Do Objective Moral Values Exist?
The moral argument is not a fight over what is right and what is wrong, but refers to the very existence of morals in the first place…the moral argument for God’s existence.
With this argument for God’s existence we’re back into the philosophical realm after a foray into a bit about science and religion. A welcome change from my perspective, so I hope some of you feel the same!
Moral Argument For God’s Existence: Logical Form
- If objective moral values and duties exist, then God exists.
- Objective moral values exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
Moral Argument For God’s Existence: Alternate Format
- If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
- Objective moral values do exist.
- Therefore, God exists.
The moral argument is one of the classic arguments in philosophy for the existence of God.
In any logical argument, the truth of the conclusion (3) depends on the truth of the premises (1) and (2). The moral argument is no different. Theists readily accept the premises of the moral argument as stated above.
Atheists will usually fall within one of two camps when discussing the moral argument for God’s existence.
- Those consistent with a naturalistic view that there is nothing outside of the natural world we can observe with our senses, will disagree with premise 2 and argue that objective morals do not exist. They may or may not agree with premise 1.
- Those atheists who believe objective morality does exist agree with premise 2, so they will attack premise 1 of the moral argument.
The Moral Argument: Objective Moral Values
‘Objective’ moral values would be values that are the same for everyone, everywhere, whenever they lived in history. For example, look at the following statement:
- Torturing little babies for fun is just plain wrong for everyone, everywhere; it always has been and always will be.
If you believe that statement is true, then you believe in objective morality.
If you do not believe in objective morality, then you must admit that there may be certain circumstances, or certain evolutionary developments that could have possibly occurred to make it OK to torture babies for fun…but perhaps it’s just not OK for us here and now in the circumstances we find ourselves.
We’ll talk more about this premise of the moral argument in future posts.
The Moral Argument: Need For God In Morality
The other contentious part of the moral argument for God’s existence is the idea that morality cannot exist apart from God. Isn’t it kind of pretentious for us Christians to say that apart from our God there are no morals?
The moral argument for God’s existence has nothing to do with whether or not atheists can live moral lives. It’s obvious that they can. The question is whether objective morality exists, and if it does, where did it come from?
Did it come from God or did it evolve by random processes?
In the next few weeks we will discuss the moral argument for God’s existence in a bit more detail. Like always, the important part of that phrase is ‘a bit‘. For more detailed discussion of the moral argument or anything else you see on this site, check out the resource page and dig a little deeper.
Lave a comment if the mood strikes you, and if you haven’t signed up for email updates and the resurrection report, see the form at the top right.
Hope to see you back!
Rod
{ 14 comments }
I should also say (though it is probably obvious given my previous post) that I am one of those people who reject both premises.
Take care, and thanks for your replies.
This argument is pretty well refuted by the Euthyphro dilemma, even though people have argued that it is a false dilemma. The preferred answer to the dilemma is that God is moral because that is his nature. This doesn’t really address the heart of the dilemma though where the dilemma attempts to get to the bottom of why God is moral.
If God is moral where he could have been immoral, there must be a reason. Simply saying that God’s nature is moral does not address the question, since it does nothing to explain the why. If God could not be immoral, why can’t he be immoral?
Answering these questions gets us back to the same position. God is moral either because of something outside of his control, or he is moral arbitrarily.
I am one of those who argue that Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false one.
God, by definition is the greatest conceivable being and eternal…uncreated and uncaused. This concept makes Him the ultimate explanation and reason for everything. If God exists, there is no explanation for His existence, or his Character. He just is. If there is a reason, or something that made God like he is, then that would be God…requiring a reason for God leads to another reason for that reason… an infinite regress of reasons. The buck has to stop somewhere, and I believe it stops with God.
Of course I think that’s the Christian God, and that opens up a whole new can of worms. That’s why I started this site, to discuss that can, one worm at a time :)
More on Euthyphro:
Greg Koukl, Stand To Reason (Article)
William Craig (Brief Video)
The greatest conceivable being by who? If we didn’t exist when God came into being, where did the concept come from? We conceive of things being moral and immoral as being good or evil. If God is the source of morality, it is entirely possible that we would think that immoral things are moral if God were immoral. In that case, the greatest possible being could be evil. So, where did the initial idea of morality come from?
This is the problem with suggesting that the first cause is complex. Now I have also heard the argument that God is simple, but I see no logic in saying something with all the properties attributed to God is simple. In fact, it is the most complex thing I can imagine.
