationists contradict themselves at every turn.” -Wayne Jackson

It seems that when one sets down particular rules that are “good” for humanity they simply cannot avoid contradicting themselves. If objective moral rules are based on the opinion of a man or a culture then there is no way to know what man or what culture is right. It all becomes opinion at that point.

Fortunately, we know that God is the arbiter of all truth and is the objective standard of morality. According to biblical doctrine, we can all know that truth. In fact, that truth is so obvious that the apostle Paul tells us there is no excuse for us not to see it. I pray that we all will see that objective truth (the truth of God) and ward off the influence of a twisted and debased culture.

Rom 1:19  For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

Rom 1:20  For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

The post Can Ethics be Based in Human Nature? appeared first on Jay Scott.