The following is from Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig’s recent article “God is not Dead Yet” in Christianity Today. I encourage you to read the entire article. I include this section on the moral argument because of our recent discussion here about how the existence of objective morality requires God– a claim that atheists have yet to refute.
The moral argument. A number of ethicists, such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended “divine command” theories of ethics, which support various moral arguments for God’s existence.
One such argument:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
By objective values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. A good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?
Premise (2) might seem more disputable, but it will probably come as a surprise to most laypeople to learn that (2) is widely accepted among philosophers. For any argument against objective morals will tend to be based on premises that are less evident than the reality of moral values themselves, as apprehended in our moral experience. Most philosophers therefore do recognize objective moral distinctions.
Nontheists will typically counter the moral argument with a dilemma: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The first alternative makes good and evil arbitrary, whereas the second makes the good independent of God. Fortunately, the dilemma is a false one. Theists have traditionally taken a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. That is to say, what Plato called “the Good” is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore, the good is not independent of God.
Moreover, God’s commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties.
“For given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom. ”
I’m surprised you’re still dealing in this argument. Comparing what’s normal in one species with what’s normal in another is a bit pointless. ‘Normal’ activity is always going to vary among the animal kingdom. And I’m not aware that any other animals torture. I don’t see the fact that we alone do in any way points to us being more moral.
“God wills something because he is good. ”
That’s not an alternative. You’re still saying that we must have another way of judging that he is good, or it just becomes a circular argument.
Here’s a mental exercise for you: imagine two universes. One in which God exists, one in which he doesn’t. Obviously you believe that the first is the one that we are in. Tell me how the second would differ from ours. According to you, it would be such that the following would no longer work:
“1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.”
What would this world be like if ‘objective moral values’ did NOT exist? How would we tell? Your example that we all agree that torturing babies is wrong, therefore objective moral values exist… Presumably if there was no God, there would be people who this torturing babies is right. So… you’re saying that God is currently preventing these people from believing that? How so?
And why can’t point 2 simply be explained, as discussed before, because we evolved not to enjoy torturing babies? I mean, it’s a no-brainer that such a practice wouldn’t be conducive to reproductive success.
@ Andrew
I suppose when other animals institute their own judicial system, then we can quit saying that we are more moral than they.
You make the claim that “comparing what’s normal in one species with what’s normal in another is a bit pointless,” but then make the comparison between animals not torturing each other while we engage in that activity as some sort of proof that we are not more moral. That does not appear to be very consistent, but I could be wrong about that…
Invoking “evolution-of-the-gap” as an explanation of morality is not an answer. Theism at least offers a framework on which to build their moral case. Naturalism does not provide as much as a peg to hang morality on. There is nothing more than subjective preference by which to claim good or evil – but then the question is – who determines good and bad? At that point it seems “might makes right” and it’s all arbitrary.
“..but then make the comparison between animals not torturing each other while we engage in that activity”
I was merely pointing out that it was false to say that torture is “natural in the animal kingdom”. You can respond to that in two ways: either you think it IS natural in the animal kingdom, or you are agreeing with me. If the former, please supply an example. If the latter, then we don’t have an argument. Which is it?
“Naturalism does not provide as much as a peg to hang morality on. ”
Who claims that it does or should? Not me. So again, we don’t have an argument.
“who determines good and bad?”
What’s that question got to do with the article above, which is attempting to prove the existence of God?
“I suppose when other animals institute their own judicial system, then we can quit saying that we are more moral than they. ”
Or wait till animals start planning and executing mass murder of their own species… Or start genital mutiliation in the name of religion. etc, etc.
In the first point, you said, “Comparing what’s normal in one species with what’s normal in another is a bit pointless. ‘Normal’ activity is always going to vary among the animal kingdom. And I’m not aware that any other animals torture. I don’t see the fact that we alone do in any way points to us being more moral.”
You are using assumptive language claiming that torture is ‘normal’ for us, but since we don’t find torture among other animals, then it is not normal for them, therefore a comparison can’t be made. The point is why is torture wrong? What standard is being used to say that a particular behavior is wrong? We do not see animals engaging in torture (at least not that I am aware of) because they are not morally conscious.
