Skip to main content

No Moral Absolutes Means No Human Rights

We have the truth that human rights activists are everywhere who reject the truth that there are moral absolutes. Many of them have their idea of "Judge not and you will not be judged." As for the atheistic human activists, they tend to carry out Richard Dawkins' quote from the River Out of Eden which says that there's no good, no evil but only pitiless indifference. They think that there are no such thing as moral absolutes. So if they believe that there are no moral absolutes then why are they fighting for human rights which requires moral absolutes to determine them? After all, Dawkins just said there is no purpose but only pitiless indifference.

Here's another problem with atheists' appeal to human rights. Why do they appeal to human rights when they claim that there are no moral absolutes and morality is relative? Human rights are determined by moral absolutes that God made. When God made His Ten Commandments and gave the whole Law - He made it as the standard for right and wrong. God's Law was made for our protection. God isn't cruel when He gave His Ten Commandments. He made it so we can enjoy life and if our right to life is violated then we have a standard to demand for justice. The right not to be punished beyond one's offense (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) and the right to a just and fair trial are all rooted upon moral absolutes.

If there were no moral absolutes then what's the standard for determining human rights? It would just end up in altruism and/or appealing to morals only when it's convenient. If there were no moral absolutes then think of this scenario. Let's say that somebody parks in a no parking area and it causes traffic. If there were no moral absolutes or morality is relative then the traffic enforcer has no right to ask the person to move the car away. Why should the offender move his car away or pay the traffic enforcement agency the fine for illegal parking if morality is relative? If you demand respect for relativism then it goes nowhere. For the offender what he did was right and for the traffic enforcer what the offender did was wrong. If we are to respect both opposing views then nobody is right.

So how does having moral absolutes solve the situation? Having moral absolutes dictates both freedoms and restrictions. It tells you what you can do if you want to while giving you a list of don't do this and don't do that. There is nothing wrong with parking one's car but you should park it in a designated area. If we had the moral absolute over moral relativism then the problem is solved. The traffic enforcer operates according to moral absolutes. The offender can't argue his way out of parking his car in the wrong spot because moral absolutes says he should park his car only in parking areas. There's no respect everyone's views there without restraint. The problem can only be remedied when the offender decides to pay the fine to get his car released by the traffic enforcement agency. The offender must realize he's violating other people's right to use the road by parking in a no parking area as well as putting his own safety in jeopardy. Either the offender gives in to the demands or moral absolutes or he can say goodbye to his car.

So how do moral absolutes also provide your human rights in society? Let's get over the Ten Commandments and put them in a civil context. Let's talk about the last six commandments that prohibit murder, stealing, adultery, bearing false witness and coveting. If these rules were nonexistent then you have lost your right to live in a safe place or to complain when you're a victim. If you say there are no moral absolutes then all forms of crime should be legalized. That means you might as well yourself to be murdered or never get justice for any murder victim. You can't complain when somebody steals from you and you can kiss all your money goodbye. You can't complain when your spouse cheats on you and you might as well be friends with the third party. You lose the right to complain when somebody slanders you or even lies in court about you so don't even expect to have any right to sue anyone for libel or perjury. You can't complain if somebody acts on their covetousness to do their sin. Think of how much is lost when there are no moral absolutes.

But thank God for His Law for the people. I can be thankful that God has provided a law against sin. Without it, I wouldn't even know that I'm a sinner. God's Law keeps society safe. With moral absolutes there will be rules to keep society in order. I would feel safe in a society where I can't get away with sin. If I live in a society where I can get away with crime then I can only expect to be lose my right to complain when my rights are violated. God's Law is not a cause of sorrow but joy because it keeps me safe and sound. Unfortunately, most people only want to appeal to moral absolutes only when it's deemed convenient for them.

See also: