Our society is currently wrestling with a host of ethical issues. Abortion is an issue of concern. Some say abortion is wrong. Some believe abortion is right. Many say they cannot decide. Homosexuality is an issue of debate. Is homosexuality merely an alternate lifestyle, or is it morally wrong? What about capital punishment? Is it morally wrong to execute a condemned criminal? The question of premarital sex is also being debated in many contexts today. Is premarital sex morally acceptable between two consenting adults? What about premarital sex between those who are not adults? What about adultery? Several years ago one state had a controversy due to a state law that made adultery a crime. The law had been virtually ignored until one husband decided to press charges against his unfaithful wife. What about divorce? Pornography is another moral issue our society is facing. Does the first amendment grant people the right to speak, write, or photograph for public consumption anything they desire? Or, is it the case that this is not merely a question of freedom of speech, but a moral issue as well? Then, there is the question of euthanasia, or “mercy killing.” Is it right to kill someone just because he asks us to kill him? Would it be right to kill someone if he were, in our estimation, suffering, even though he had not requested that we kill him?

Listing issues does very little toward solving them. In the face of such an extensive list of moral issues one might be tempted to give up on the idea of ever solving every one of them. The task appears to be so enormous we might not even know where to begin. There is, however, a measure of hope that these ethical issues can be solved. Dealing with all of these issues one at a time, painstakingly researching all the pro and con arguments would take a great deal more time than most people are willing to give. Would it not be nice to learn that there is one foundational issue behind all of these dilemmas? An issue so fundamental that, once dealt with, many of these individual issues are easily discerned. There is such an issue. The reason society is having so much trouble getting a handle on these matters is because many have no standard for their moral beliefs. Many claiming a moral standard have one that lacks the ability to deal with crucial issues in a consistent fashion.

The Moral Standards of Men

Many men have turned from belief in God to atheism. Atheism has its conveniences to be sure. An atheist feels no obligation to learn the will of the creator through knowledge of the Bible. As an atheist, one may feel free to engage in premarital or extra-marital heterosexual relationships without a book condemning one’s actions. As an atheist one may feel free to indulge in homosexuality without fear of condemnation. All of these lifestyles are fair play if there is no God. Of course, if there is no God, then the Bible cannot be regarded as an authoritative standard of morality. There is a problem, however, for an atheist, for while accepting many matters the Bible condemns as immoral, he still believes there is right and wrong. An atheist might loudly denounce the existence of God and the Bible as the moral standard by which men ought to live. An atheist might make accusations of narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and hatred when Christians oppose certain practices the atheist considers legitimate. However, this same atheist will object quite vehemently to the idea of someone murdering him in cold blood. This same atheist will say it is wrong for someone to break into his house, kill his children, brutally rape his wife, and bludgeon him into unconsciousness. The question that must be asked is, why? Why is it wrong for someone to kill his children, rape his wife, and/or brutally beat him? This question cannot be answered without a standard.

In 1973 the American Humanist Association put forth a document they called Humanist Manifesto II. This was not the first document of this nature that this organization had published. In 1933 they had written Humanist Manifesto I. Humanist Manifesto II was signed by some of the real intellectual heavy-weights in the world. The now deceased science fiction writer Isaac Asimov signed his name to this manifesto. Alan Guttmacher, then president of Planned Parenthood, signed this document. Charles Morris, then a professor emeritus at the University of Florida, was one of the signers of Humanist Manifesto II. B. F. Skinner, the famous professor of psychology at Harvard University, also signed this document. Andrei Sakharov, the famous dissident in the Soviet Union, signed the manifesto. Though the Manifesto is now over thirty-five years old, it still stands as about the best unbelievers can muster at arriving at an ethical standard for human behavior that does not include God.

What does this document to which so many have affixed their name teach? First, it teaches there is no God. To quote from the preface of the manifesto,

[H]umanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. (Kurtz 13)

Furthermore, they state, “We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural...As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity” (Kurtz 16).

