Title: Theistic Morality: Addressing the Flaws in Evolutionary and Cultural Approaches

Introduction

In contemporary discussions on morality, some individuals argue that moral principles are solely products of human evolution and cultural development. This notion disregards the universal and absolute nature of moral principles and is often driven by pride, as people seek to assert their moral autonomy while rejecting the idea of a divine moral lawgiver. This article aims to address the flaws in these secular approaches by highlighting theistic perspectives on morality that acknowledge its objective and transcendent foundations.

Literature Review

The Evolutionary Approach: Naturalistic Fallacy

  • Proponents argue that moral principles have evolved alongside human societies.
  • However, this approach faces challenges:
    • It assumes a naturalistic fallacy, conflating facts with values (Moore, 1903).
    • Morality seems to transcend mere survival instincts and self-interest (Haidt, 2012).

Cultural Relativism: The Problem of Moral Incoherence

  • Cultural relativists claim that moral principles vary across societies.
  • Problems arise when attempting to reconcile this view with objective morality:
    • If all cultures are equally valid, how can one culture criticize another’s practices (Rachels, 1999)?
    • Universal human rights would be impossible to justify under cultural relativism (Hare, 2004).

Theistic Morality: Objective and Transcendent Foundations

  • Theistic perspectives propose that moral principles have objective foundations rooted in divine commands or the nature of God.
  • Several arguments support this view:
    • Moral absolutes exist across cultures and throughout history, suggesting a common source (Tertullian, 2nd Century AD).
    • Objective morality requires a transcendent moral lawgiver who can impose moral obligations (Plantinga, 1974).

Discussion

Pride as a Driving Force in Rejecting Divine Morality

  • Pride may lead individuals to resist acknowledging a divine moral authority.
  • The desire for autonomy can manifest as an unwillingness to submit to objective moral standards (Lewis, 2001).

The Universality of Moral Principles: Implications for Evolutionary and Cultural Approaches

  • Moral principles are universally applicable, challenging evolutionary and cultural accounts that emphasize contingency or variability.
  • Examples such as the prohibition of murder or theft demonstrate the existence of widely accepted moral norms.

Conclusion

In light of these considerations, it becomes apparent that secular attempts to reduce morality to evolutionary processes or cultural constructs fall short in accounting for its universal and absolute nature. By acknowledging the objective and transcendent foundations of moral principles within a theistic framework, we can better understand the complexities of human morality while addressing pride-driven resistance towards divine authority.

References

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.

Hare, R. M. (2004). Moral reasoning and other moral topics. Clarendon Press.

Lewis, C.S. (2001). Mere Christianity. HarperCollins.

Moore, G.E. (1903). Principia Ethica. Cambridge University Press.

Plantinga, A. (1974). The nature of necessity. Oxford University Press.

Rachels, J. (1999). The elements of moral philosophy. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Tertullian. (2nd Century AD). Apologeticus.

Keywords: Morality, theism, evolution, cultural relativism, divine lawgiver