In nature, we don’t see things generally going from more complex to less complex. We see it from the other way around. In other words, if we argue a first cause, it seems more logical that whatever it is would be the least complex thing we can think of. Subatomic particles are considered elementary or primary particles. The reason is because they can’t be broken down any further. These primary particles are more likely to be the first cause than something that is as complex as God is said to be.
So, give me an argument about how subatomic particles are moral.
Subatomic particles are not moral. Only rational beings can have morality.
“If we didn’t exist when God came into being, where did the concept come from?” God, by definition, did not ‘come into being’. If He exists, and of course I believe He does, He always was and His nature is the source of morality. It was always there because God was always there. I guess on my view, if God were not who He is, morality could have been a different thing altogether. However, I’m not interested in a hypothetical universe with a different God, but the universe in which we currently live.
As for things going from more simple to more complex…one of the most basic laws of physical science, the law of entropy, states that things tend to break down…from order to disorder, or from complex to less complex, so I’m not sure where you are getting the idea that we usually see things going from less to more complex…cars rust, food spoils, people die, the universe is slowly coming to an unfortunate end due to heat death because of the law of entropy.
Simple does not mean impotent. An all powerful spirit being who has always existed seems to me a much simpler explanation for the creation of the universe than the complex theories required for it to have sprung from nothing and evolved to its present state.
So, you believe that if God were different, raping children could be good? Is that seriously how you think the dilemma is defeated? You as much as admit that it is arbitrary by your answer. This is the whole essence of the Euthyphro dilemma, and specifically how it is a true dilemma and not a bifurcation fallacy.
Of course I don’t think raping children could ever be ‘good’. In my view, goodness is an attribute of God and comes from His essence and nature. If God were not who He is, there may not be such a thing as goodness at all. If goodness is something stemming from the nature of God, then arbitrarily changing the nature of God so what we currently know as goodness is not present offers no dilemma.
If God was different and had a nature that condoned raping of kids, then it wouldn’t be goodness at all, but something entirely different. If this other god decided to call it ‘goodness’ it wouldn’t make it the same attribute that stems from the nature of OUR God.
If God exists, ‘goodness’ is not arbitrary. If He doesn’t, then it’s relative.
I posted a couple of references re: Euthyphro previously in this conversation for anyone who is interested.
How do you know? You seem to think that we get our morality from God, so if God were different, we would get a different sense of what is moral. Your method for determining morality is either from God or it comes from somewhere external to God.
Holding that morality comes from God, but if God were different, God’s morality wouldn’t be moral is inconsistent.
I believe morality in our world comes from the nature of OUR God, the one that actually exists…at least in my humble opinion God exists.
Inventing another world where the same God does not exist, and where there could potentially be a different sense of morality is not inconsistent with the idea that our EXISTING God in our existing universe determines morality.
When I say I believe goodness comes from the nature of God, I mean goodness comes from God’s nature as He exists in our current world or universe. In my view God is the all powerful being who always existed and created everything and sustains everything. He exists, and His nature is unchanging. I believe the nature of this God that sustains our existence determines morality or ‘godness’. Inventing a different God doesn’t make that belief inconsistent.
I can see where the idea that goodness could be something different if God were different, even though goodness comes from God, could be considered contradictory. Here’s what I mean:
In our world it is good to help an old lady across the street and bad to push her in front of a car. Most people no matter what their background would agree. Let’s call this quality of helping old ladies and not hurting them ‘goodness’.
In another hypothetical world where a god had a different nature that said it was good to push an old lady in front of a car and bad to help her across the street…and people called that quality ‘goodness’, how does it change the actual quality? In the example above the quality was to do something that aided the lady, and in the second, to do something that harmed her. They are not the same thing. It’s a different thing altogether called by the same name…whether the people in that world considered it the ‘right’ thing to do or not, it’s still not the same quality.
I think a big point here is that we are not living in this other reality…we have our own reality to deal with, and it’s the nature of this reality that’s important.
So does God have power over his nature (and thus morality?) Or is he bound by his nature (and thus morality?) –Note: this is not a false dilemma. Either He is bound by his nature, or He isn’t.
Thanks for your comment,
“God is either bound by His nature or not bound by His nature” I agree! Rather than a dilemma, this appears to me to be a basic rule of logic, such as “My wife is either pregnant, or she is not pregnant.” (Though some philosopher out there may want to argue the terminology for some reason I’m unaware of. ) This is not Euthyphro’s Dilemma…the second part of your statement is actually what I use to show Eythyphro’s Dilemma is a false one.
