The Moral Law Argument
1. Every Law has a Lawgiver.
2. There is a Universal Moral Law.
3. There is a Universal Law Giver.
Is There a Universal Moral Law?
"[M]y argument agasint G-d was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust,
but how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not
call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a stragiht line.
What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust"
-C.S. Lewis
Knowing it makes you a good B.U.D.
B: Basis for Moral Stances
It is the premise for all human rights and their proclamation.
Without a universal moral law, everything is just opinion and one cannot
definitively
say that Hitler was wrong.
Every human screws it up, which is why it is nigh-impossible to look at people's
actions
and see the law.
Instead, we look at how people respond to being treated wrongly.
There is a long list of people that everyone would deem evil, or at the very least,
having done the wrong thing if it was turned back on themselves.
This logic can be applied to sex offenders, government officials, and tyrants
throughout
history.
It is seen as young as children, someone hurts or steals from them, and they cry and
get
angry.
We tend to do those same things as adults when the same things happen to us.
Yet, we have no problem doing those things to other people because it makes us feel
powerful.
Again, a universal law that we consult to acknowledge having been wronged, but we
would
rather ignore when acting for ourselves.
Without a universal moral law, we have no grounds to say that it is factually
accurate that Martin Luther King Junior was a better man than Adolf Hitler or Joseph
Stalin.
U: Universal Similarities
We find the absolute right because we are able to find absolute wrongs. I have heard it argued that moral laws exist, but are subjective to different times and places. I think the expressions of the objective law change but if we observe throughout history, many things remain constant as the underlying infrastructure. There are similarites from today's laws to those written by Hammurabi when he denoted the first written laws. Some cultures allow polygamy and other monogomy, but most all condemn cheating on your spouse. And, again, we see the law more from peoples' reactions versus their actions. There are cultures out there that condone adultery and some that condone murder but are the victims of these normative behaviors feeling fine with the results? Are they okay with their spouse cheating on them? Do people accept being murdered with peace in their hearts?
D: Descriptive, not Perscriptive
Just like any law, the moral law can be broken. We see that with criminals and our interpersonal interactions. We ourselves break this law and our conscience lets us know. That is to say that by looking at the actions of people throughout history, we are not able to see the law, but when we look at their reactions throughout history, we are able to see the law at work. Whenever we see injustice, we see people wanting to get out from under it. Whenever someone steals our spot, even if we do not own it but always use it, we get angry. We get upset at the injustic of it! That is the how we know that the law exists, the way that we, and others, react when we percieve the law to be broken against ourselves.