Natural Order versus Objective Morality

[Van]

The natural order of creation, whether created out of chaos or God's design, imposes penalties for violating its requirements. For example, due to the design of the human body and gravity, if you choose to jump off a cliff, the damage done when you hit the surface below can be destructive. So point one in the concept of "objective morality" is that its enforcement mechanisms involve our physical existence, rather than circumstances of an afterlife.

Point two is that an objective moral nature results from the punishment that arises from violating the natural order. For example, according to natural law, it is a violation to go against "human nature" which seeks comfort and security, arising from the discomfort of pain and desire to sustain our life.

Point three, we would naturally treat with "moral" behavior those we think might help us obtain or sustain comfort and security. However this can produce a rather bizarre morality. Recall the story of an Eskimo family in an Igloo when a child is born. If male, the baby is nurtured because he will grow to help feed the family, but if a girl, the baby is taken outside and left to die in the snow.

If we see an action as consistent with the natural order, we can see it as moral, and if not we could claim it is immoral. However, the flaw is we can see something as consistent with the natural order to take care of ourselves and those of our choosing, without needing to treat others outside of our "tribe" in the same way.

 

[Van]

Would "objective morality" endorse an eye for an eye, i.e. to get even is moral, or "love your enemies?" Do the commands of Christ teach "the ends justify the means" or it is never right to do wrong in order to get a chance to do right?

Atheists like to claim people can derive moral behavior from the natural order. However, our history points to people seeing (rationalizing) what they want to do as being moral. Recall the tribes in Africa that kidnapped, confined and sold into slavery non-tribal peoples, resulting in horrific suffering and death. Or those who bought those slaves, even adopting so called biblical views that tolerated treating others as property, even though none would want to be so treated. Or Europeans seeing as "manifest destiny" the taking by guns or guile the lands of native peoples in America.

No, I would not want to live under the laws of a apex predator. Or the golden rule of atheists, "them with the gold rule." In summary, might does not make right, but it is hard to argue when your head is in a tiger's mouth.

 

[Van]

The "We/Them" divide. Some people think in terms of "we" (those like minded to me) and "they" (those that differ from me).

Thus we have that old chestnut, "Policemen are needed to protect people like me from people like you."

Objective Morality based on the natural order can model some of the guidance found tin scripture. But it is of the world and to be friends with the world is to be an enemy of God. At the end of the day, it appears to be a false flag operation, whitewashed on the outside, but full of predation bones on the inside.