I have no problem with God being ‘bound’ by His own nature.
The idea that morality stems from the nature of God, and God is unable to act in contradiction to his own nature (or is ‘bound’ by His own nature, if you will), is not one of the horns of Euthyphro , but the third option I have presented in other posts that splits the horns of Euthyphro’s dilemma!
Euthyphro’s problem was that God either 1) made up the rules arbitrarily, or was 2) bound by a higher moral authority that was greater than God. If morality flows from God’s nature, it is not from a higher moral authoirity, but God Himself. If he is bound by His own nature as to what laws and commandments He gives, it eliminates the problem of arbitrary law making.
So I would say there is no dilemma, and I agree with the second part of your statement…that God is bound by His own nature. This fits perfectly with the argument from morality for the existance of God and the Christian concept of God as the source of all morality.
Thanks again for your comment.
So, from what I gather, it seems that you are defining “goodness” as those actions which coincide with Gods nature, right? So why can’t I just define “goodness” as coinciding with *my* nature or code of ethics (and “badness” as actions which contradict my code of ethics) and use my personal standard as a standard for what is/isn’t “good” (by that definition/use of standard)?
It just seems that every appeal to God in terms of morality is arbitrary or pointless: [1] Defining “goodness” as coinciding with Yahweh’s nature, arbitrary. It seems to be just defining things and picking standards to go by. [2] God simply commanding something, arbitrary. Others can command things, and might doesn’t make right (we can probably agree on that.) [3] God appealing to a higher standard, pointless (cause then God wouldn’t need to be invoked, and he would be a pointless step–we could appeal directly to that higher standard instead.) All three of these just seem completely and utterly arbitrary or pointless to me. (And apparently you agree about [2] and [3], since you reject that dilemma. But what do you have to say about [1]?)
I suppose I’ll talk about the rest of the post here too:
In your demonstration for objective values, you ask that question about torturing babies, and you ask if it is wrong (for everyone, everywhere.) Don’t we have to define wrong first? If we define it as going against a particular standard, then don’t we have to choose the standard? So, to the answer for that question, I ask, “By what standard?” I would say, that by my standard, yes it is wrong. But I recognize that my standard is subjective (“characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.” — Merriam-Webster.) This doesn’t mean I have to say that torturing babies may be right in some circumstance, my standard my prohibit that action in any circumstance. But again, my standard is subjective. It is objectively true that I have a subjective standard, but the standard itself is subjective (and ultimately there because of evolution, and shaped by a culmination of all my past experiences and how I have perceived them.)
I just feel that if objective or absolute morality exists, independent of our beliefs and perceptions, (in the same way that a certain house may be painted red, independently of what color we believe it is,) then something inherent about a particular action must be shown to be “right” or “wrong” in the same way something is shown to be “red” or “round.” And I haven’t seen that inherent or intrinsic property demonstrated to exist yet.
Note: Just because a standard is subjective, it doesn’t mean it is any less useful in terms of helping create an happy and healthy and safe environment (but I think you probably already know that, since you concede that atheists can be moral too, so I won’t get into that, unless you just want to :P)
And when you mentioned the “push an old lady down or help her across the street” thing in the comment above (don’t want to quote the whole thing, but you know what I’m talking about), lets take an actual look at one of these “good” things that is consistent with Yahweh’s nature, something actually found in the Bible in this reality, found in the book of Numbers:
Numbers 15:32-36 (King James Version)
32And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.
33And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.
34And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
35And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.
36And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.
Your old lady scenario reminded me of this passage. Here, instead of an old lady, we have a man, and instead of crossing the street, we see he is gathering sticks (we don’t know what for, maybe it was to build a fire, or to trade, it doesn’t say.) Do they stop to help him? No. And it would have been much nicer to push him down, rather than what they actually did do. They locked him up and stoned him to death. For gathering sticks on a Saturday. The Death Penalty. For gathering sticks on a Saturday.
I’m not saying that this disproves Yahweh or anything (I think the argument from evil is flawed.) I’m simply raising the question to you: Is this really the nature/standard that you think should be used as a standard for “goodness”?
(And there’s plenty of other verses I could choose, like Yahweh’s Old Testament law forcing poor, unmarried girls who get raped to marry the man who raped her, but I think the example above should suffice for now at least.)
