As I was bringing the previous blog post to a close, this issue came up and I decided to address it in a separate posting. So here we go. We live in a world full of moral dilemmas. What is a moral dilemma? A moral dilemma can be defined as, “a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two courses of action, either of which entails transgressing a moral principle:[1]” Corrie Ten Boom faced them when Nazis came to her door asking if there were Jews in her home. She faced the moral dilemma of either telling the truth (because she was hiding them) OR lying to save their lives. She chose the lesser of two evils—bearing false witness in order to prevent murder.
I think we must first ground the concept of morality in order to further explore this idea. A problem arises depending on our view of morals and morality. There is much debate about whether morals are objective or subjective. If morals are objective (that is that there are standards which transcend humans and are the arbiters of what is right or wrong, good or evil) then there are universal moral laws that exist, to which everyone should adhere. If morals are subjective, then each individual is judge, jury, and executioner regarding his / her own actions. There is not a transcendent standard to which one is held accountable; what’s wrong for one person may be right for another and there is no way to make a definitive judgment.
Those holding to subjective morality will often invoke the notion of a social contract. A group of people come together and collectively agree on moral and legal standards which the people agree to live by and be governed. This creates a major problem when one asks “which society do we follow?” Example: The Third Reich established laws which encouraged people to turn over those deemed undesirable (Jews, gypsies, disabled, homosexual, etc) and those undesirables were systematically imprisoned, tortured, experimented on, and killed. If morality is subjective, one cannot condemn the Nazis for their actions. They can say, “I disagree with / I object to / I don’t support or condone what the Nazis did,” however there’s no justification for calling what the Nazis did as “wrong” or “evil.” Additionally, there is no foundation to hold the Nazis accountable for their actions if morality is subjective and the result of social contract.
On the other hand, if there are objective morals, then those who violate laws and moral statutes can be held accountable for their violations. This is the foundation for a legal system in government and the exercise of justice. In a system where morality is subjective, there is no basis for justice; differing opinions by individuals eliminate that possibility. Drs Frank Turek and Norman Geisler provide a strong argument for objective morality and the existence of the moral law:
There are many reasons we know the Moral Law exists, and we will present and discuss eight of them. Some of these reasons overlap one another, but we will discuss them in this order:
1. The Moral Law is undeniable.
2. We know it by our reactions.
3. It is the basis of human rights.
4. It is the unchanging standard of justice.
5. It defines a real difference between moral positions (e.g., Mother Teresa vs. Hitler).
6. Since we know what’s absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness.
7. The Moral Law is the grounds for political and social dissent.
8. If there were no Moral Law, then we wouldn’t make excuses for violating it.[2]
Point number 8 is of intrigue, especially. If your household is like mine, the parents have established rules for the children to follow. One of the rules in my house (which my son frequently violates) is that toys are to be played with in bedrooms only, not scattered throughout the house. Quite often my son’s reply to being reminded of this is to make an excuse. He knows what he’s done is wrong and he’s trying to lessen his involvement and culpability for breaking the rule.
Unfortunately, the world in which we live is not always clear when it comes to areas of morality. We can think of a number of contingencies and / or variables in a given situation where violating a moral law may be more preferable than following it. This again ties into point number 8 above. As humans we are prone to rationalizing our actions. How many people, having sworn vows to each other at the marriage altar, break those vows by having extra marital affairs? What is often heard when the betrayal is revealed? “It’s not my fault!”…“I’m not respected and loved the way I deserve!”…“I’m ignored / my needs aren’t being met!”…etc. When we rationalize, we are trying to justify behavior we know is wrong BUT that does not make the behavior acceptable. It’s merely trying to pass blame or deny any responsibility for the offending party.
Understand that there truly is no grey area with God. Things are “black and white” when it comes to behaviors, thoughts, and actions—they are either good OR evil. From God’s perspective, right is right and wrong is wrong, there is no middle ground. We struggle with moral dilemmas because man is sinful, selfish, and broken. We create the situations in which we face these challenges, not God. This is part of the struggle we live with as humans, and as Christians, especially. The Bible commands us to obey government, that governments and leaders are ultimately appointed by God (Rom 13). What does the Christian do when to obey the government means to go against what God commands?
Moral dilemmas are a form of contradiction in our lives. We face a situation where two or more moral truths seem at odds with each other. To follow one is to violate another. It is the proverbial stuck-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place scenario. Similar to Corrie Ten Boom’s situation, we find a more ancient account in the book of Joshua. Rahab is a prostitute living in Jericho. Israel sent spies into the land and the city in order to plan their conquest. Rahab received and hid the spies from the city officials who were warned of the spies’ presence within the city. Rahab could have followed the law of her society and turned over the spies, showing her loyalties to her people OR she could lie about their location and sneak them out of the city. She chose the latter, making the lesser of two evils decision as she saw it. In God’s eyes, both situations were wrong—lying to others OR being complicit in murder (which likely would have happened to the spies).
This is an uncomfortable situation and all too often we find ourselves in them. This is where God’s grace and mercy come into play. When we violate His moral statutes, we are deserving of death (eternal spiritual separation from God). Because of the sacrifice of Jesus, His death on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead, we are able to receive grace and mercy from God if we believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior (Rom 10:9-13). I’ve heard the concepts of grace and mercy defined this way, “Grace is when we get what we don’t deserve and mercy is when we don’t get what we do deserve.”
As sinners, in violation of God’s commands, we deserve death and eternal separation. Jesus’ work on the cross represents Him standing between us and God’s Wrath (wholly justified) and bearing the punishment we rightly deserve. In doing this, Jesus demonstrated God’s mercy (for the believer) because Jesus, not us, received the punishment—redeemed sinners don’t get what we deserve. As Christians go through life, we still sin, but we have an advocate in Jesus and we are forgiven our sins because His sacrifice paid the debt owed to God for violating His commands. Beyond that, though we still struggle with sin, God blesses us throughout our lives. That is His grace—we receive things we don’t deserve. We receive God’s grace because we belong to Him and that is one of the many ways He expresses His love for us.
~In Christ!
[1] MORAL DILEMMA | Definition of MORAL DILEMMA by Oxford Dictionary on Lexico.com also meaning of MORAL DILEMMA
[2] Geisler, N. L., & Turek, F. (2004). I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist (p. 172). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
Way Truth Life Apologetics 
Leave a comment