You also said, “Or wait till animals start planning and executing mass murder of their own species… Or start genital mutiliation in the name of religion. etc, etc.”
While it is true there are those who have attributed their crimes and mass genocide to particular religions, (1) it doe not follow that those religions actually would approve of that behavior, and (2) those deaths, as tragic as they are, pale in comparison to the numbers of people who lost their lives to atheistic ideologies and their tyrannical leaders.
Oh – and being able to justify what one uses as a standard to adjudicate between right and wrong does matter – otherwise, why should I, or anyone else, feel any sort of obligation to accept what someone says is good or bad?
“Claiming that torture is ‘normal’ for us”
I never claimed that torture is ‘normal’ for us.
“being able to justify what one uses as a standard to adjudicate between right and wrong does matter”
I agree. Which is why I never claimed that it doesn’t matter.
“it doe not follow that those religions actually would approve of that behavior”
Judaism and Islam compell their followers to circumcise boys – true or false?
“We do not see animals engaging in torture ”
Great, so you agree with me that Mr Turek was wrong to say “torture is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom”.
“those deaths, as tragic as they are, pale in comparison to the numbers of people who lost their lives to atheistic ideologies”
Can you define ‘atheistic ideology’? If you mean communism, that’s a political ideology, not a religious one. Being an atheist is no pre-requisite to being a communist. If you mean like Hitler, he wasn’t an atheist, and relied heavily on religious writings (eg the bible, the works of Martin Luthor) to justify what he did and to persuade the mainly Catholic population of Germans to go along with it.
But that’s kind of off-topic to Mr Turek’s blog and I’m not persuing this argument any further. However, please feel free to return to my initial post and respond to that.
I apologise, Mr Turek is simply posting Mr Craig’s article, so it is he that we disagree with, not Frank.
However, I’d take issue with this: “I include this section on the moral argument because of our recent discussion here about how the existence of objective morality requires God– a claim that atheists have yet to refute. ”
It’s all very well to claim this, but you never proved there IS such a thing as ‘objective morality’. The closest you got was to show that the more wicked a deed is, the greater the consensus among humans that it is morally wrong. And you never showed why this situation requires a God to make it so. Are you saying there’d be less of a consensus if there were no God?
Andrew,
You can’t evaluate “the more wicked a deed is” unless you assume an objective standard of morality. In other words, you know some deeds are more wicked than others because there is an objective standard independent of human opinion to which you compare them..
Second, this has nothing to do with human consensus. Even if many people deny that torturing your new baby for fun is objectively wrong, that only means that some people are wrong (Congratulations, by the way!). Some people may deny that 2 +2= 4, but that only makes them wrong. It doesn’t turn 4 into a subjective answer. Remember, as Craig points out, objective morality is independent of human opinion.
Objective morality is self-evident (“we hold these truths to be self-evident”). To deny it is to say that there is no real moral difference between Mother Teresa or Hitler, love or murder, charity or torture. Do you deny that there is a real difference between those things?
Blessings,
Frank
Frank, go back to my first post, and try to answer the question. I’ll post it again as I know you’re busy:
Here’s a mental exercise for you: imagine two universes. One in which God exists, one in which he doesn’t. Obviously you believe that the first is the one that we are in. Tell me how the second would differ from ours. According to you, it would be such that the following would no longer work:
“1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.”
What would this world be like if ‘objective moral values’ did NOT exist? How would it differ from the world we live in today?
“Even if many people deny that torturing your new baby for fun is objectively wrong, that only means that some people are wrong ”
You’re begging the question – you’re asserting that which you’re trying to prove. I agree that torturing my baby is wrong. We both agree on that. What you are NOT showing is how it goes from being a strongly held opinion by both of us to becoming as objective truth. And you’re not showing that such an objective truth is dependent on the existence of a God.
Craig is claiming that it being an objective truth is dependent on there being a God. So IF it is an objective truth, show me why it would NOT be if there wasn’t a God.
Thanks for the congrats.
a) Why
Moral laws point to moral law givers – they don’t arise from nothing.
On what basis do you call something “wicked?”
The Golden Rule?
