In today’s world, the idea of morality has become increasingly subjective. What one person considers “good” might be completely unacceptable to another. Even within faith communities that share the same holy book, interpretations can vary widely. For instance, in many Christian circles, there’s ongoing debate about modesty: How short is too short? Meanwhile, in some Islamic communities, the standard is full-body coverage—even gloves, socks, and veils. This disparity begs a deeper question: Who really decides what is moral?
We’re often told that morality is personal—that each individual defines right and wrong for themselves. But this moral relativism quickly spirals into chaos. If everyone is their own compass, then “good” becomes nothing more than a feeling or preference.
The Animal Analogy and the Flawed Logic of “Do As You Please”
Modern society increasingly embraces a worldview that sees humans as just another kind of animal—higher animals, perhaps, but animals nonetheless. The prevailing mantra becomes: “Do as you please.” But this mindset mirrors life in the jungle, where survival of the fittest reigns supreme.
Let’s look at dogs to unpack this further. A wild dog kills to survive, while a domesticated pet lives in a home, cared for and well-fed. Both are dogs, yet their behaviors differ drastically based on environment and nurture. Similarly, some humans grow up in stable, supportive environments, while others face extreme poverty, trauma, or abandonment. Should we then excuse harmful human behaviors—like stealing or violence—as natural survival tactics, just as we do for wild animals?
Some might even argue that certain people are biologically wired to harm others—citing conditions like psychopathy or sociopathy. So then, on what grounds do we judge them? Can we, in good conscience, imprison someone for simply being what they are by nature or nurture?
Is the Law a Reliable Moral Guide?
Many turn to human laws as a source of morality. But whose laws? The legal code in one country might criminalize what another celebrates. In some nations, same-sex marriage is legal; in others, it’s punishable. Some permit abortion, others ban it entirely. So if legality varies by geography, can we really trust it as a fixed moral compass?
History offers sobering reminders: slavery was once legal. So was racial segregation. At one time, women couldn’t vote. Clearly, legality does not equate to morality.
Let’s take abortion as a striking example. Some say it’s a woman’s right to choose; others say it’s the taking of an innocent life. If we can’t agree on something as fundamental as the beginning of life, how can we expect consensus on broader moral questions?
And yet, the debate often gets lost in semantics. We call it a “fetus,” which comes from the Latin word fœtus, meaning “offspring.” It’s still a life, no matter the term. So if societies can’t agree on this basic issue, is there really any hope of a unified moral standard?
So, Who Has the Right to Dictate Morality?
The sobering answer is: No one—except the Creator.
If the universe and everything in it came from God, then only He has the rightful authority to define what is good and what is evil. Without God, there is no fixed standard, and anything becomes permissible. A godless world leads us inevitably to a jungle-like existence where might makes right and power justifies behavior.
We can already see glimpses of this “survival of the fittest” culture in parts of the world. In areas plagued by violence, citizens don’t wait for the police—they arm themselves for protection. Gun violence escalates. Fear takes over. This is the world we create when we remove God’s authority and moral law.
Now imagine a complete breakdown: no law courts, no prisons, no consequences—because without a universal moral code, who gets to say what’s right or wrong? Would you want to live in that world?
God’s Moral Code Still Holds the World Together
Many people today try to pick and choose from God’s laws—keeping what’s convenient and discarding what feels restrictive. But even the fragments of His principles that society still respects are what hold civilization together. Concepts like justice, mercy, truthfulness, and human dignity—these are not inventions of culture; they are echoes of divine order.
It’s time to realize that faith in God isn’t blind—it’s logical. The world operates with such intricate design, balance, and purpose that only a Creator could be behind it. And just as every invention comes with a manual, the Creator gave us one too—His Word.
To live according to God’s moral code isn’t bondage—it’s freedom from chaos. It’s choosing light over darkness. It’s aligning with the One who not only made the world but sustains it.
Conclusion: Morality Without God Is an Illusion
Without God, there is no ultimate basis for morality—only opinions and preferences. And opinions, no matter how passionately held, are not solid ground on which to build a just and compassionate society.
If we want a world where human life is valued, where justice prevails, and where peace can thrive, then we must return to the moral standard of the One who created us. God alone is qualified to dictate morality. And His way, though often countercultural, is the only path to true and lasting sanity in our world.
