Is a moral lawgiver necessary for good and evil?

(Samuel Rausch ) #1


I have enjoyed watching videos of Ravi Zacharias and other RZIM speakers very much in the past few years ever since my teacher at my Christian Classical high school program introduced me to him. Please redirect me if this is not the best avenue for my question below to be answered.

Largely through the University of Toronto Psychologist Jordan Peterson, I have run into the idea that “moral” action could simply be action that is most sustainable in repetition. Peterson references Kant: " Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law."

Assuming that “good” and “evil” are relevant terms in discussing morality, wouldn’t the largely practical concept of morals mentioned above mean that the presence of a “moral code” does not in fact require a “moral lawgiver” (as I have heard Ravi Zacharias argue)?

I am very interested in an answer to this. There are many other possible conclusions hanging in the balance.

(SeanO) #2

@Boy Please see my answer here:

Question: a hole in Ravi Zacharias's argument for a moral lawgiver?

(Terry Black) #3

This is a good question Samuel and I vaguely remember hearing of Kant’s approach to a moral code. I may be naive but I still feel we have to determine what defines good and evil. In the absence of the moral law giver doesn’t good and evil become subjective to a point?
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.”
The term will seems permissive to the users will ( to me a subjective moral imperative) To Will that something can become a universal law does not necessarily make it a universal law does it? I can be a little simple so may be missing something here and be off target but thanks so much for asking this question! I will be busy for a few days but will try to look for further discussion here!