2504743 – Grand Canyon University ©

dness when a natural disaster causes suffering, but they do not feel a sense of injustice;
however, when a group of terrorists cause the suffering of numerous innocent lives, people
feel a sense of both sadness and injustice. That sense of injustice indicates that a
universal standard exists and has not been followed. If there is a feeling of injustice at the
suffering of the innocent, then there must be a standard right and wrong, and because
there is a standard right and wrong, there must be a standard giver.

If God does not exist, then it is hard to see how objective moral standards exist. Where else
would they come from? Some naturalists have suggested that moral values are a
byproduct of the process of evolution. For example, the belief that murder is wrong may be
a derivative of an instinct that was beneficial for survival. Because, according to this
theory, humans have evolved these traits, we have come to believe that murder is wrong.
Others have said that social conditioning explains our moral beliefs. The problem with
both of these views, however, is that while they can explain the origin of our belief that
murder is wrong, they cannot account for murder actually being wrong. Other naturalistic
philosophers have said that human flourishing is objectively good, therefore, all people
have a moral obligation to promote human flourishing. There again, the problem remains:
Everyone may agree that human flourishing is objectively good (and Christians do agree
with this), but naturalism cannot provide any reason why human flourishing is objectively
good. Naturalism cannot account for the existence of objective moral values, and it
cannot explain why they are objective; however, the Christian worldview can.

The Christian, Suffering, and Justice

For the Christian, justice is coming in this life or in eternity. Christians are called to
serve those who are suffering. God does not wish those who are suffering to be
abandoned; therefore, he sends Christians around the world to alleviate suffering in
hospitals, orphanages, schools, relief projects, individual care, and more. Of course,
Christians ought to do a better job of this. Many do go, and many do serve. The
existence of suffering is a reminder that there is a standard, God will make all
things right, he sent his Son to forgive sin and prepare a new world, and believers
are called to serve the suffering.

Living a Good Life
Most worldviews, including the Christian worldview, realize that people have a personal
ethic. That is, as part of the human condition, people develop personal understandings
and convictions about what is right and wrong. For instance, many believe that
consuming alcohol is wrong for them. It leads to unfavorable consequences, so it is
avoided and deemed wrong for them personally. Those who come to such conclusions are
not necessarily suggesting that no one should ever drink alcohol; it is simply a decision
they believe is right for them, given the totality of their life experiences. Thus, the existence
of a personal ethic does not detract from the existence of moral absolutes, but it does
complicate the discussion, to some degree, so it needs to be noted.

2504743 – Grand Canyon University ©

Secondly, most worldviews recognize that each culture or society has its unique set of
rights and wrongs in the forms of customs and standards of that society. Travel to a
different part of the world and what one finds offensive may be normal behavior there,
and vice versa. Societal standards may be as simple as etiquette or as complex as being
written into the law. They come from forefathers and unique cultures. As with one’s
personal ethic, the existence of societal ethics does not detract from the existence of
moral absolutes but, again, it complicates the discussion.

Finally, there is the idea of a universal ethic, that is, a right and wrong for everyone. Most
people want to draw the line of what is right and wrong for everyone somewhere. A clear
example would be the murder of an innocent human being. All civilizations have a
prohibition against murder. What if someone decided that it is morally permissible for him
or her to murder someone? People would quickly object and say, “No, it is still against the
law.” In an unjust society in which the basic laws are corrupt and unfair, laws against
murder could be removed; however, honorable citizens of that society could still object,
with good reason, that murder is wrong. That internal sense that something is wrong
seems to stem from a moral impulse and seems to imply the existence of a universal
standard for right and wrong.
Figure 7.2
Ethics in Ideal and Unjust Worlds

In the Venn diagrams (see Figure 7.2), these three ethics—universal, societal, and personal
—can be seen in relation to one another. In an ideal world, universal ethics would be
accepted by all, societal ethics would align perfectly with universal moral standards, and
personal ethics would embrace all the moral truth found in both universal ethics and
societal ethics. In this ideal world, everyone would agree about the nature of right and
wrong. In an unjust world, one’s personal ethic accepts only some of the societal ethics,
which in turn accepts only some of the universal ethics. In an unjust world, what one

2504743 – Grand Canyon University ©

considers right or wrong personally is very different from society’s laws and is very
different still from universal human rights and wrongs. While progress can and has been
made in some areas, this world is far from just. While people can recognize right and
wrong, their misguided desires, personal biases, and self-interested goals often move them
in the wrong moral direction.

It is important in the examination of worldview to discover personal beliefs, challenge
them, and then analyze how they affect how one sees the self, others, life, the world, and
God with that set of beliefs. Begin with universal or absolute morals. What is right or
wrong for all humans? Why should we believe that they are universal? What is considered
right or wrong in the culture? Is culture correct in its assessment? Why or why not? Assess
personal ethics—those actions, attitudes, or thoughts that may be right or wrong for
individuals. Why are those correct? Challenge personal beliefs and analyze them and, in
the process, seek to discover the wisdom that the Creator has woven into creation,
including the human conscience.

Choosing to have and abide by a personal ethical code and a means for forgiveness when
it is broken is extremely important. The wisdom of moral absolutes is that they first honor
the standard-maker—God—who has provided this ethical code for the benefit of people
individually, the public good, and as a reflection of his nature. This ancient and classical
wisdom found in absolute morality is also a guide toward avoiding human pain and, at
the same time, a guide toward inner human health. What feels good often does not
achieve the long-term goal of avoiding pain and seeking health. At the same time, people
must also incorporate grace and forgiveness, yet there can be a danger in this. “For certain
people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation,
ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master
and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:4). Grace and forgiveness cannot turn into a license to do
what individuals wish. For the Christian, grace and forgiveness are a path back to the
standard and the standard-giver.

Conclusion
Critics of Christianity often state that Christianity was devised to control people’s lives.
This could not be more untrue. First, Jesus, his 12 apostles, as well as Mark, Luke, James,
and Paul were pursued, persecuted, imprisoned, and tortured, and all but one were
horrendously murdered for their beliefs. What control did they gain over others? None.
Rather, the far more likely scenario is that these brave Christians risked everything in order
to proclaim freedom. That is what absolute truth and absolute morality do—they bring
freedom.

Living in the wisdom of absolutes implies that people ought to study and analyze truth
and discover universal principles for life. It implies that people ought to learn and do their
best to follow absolute morals while living in grace. Most of all, a defined reality implies
that there is a harmony that can be found by living within the absolute truth of this
existence and within moral absolutes. That harmony offers an indescribable freedom.

Chapter Review
Main Ideas

2504743 – Grand Canyon University ©

Subjective, relative views of truth are self-refuting. They attempt to assert that
that there are no objective truths. The logical, rational failures of these kinds
of views indicate that truth must be objective.

When comparing the correspondence theory of truth with the coherence
theory and pragmatic theory, it is easy to see the failures of the latter two.
Only the correspondence theory is concerned about whether our beliefs match
reality; however, coherence and pragmatic considerations can be useful in tes