Does Immorality Exist Anymore?

Many people find the current moral climate in America confusing. On the one hand, people who don’t agree with free sex, resist the legitimacy of homosexual relationships, and don’t allow for multiple gender identities are considered by society at large to be immoral. On the other hand, anyone who actually acts out on these things will create situations where all kinds of evil emerge. People can be hauled into court, fired from their job, or publicly humiliated for sexual assault or harassment because they act as if free sex is really free. People who live a homosexual lifestyle are statistically more likely to commit suicide, die early from natural causes or disease, or develop some kind of mental illness. Allowing transgenders to access whatever bathroom suits their fancy has resulted in crimes of voyeurism and even sexual assault. Even when individuals (or society) deem immoral behavior to be moral, it doesn’t change reality.

At this point, let’s just call a spade a spade. Naturalistic philosophy dominates virtually every institution in modern society, and that has created an environment where immorality is considered moral. Naturalism is the belief that the only thing that exists is the natural universe – there is no God and no such thing as objective morality. With that as a starting point, where must moral thinking come from? It can’t be from God, since God is not even acknowledged to exist. The only possibility, then, is for individuals to come up with their own moral codes.

And therein lies the problem – people can’t agree on what ought to be moral and what ought to be immoral. Thus, you end up with people duking it out as the only way to champion their own preferences. The only way they have to settle it is the law of the jungle. Ultimately, raw power is the deciding factor.

Based on naturalistic beliefs, sex is nothing more than a natural biological function. Thus, in and of itself, Naturalists see nothing immoral associated with it. Any kind of immoral notion that gets associated with any sexual practice has nothing to do with sex itself, only with how people interpret the act.

But that begs the question, “Why should the concerns of other people even be a consideration when it comes to defining morality?” Based on Naturalism, there can only be one cause of immorality – something can only be deemed immoral if it somehow negatively affects the smooth operation of society. But even that is subject to individual interpretation. For instance, rape may cause disruption in society in some cases (in which case it would be considered immoral), but not in others (in which case it would not be deemed immoral).

Now, of course, even most Naturalists would take issue with my example because it offends their personal sensibilities. But I challenge anyone to give me an objective reason, based on naturalistic philosophy, why rape should be considered objectively bad or wrong. The fact is, it can’t be done because objective morality, for them, simply does not exist. All morality is necessarily subjective and relative.

But the truth is, objectively real moral principles do exist. They exist because God created mankind to be a particular kind of creature, and not any other kind. Human sexuality is not merely a natural biological function as Naturalists insist. It, of course, includes our biology, but human beings are not merely biological animals. We are spiritual persons who have the capacity to act purposefully in relation to a moral reality that is objectively real.

So, does immorality exist any more? Well, of course it does; and those who choose to believe and act contrary to the objectively real moral law that God revealed, do not actually break his law. Rather, they simply put themselves in a position to break themselves on that law. God has defined morality, and human objection to his definitions do not change reality. And at some point, reality always wins.