The concept of morality has intrigued philosophers, theologians, and thinkers for centuries. One of the most captivating debates on this topic revolves around the idea of objective morality – the concept that there is a universal and unchanging set of ethical principles that apply to all people, regardless of culture, time, or individual beliefs.
Objective morality asserts that certain moral truths exist and are unchangeable and true regardless of individual opinions or cultural norms. One of the key arguments in favor of objective morality is its universality. If moral principles were purely subjective, determined solely by cultural or individual preferences, then we would expect to see a wide variety of conflicting moral systems around the world. However, there are indeed moral values and principles that appear to be shared across diverse cultures and throughout history, suggesting the existence of an objective moral framework.
Another argument supporting objective morality is its close ties to moral realism, the idea that moral facts are as real and objective as knowable facts. Moral realism asserts that just as we can discover and understand objective truths about the physical world, we can also uncover objective moral truths through rational investigation.
Additionally, if morality were entirely subjective, it would be challenging to argue that societies have made genuine moral advancements over time. However, the fact that societies have abolished practices like slavery, extended rights to previously marginalized groups, and worked to reduce suffering suggests that there is a shared, objective moral standard against which we can measure progress.
Moral relativism is the philosophical position that holds that moral judgments, values, and ethical principles are not universally objective but are instead dependent on cultural, individual, or situational factors. In other words "Man is the measure of all things". This belief leads to the conclusion that one cannot really know right from wrong, or that there is right or wrong, but is determined solely by the individual.
This seems to be the position most people hold when it comes to religion and politically and socially divisive topics. However, moral relativists don't seem to apply this philosophy in all areas of life and present this idea as an inconsistent way of viewing reality. With this belief, it wouldn't even be possible for real objective evil to exist. Although it is an increasingly popular standpoint when it comes to the area of morality, moral relativism cannot pass a reality test. The idea of "this is true for me, not true for you" can therefore not be right. If something is true, it has to be true for everyone. We're entitled to our own opinions but not our own truths.
If any of the mentioned arguments supporting objective morality hold true, then it becomes possible for the moral argument supporting the existence of God to be plausible. In fact, if there are any strong reasons, to believe in an objective moral standard, then God's existence becomes the most fitting explanation for morality. This is because such a standard would, at a minimum, need to come from a transcendent and personal source – characteristics that are attributed to the God described in Christian theism.