Why is that binding? If it’s a matter of “opinion” why ought anyone care? Where did it come from? Did someone dream it up and says that we are all bound to it?
“Why is that binding?”
Who says it is? Just because you WANT it to be binding, doesn’t mean there’s a God.
Wicked: def: “harmful; injurious”
A definition does not answer the question. I asked on what basis (justification) do you call something wicked? If “wicked” is not an objective term, but rather an “opinion,” then what justification does anyone have for calling something wicked?
What may be harmful and injurious to you might not be to someone else. What if a particular behavior or action that you believe to be harmful and injurious (or wicked) is actually consentual – is it still “wicked?” If so, then who are you to say and if not then who should care about your opinion?
I think that if you punch someone in the face then it would quite obviously be harmful to them. Unless you want to argue over the definition of harmful – which would be a somewhat pointless path to take. Why not argue what ‘is’ is?
And I’d like to see you argue that Frank’s delightful example of ‘torturing babies’ would not fulfil a definition of harmful. So torturing babies would be, by definition, a wicked thing to do.
But all you’ve done there is provide an example of a wicked act. You’ve not proved the existance of a deity.
Craig’s argument is no different to saying this:
1. If the world exists it can only have come into existance by being burped up by a giant cosmic turtle.
2. The world DOES exist.
3. Therefore the giant cosmic turtle exists.
“who should care about your opinion?”
Well who should care about yours? If you can only argue that something is immoral by claiming that a supernatural being agrees with you then I’d suggest your argument needs work. YOURS is the ‘might is right’ position, not mine.
I can argue that circumcision is wrong on the basis of the harm it causes. A Jew or Muslim can only argue it ISN’T wrong by saying their God demands it of them. Who’s in the stronger position?
At any rate, it’s quite obvious that neither you nor Frank have an answer to the question I posed in my first post here.
Frank: “You can’t evaluate “the more wicked a deed is” unless you assume an objective standard of morality. ”
Sure you can. Surely it’s not hard to say that torturing babies causes more harm than stealing a postage stamp? One doesn’t need to posit a God to say that. And to go back to my point – the more harm a deed causes, the more unhappiness it causes, the greater consensus you’ll find that it’s a wicked deed.
Frank, you’ve got a circular argument – you say you need God to have an objective morality, then you say that having an objective morality proves there’s a God! This is a perfect example of ‘begging the question’ – your reasoning assumes the conclusion.
You can do better than this!
“the more harm a deed causes, the more unhappiness it causes, the greater consensus you’ll find that it’s a wicked deed.”
So an act is wicked based upon the amount of unhappiness that it causes? This is much more a ‘might makes right’ than my position would hope to be because I do not appeal to opinion, but to some objective standard. But who is part of this consensus and how are they determining what does and does not make them happy so that they can claim if something is wicked or not?
The consensus a couple of hundred years ago was that slavery was not wicked and I’m guessing it made the slave-owners happy. In this scenario, the wicked people were the minority on the side of reform.
I do not think utilitarianism is enough of a standard for dictating morality.
“The consensus a couple of hundred years ago was that slavery was not wicked”
Right, and people used the bible to justify that belief – so where does that leave you?
“So an act is wicked based upon the amount of unhappiness that it causes?”
Seems pretty self-evident to me, yes. How else would you determine it? That makes more sense than claiming that something is wicked even though it causes no harm at all. Or that something is NOT wicked despite causes lots of harm.
“But who is part of this consensus”
Same question if you’re trying to work out whose God holds the key to ‘objective morality’.
“I do not appeal to opinion, but to some objective standard.”
Which happens to coincide with your own opinion! Big surprise. And why is that standard the best? Because you’ve got your big brother God to back you up, and his opinion trumps everyone else’s because he’s mightier. Ergo, ‘might is right’.
“Was that slavery was not wicked and I’m guessing it made the slave-owners happy.”
Are you being obtuse? It made them happy at someone else’s expense! Hence it was wicked. I’m a bit worried that this fact eluded you.
“But who is part of this consensus and how are they determining what does and does not make them happy so that they can claim if something is wicked or not?”
