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
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
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.
{ 5 trackbacks }