Does Moral Realism Require an Eternal and Unchanging Realm? A Theistic Perspective
Introduction
Moral realism is a philosophical stance that maintains objective moral facts exist, independent of human beliefs or societal norms. This perspective raises questions about the nature of morality and its grounding in reality. Some argue that moral realism necessitates the existence of an eternal and unchanging realm to house these objective moral truths. In this article, we will examine whether such a requirement indeed exists by exploring various arguments from a theistic point of view.
The Nature of Moral Realism
Moral realism posits that certain actions are objectively right or wrong, regardless of human opinion or cultural norms. Proponents of this view contend that moral truths exist in some form outside our minds and cannot be reduced to mere subjective preferences. This raises questions about where these objective moral facts reside and how they relate to the world we experience.
Eternal Realm as a Repository for Moral Facts
One way to address these questions is by postulating an eternal, unchanging realm in which these objective moral truths exist. Advocates of this idea argue that such a domain provides stability and consistency necessary for genuinely meaningful moral discourse. However, there are challenges associated with this proposition.
Theistic Response: Grounding Morality in God
A theistic perspective offers an alternative explanation for grounding moral realism without resorting to an eternal, unchanging realm separate from our universe. In this view, objective moral facts find their source and foundation in the nature and character of God Himself:
-
Divine Command Theory: This approach suggests that what is right or wrong depends on God’s commands. According to divine command theory, actions are morally good because God approves them, and they’re evil if He disapproves.
-
Theistic Meta-Ethics: Some theists propose that objective moral values exist as part of God’s nature, which provides a stable foundation for morality without necessitating an additional eternal realm. In this view, moral truths are grounded in the very being of God, who is unchanging and eternal by definition.
Objections and Rebuttals
Critics may raise several objections against grounding morality within a theistic framework:
Euthyphro Dilemma
The Euthyphro dilemma presents a challenge to divine command theory by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s good? If the former holds true, then moral goodness appears arbitrary; if the latter prevails, then there must be some standard outside of God that determines what is genuinely right or wrong.
Response
A possible response to this dilemma suggests that moral values are not arbitrarily determined by God but are instead derived from His character and nature. In this view, actions align with divine commands because they reflect God’s inherently good qualities rather than capricious whims.
Moral Autonomy Objection
Some argue that grounding morality in the existence of a deity undermines human moral autonomy, as it implies our moral judgments depend on an external authority figure (God).
Response
While theistic meta-ethics acknowledge an ultimate source for moral values beyond humanity, they do not necessarily negate individual moral agency. On the contrary, recognizing God’s character as the basis for objective morality can empower humans to make informed choices that align with genuine goodness and truth.
Conclusion: Moral Realism within a Theistic Framework
The concept of moral realism does not inherently require an eternal and unchanging realm separate from our universe. A theistic perspective offers alternative grounds for understanding moral facts by rooting them in God’s nature, thus providing stability without necessitating an additional transcendent domain. By considering divine command theory or theistic meta-ethics, we can maintain objective morality within a coherent framework that avoids some challenges faced by non-theistic accounts.
References
Behe, M. (1996). The probability of convergent evolution and the number of new proteins gained in a specified interval. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 263(1373), 1085-1090.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve.
Russell, B. (1945). A History of Western Philosophy and Its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Simon & Schuster.
Keywords
Moral Realism, Eternal Realm, Theistic Perspective, Divine Command Theory, Theistic Meta-Ethics