Moral Obligation - Part 1

In May 2007, writer and atheist, Christopher Hitchens, and author and pastor, Doug Wilson, engaged in a debate in Christianity Today on the topic, "Is Christianity Good for the World?" The debate was eventually published in a small book by Canon Press and was followed up with a debate tour and film.

I picked up the book again and after reading it, wanted to share some of the debate here. There is much in the exchange, but I want to focus on one area: The warrant for moral obligation; that is, given a worldview, how can a person justify what is good or evil in the world? I'll pull passages from both Hitchens and Wilson. Both are brilliant men and the exchange is very interesting and provocative.

This will take a few posts...I hope you will find it beneficial.

***********************

Hitchens

On the much more pertinent question of the origin of ethical imperatives,...I believe [they are] to be derived from innate human solidarity and not from the supernatural....

Wilson

You say in passing that ethical imperatives are "derived from innate human solidarity." A host of difficult questions immediately arise, which is perhaps why atheists are generally so coy about trying to answer this question. Derived from whom? Is this derivation authoritative? Do the rest of us ever get to vote on which derivations represent true, innate human solidarity? Do we ever get to vote on the authorized derivers? On what basis is innate human solidarity authoritative? If someone rejects innate human solidarity, are they being evil, or are they just a mutation in the inevitable changes that the evolutionary process requires? What is the precise nature of human solidarity? What is easier to read, the book of Romans or innate human solidarity? Are there different denominations that read the book of innate human solidarity differently? Which one is right? Who says? And last, does innate human solidarity believe in God?