So someone is torturing a baby and you’re going to wring your hands while you try to work out whether it’s harming the baby, or whether it’s making the baby unhappy, or whether it fulfils some defintion of ‘harmful’, or whether the torturer’s rights are more important than the baby’s?
I see.
No wonder having the Christian Right in charge of government has led to a huge increase in Gov-sanctioned torture! Still, at least they have ‘God on their side’.
“Are you being obtuse? It made them happy at someone else’s expense! Hence it was wicked. I’m a bit worried that this fact eluded you.”
I’m sorry – it’s that what the consensus does? They determine what is right for them to generate their happiness regardless of the minorities happiness.
And who among the consensus is able to agree on what happiness is let alone what makes them happy. A tribe of cannibals finds happiness in eating their neighbors – so who cares about the neighbor. If they are not “with it” enough to form the consensus then perhaps they ought to be eaten.
I think you are making the assumption that happiness is the bottom line for making and judging standards. I’m saying that is a terrible standard and changes as quickly as people change their opinions and tastes. A standard needs to be objective so that it is not swayed by public opinion or a consensus vote and happiness does not fit that bill.
“So someone is torturing a baby and you’re going to wring your hands while you try to work out whether it’s harming the baby, or whether it’s making the baby unhappy, or whether it fulfils some defintion of ‘harmful’, or whether the torturer’s rights are more important than the baby’s?”
No, I’m saying at least I have some objective justification for stopping it or calling it wicked. All you have is your opinion, or if not your opinion, then then opinion of the consensus (whoever they are) and that’s not a reason because your and their opinion can change.
“I’m sorry – it’s that what the consensus does?”
Who is this ‘consensus’ that you generalise about?
“A standard needs to be objective so that it is not swayed by public opinion ”
I see, a dictatorship. That sounds VERY moral, doesn’t it?!
“And who among the consensus is able to agree on what happiness is”
So now you’re arguing how to define ‘happiness’? Oh dear. What next?
” A standard needs to be objective ”
And who gets to choose what the objective is? Your God or someone else’s? Let me guess…
“changes as quickly as people change their opinions”
So torturing babies harms the babies NOW, but it might not harm them in the future. Are you sure about this?
“No, I’m saying at least I have some objective justification for stopping it or calling it wicked. ”
No you don’t, you’ve just got your subjective interpretation of one of a thousand holy books. And if a moral dilemna comes up that isn’t covered in that book then you’re screwed.
So following the bible makes you more moral… but by what standard? If you mean by its own standard then you’ve got yet another circular argument. If it’s by another standard then you’re back to justifying it on utilitarian grounds or some other system.
You may answer that following your particular God’s morals is an end in itself. Fine. But how does that ‘prove the existance of God’, as this article purports to do?
And how does that make you better than, say, someone whose God commands his followers to murder all unbelievers? You’re argument with such a murderous zealot cannot be about whose actions are more or less ‘moral’ (according to you the harm he causes is just a subjective concept). Your only argument with him can be over which of the two of you is following the letter of your own holy book better.
1. You originally brought up the idea of “consensus” when replying about slavery. I’ve been wanting you to define it. You don’t like it being used as a general terms then explain what it means – that’s your burden to prove, not mine.
2. That something is objective does not mean that it is a result of a dictatorship. Moral laws arising from a dictatorship are still subjective because they are the whim of whomever is in charge.
3. Again, you brought the term “happiness” into the discussion, not me. I’m asking for a little clarity. If the only two people around is the one inflicting the torture and the one being tortured, then whose consensus in that situation overrules the other? I’m guessing the one committing the torture is finding happiness and pleasure in the act while the one being tortured is not. But you are attempting to make the moral claim that it is wicked based on something external to both of them while trying to keep it in the realm of personal opinion. You can’t have it both ways.
4. “So torturing babies harms the babies NOW, but it might not harm them in the future. Are you sure about this?” If you are correct in saying that it is all just a matter of opinion (individual or consensus) then yes, I am sure about that. But because I believe morality to be objective and above opinion, then no – torturing babies is always wrong regardless of time, context, etc.
