by jimwalton » Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:49 pm
If you admit that there is such a thing as evil, then an objective moral law might be possible. If you believe the world is just en evolutionary agglomeration of chemicals and blind physical forces, then some people are going to get lucky and some are going to get hurt, with no rhyme or reason, and there's no such thing as injustice. It's selection and chance. There is no design, not purpose, no evil, and no good. But if you think there is such a thing as evil (pitchforking babies for the fun of it?), then you are claiming a state of affairs that evolution can't create. Stars aren't "good" or bad," grass isn't "good" or "bad," and so it's not possible for people either. Computers don't care; they don't grieve. If something is mechanistic, let's be logically consistent. If you know of evil, then we assume good. If we assume good and evil, we assume a moral law. If we assume a moral law, we assume a source for it, a moral law-giver. If there is a source for moral law, then it is outside of human beings and is grounded in another personal being. if it is grounded in another personal being, morality applies to more than just human actions.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sat Dec 20, 2014 12:49 pm.