Also, this is “Guest” from the last note, if you couldn’t tell. And, by the way, nice to meet you Rod :) A guy I met in a chat room pointed me to this site… he said he was a friend of yours. His screen name was Kman.
And I like the site btw, its a nice setup you got here :P
Anyways, take care :)
Hey Trey, nice to meet you too!
I’ll have to figure out who Kman is and “Thank” him for sending people to my site who make me try to come up with answers to tough questions :-) I wish I had all the answers that could satisfy everyone…but then I suppose there wouldn’t be any discussion and I wouldn’t learn anything myself…and what fun is that?
Some of the laws and commands of God in the old testament are the most difficult things for me to come to grips with as a Christian myself, and something I have been wanting to study a bit further. It would be easier to leave Yahweh out of the discussion and focus only on Jesus, but that’s not what Jesus teaches, so as a Christian, I have some tough questions to answer.
I have some initial thoughts, but I’ll get back to you with my take on the question and why I still believe in Him as a good God, even with the things He commanded in the old testament. Can’t do much more than that…and I’ll refer you to a couple of guys who can add more insight and explain a similar position making more sense than I can. Before that, I’ll try to speak to most of your other points too…
Re: Arbitrarily defining ‘Goodness’
Defining goodness as that which flows from the nature of God (not just acts and commands, but actual attributes, like mercy and justice, etc.) is not an arbitrary definition in my view.
I believe that the existence of an objective moral standard is real and knowable…like we know that we exist. People can argue that maybe we don’t exist as we think and we’re in some kind of Matrix with Keanu Reeves (or Neo if you prefer :-) but that just leaves us with uncertainty about everything. If we don’t accept some things, we are unable to really know anything. In my view, our own existence is a basic human knowledge that has to be taken for granted. If we can’t know we exist, we can’t know anything, so there is no reason for having discussions like this anyway.
I believe basic morality is knowable in much the same way. In my example of torturing babies, for example, I don’t believe it is only our social constructs that makes this a bad thing, but it truly is a bad thing, and there’s no situation where it would be a good thing, period. I’m sure you can understand why someone would hold this view, given your own revulsion to the idea. You may not agree that it is an absolutely objective standard and that would be where we differ in opinion. If it’s not an absolute standard, then there are potential times or situations where torturing babies would be good, and my view of morality would be incorrect. I don’t believe there are possible situations that could make it OK.
If I am correct in thinking there is an absolute morality, to explain it I must find the standard for that morality, and the only thing that makes sense is a moral being that has authority to define the standard. This would be what we think of as God, and I believe, for multiple reasons, many of which I write about on this blog, that the best explanation for who that God is would be the Christian God.
In my view, I am not arbitrarily appealing to God or defining His nature as the source of morality. I believe there are lots of good reasons to believe that a God exists and lots of good reasons that the Christian God fits the profile…and that you or I or any other human don’t fit that profile (if I can be so bold to speak for you on that point :-) So defining goodness as what coincides with my or your nature isn’t the same thing as defining goodness as what coincides with the nature of the being who is necessary for objective morality to exist.
You could break it down something like this:
- There is an objective moral standard we are all held accountable to live by.
- A moral being with authority to set the standard is needed to explain this objective morality.
- The Christian God fits the necessary attributes of the required standard-giver or lawgiver.
There are thousands of issues and questions about the existence of God, why the Christian God, etc, etc. Some of these have been discussed in this blog and others will be, but I’ll never get to them all and I won’t have great answers for some of them anyway!
One of the things I’ve come to realize is that I can logically believe in God even if I don’t have ALL the answers. If I have ten pieces of evidence that point toward the existence of God and one piece that I don’t really understand or seems to point elsewhere…I still have overwhelming evidence for the existence of God. I am not required to throw out the other ten based on the one I don’t ‘get’…and I’m not comfortable in doing so. I have a science background, and that would just be bad science unless something definitively and unequivocally disproved the actual hypothesis. I have seen nothing that comes close to doing that.
So I guess that’s what I have to say about the arbitrariness of defining goodness as coinciding with God’s nature…if you believe in objective morality it needs a standard and I believe the evidence points to God. I’ve written more about objective morality more specifically in other posts.
I’m busy with several projects at the moment, so don’t take it personally if I take a while to get back on any other comments!
Just letting you know I started a series on Old Testament Law…first post will be today, so if you’re interested, stay tuned…
Comments on this entry are closed.