Why or why not?

My friend Helen started an e-mail thread earlier this week that sparked a lot of interesting responses from different points of view. In it, she asks: “does society need to have a moral law (a standard of right and wrong that everyone must follow)?”

“I think that having a moral law that everyone must follow is unrealistic,” Annie replies. Although it would be ideal in theory, it would be impossible for everyone to agree on what constitutes as moral or immoral on every existing issue. I don't believe there should be a standard of right and wrong that everyone must follow because we all have different opinions of what’s right and wrong.”

The assumption here is that everyone needs to agree on a moral rule in order to hold them accountable to it. The problem is that this isn’t how society operates. The existence of a moral law simply means there is right and wrong; it doesn't mean everyone will believe it. This can be illustrated with the law of gravity. If you want to know what happens when you refute this law, simply get on top of the Eiffel tower and find out. You will be held accountable whether you agree or not. The US Constitution doesn't legislate rules because people agree with them. It does so understanding that men are given inalienable rights, under a moral law that is not to be violated, even as society changes.

“It's easy to say what's moral and immoral when you're protected and privileged: but there are a lot of gray areas,” says Scott. “I'm talking about women who need to sell their bodies to put food on the dinner table. In a way can't we argue capitalism is not really moral because it leads to so many social problems like human trafficking, sweat shop labor, and polluting the land of other people all for the sake of profit? So yes, before we even discuss having a moral law, we need to discuss and better understand what's really going on in this world.”

There is an inconsistency in this thinking. I agree that life is a very complicated thing and that we need to take time to understand people's situations. But while he suggests that a woman selling her body to provide food may not be wrong, he assumes human trafficking is a social problem. Gray doesn’t deny the existence of black and white. Life, yes, is very complicated, but at times we still have convictions that transcend those complications and still tell us something is wrong. The question is, without a moral law, how can we support those convictions?

If the answer is that there is a moral law that exists, the question is then "who gives this law?" To have moral law, you need a moral lawgiver. Some may say that we are our own lawmakers, but that poses a problem: nobody is wrong. And when nobody is wrong, there can be no justice, because there is no injustice.

I’m not saying everyone has to believe in the Bible. Of course, not everyone will. But if what the Bible says is true, then like Americans will be held accountable to the US Constitution before the eyes of men, whether they personally agree or not, whether they believe or don't believe, because it's just...humans also will be held accountable to God's law before the eyes of God, whether they personally agree or not, whether they believe or don't believe, because it's just. That's a reality we must all confront for ourselves, and is incentive enough to find out of the Bible is really true or not.