Having noted that signers of this Manifesto do not believe in God we turn our attention to the fundamental question: How are we to determine right and wrong? Under the heading, “Ethics,” the Manifesto states, “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational...” (Kurtz 17). What does all this mean? The word “autonomous” simply means self-ruling. Thus, it is up to each individual to determine what is right and wrong. Furthermore, ethics is situational. This simply means there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong. What is morally wrong at this very moment may be morally right an hour from now; it just depends on the situation.

How would an atheist apply this autonomous and situational ethic? They give us some answers to this question under the heading, “The Individual.” The document states,

In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults...Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. (Kurtz 18)

The Manifesto loudly proclaims, “There is no God.” Then it declares that moral right and wrong is up to each individual to determine, depending on the situation. Finally, the Manifesto pontificates on some of the tough moral questions of our day by stating that everyone should have the right to abortion, and sexual behavior between consenting adults should be condoned whether it is heterosexual or homosexual.

Could it be we have found our ethical standard? Could it be these atheists have saved mankind from Biblical morality? Could it be that all of these difficult ethical questions can now be answered without a Bible? Do not get too excited. I want us to notice that as permissive as this ethical standard may be, even the atheist is not willing to say, “Anything goes.” These humanists go on to state they do not “approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression” (Kurtz 18), neither are they “countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity” (Kurtz 18); they simply want society to be tolerant.

What a let down. The ethic promoted by some of the greatest atheists of the twentieth century brings us back to the same old question, “Why?” If ethics is autonomous, established by the individual, why are exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression wrong for those individuals who wish to practice them? And, while the signers of this document admonish us to be tolerant toward the sexual proclivities of others, they piously condemn “mindless permissive ness” and “unbridled promiscuity.” Are the signers of this document failing to be tolerant of those who autonomously choose to be mindlessly permissive and practice unbridled promiscuity? The problem is that even the atheist believes that some things are wrong. His biggest problem is trying to explain why some things are wrong. If ethics is autonomous, then who has the right to tell another person that his conduct is wrong? What could the atheist say to the man who is about to kill his children, rape his wife, and bludgeon him into unconsciousness to convince his assailant that these action are morally wrong? He could tell the man that such would be wrong because it would cause him pain, but since ethics are determined by the individual, the man could easily say, “Yes, but causing others pain is what brings me pleasure.” He could tell the man, “But I think it is wrong,” to which the man might reply, “But my autonomous ethic says it is right.” The atheist could say that society as a whole has said such is wrong, but even the atheist does not believe this, for he and his kind are constantly pushing ideas rejected by an overwhelming majority in our nation. They are for homosexual rights regardless of what the majority might believe. They often oppose capital punishment even though the majority of Americans favor such.

Let us suppose society decided to legalize murder. Would the atheist be willing to say that murder would then be morally right? One might believe this is not likely to happen. Do not be so sure. The defense offered by those tried before the Nuremberg Tribunal was that their actions were legal under German law.

The Bible Ethic

There is only one ethic by which we can stand with all consistency, and that is the Bible. In fact, the Bible predicts the awful dilemma man gets himself into when he tries to form his own ethic. The prophet Jeremiah wrote, “I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer. 10:29, NKJ). Mankind needs an ethical standard that is outside himself. Mankind needs a standard of morality that is not derived from mankind; otherwise right and wrong are reduced to being mere matters of opinion. Can we say something is morally wrong simply because it is the opinion of some that such is wrong? This means crimes like murder, rape, and incest are wrong for the same reason one might say, “I do not like liver.” Surely, we can see that murder, rape, and incest are wrong regardless of how many men may say they are right. Are we to believe that murder and one’s opinion about the taste of liver are moral equivalents? If we say they are not, we are admitting there is a moral standard that stands above mankind, and that moral standard has to be God.

Conclusion

Do not be deluded into the irrational idea that right and wrong can be decided by any standard other than the Bible. We must determine in our mind that if the Bible condemns a practice, then it is wrong because our Biblical standard of morality says it is wrong. Do not let accusations of being intolerant sway us from our beliefs. Always remember this: when people say our moral stand on a matter is intolerant, they are also being intolerant. The disagreements on the moral issues facing our society will always be present as long as men continue to “direct their own steps.”

Works Cited

Krutz, Paul, ed. Humanist Manifestos I and II. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1973.