In the articles “Moral argument is the modern approach” I confirm that the moral laws are caused or “invented” by some Higher, Omnipotent Reason or Intellect, i.e. by God. Being based on the existence of objective and absolute laws of good and evil and we know about their existence due to a conscience. Exactly conscience is a spiritual “organ”, that gives an estimation to our ideas, desires and acts on the basis of these laws. For obviousness of these statements, I have written the “Moral experiment” to you. The very heart of it is to show clearly the moral sense that we all can feel because of a conscience and that it is not profitable to us very often, and it means that a choice we do because of it is determined not by our mind, but by the mind of God.
But usually every argument has a lot of counter-evidences. Usually the first counter-evidence of the Moral Argument is the following:
Moral laws are really the products of an intellect, but not the intellect of God, but of the collective intellect of society, i.e. having been produced for many thousands years by a society. And in spite of their unprofit for a separate individual in situations similar to the situation that was showed in the moral experiment, generally they are advantageous and useful to society and even for all humanity. So it turns out that this society puts pressure on every individual separately and exactly due to this pressure we have to follow moral laws even when it is not quite advantageous for us. We are afraid of public blame and obstruction for our amoral behavior. That’s why we have to choose the variant «B» in our experiment.
It seems that a moral argument is fully broken. The intellect really influences on us but everything is more prosaic in fact. It is a collective intellect of society and we have to submit it, because a public blame threatens us. So what can we add here?
It’s easy. So if we want to exclude this counter-evidence we should invent such a moral experiment that can boil down to the zero or even to the minus meaning the results of this experiment.
So we modify our moral experiment. Variant for men:
Imagine that a nuclear war has happened. All people died. Except you, your wife and a beautiful young girl. You all three live in a bunker. You can live there long, because your shelter is safe and of high quality. And here we repeat the situation from the previous experiment: your wife became ill, became an invalid. In such condition she can live for a long period of time, it can last indefinitely long. Again there are the same two variants what to do and what variant to choose:
A) to leave a sick wife and start to create new human generation with a beautiful and healthy girl.
B) to be faithful to the wife to the very end, not to pay attention on the death of human generation as a result of this choice.
Pay attention : the influence of society is reduced to the zero. What variant is correct? How do you feel it now?? Really «B»? And what variant is advantageous to choose? Certainly «A». Of course «A».
How can such situation be? Very simply: moral laws are not produced by society. Be it so the society would disappear and the fulfillment of these laws would lose every sense. It’s like a situation in a destroyed by bombing city, where cars stopped and don’t drive and there is no sense to follow the traffic rules and cross a road on the zebra crossing. But however we feel, that it’s correct to choose the variant «B» and it means that moral laws are not produced by society. They are created by another Intellect. Higher Reason that influences on us through a conscience regardless of the existence of the society.
And, it means that they (moral laws) are produced by the Intellect of God!