5. “So following the bible makes you more moral… but by what standard? If you mean by its own standard then you’ve got yet another circular argument. If it’s by another standard then you’re back to justifying it on utilitarian grounds or some other system.” Let me ask you – by your view, your moral view is just as subjective so (1) why do you care, and (2) how can you say that mine is wrong if you have no external, objective standard by which to show that you are nearer the truth than I am?
Regarding consensus, all I said was that the more harmful a deed is, the greater the consensus you’ll tend to find among humans that it is morally wrong. If you want a definition of ‘consensus’, just look it up.
“I’m guessing the one committing the torture is finding happiness and pleasure in the act while the one being tortured is not. ”
You have an odd idea of what utilitarianism is about. The torturer is causing harm. You don’t minus from that harm the happiness he himself derives from the act.
“Moral laws arising from a dictatorship are still subjective because they are the whim of whomever is in charge.”
Right, so in this case God is the dictator, and the laws could change on his whim. Thanks for clarifying.
“But you are attempting to make the moral claim that it is wicked based on something external to both of them ”
You are being obtuse again – if you think that one person torturing another doesn’t fulfil the definition of the term ‘wicked’ then you need a new dictionary. What next? Are you going to argue that grass isn’t really green?
By the way, if utilitarianism is bunk, then how do YOU determine any kind of heirarchy of immorality. Does it say in the bible that baby torture is more immoral than stealing a postage stamp?
Do you have to check the bible before making such a prouncement? Or do you feel that you don’t need to, that baby torture is quite evidently the worse crime? If so, then I suspect you have another method of judgement, possibly an instinctive one, to determine that say, mass murder is worse than spitting in someone’s beer.
…does the bible tell you that slavery is worse than stealing a loaf of bread? No, because you know as well as I do that the bible advises only on the right way to keep your slaves. So when when you say that bread stealing is the lesser crime, on what do you base that?
You say that morals need to be fixed to prevent them changing with the whims of the populace. You ignore that if you’d had your way 500 years ago then the Christian interpretation of the biblical morals would be ‘fixed’ to include slavery, the death penalty for minor offences, and many other ideas we find horrifying today.
You can say ‘oh but now we’ve got it right, before we hadn’t!’. But for a start people have ALWAYS said that. For a second, that’s just your SUBJECTIVE opinion, isn’t it? Your interpretation of the bible is as subjective as anyone else’s.
You know that the bible in many places CONDONES slavery. Christian apologists claim this merely reflects the mores of the time the bible was written. But your claim is that biblical morality is unchanging, objective, i.e. not influenced by the mores of the time.
It was easy for slavers in the past to use the bible to justify what they did. When reformers, including Christians, began the campaign against slavery, it wasn’t the bible that changed – it was popular mores. If you’d had your way, their opinions would have been dismissed. Thank God (!) we’re able to move on and progress.
“You are being obtuse again – if you think that one person torturing another doesn’t fulfil the definition of the term ‘wicked’ then you need a new dictionary. What next? Are you going to argue that grass isn’t really green?”
Not at all, unless you try to convince me that the grass being green is only a matter of one’s opinion and not objectively true.
“…does the bible tell you that slavery is worse than stealing a loaf of bread? No, because you know as well as I do that the bible advises only on the right way to keep your slaves. So when when you say that bread stealing is the lesser crime, on what do you base that?”
You must not steal (Exodus 20:15). But even before that law was given, it was unlawful because God has written in upon our conscious and it judged us internally (Romans 1-2).
“Right, so in this case God is the dictator, and the laws could change on his whim. Thanks for clarifying.”
You either misunderstand the nature of God or you understand it and choose to redefine it as you wish it to be. Objective Moral Law in relation to God is not an external standard outside himself to which He must obey, nor is it a whim upon which one day he says this is right and then next day He says something else is right making Him out to be capricious. No, the Moral Law is understood to be a revealing of His very nature which, by definition is immutable. If His nature is immutable, then so is the Moral Law which is His revealed nature.
“You say that morals need to be fixed to prevent them changing with the whims of the populace. You ignore that if you’d had your way 500 years ago then the Christian interpretation of the biblical morals would be ‘fixed’ to include slavery, the death penalty for minor offences, and many other ideas we find horrifying today.
You can say ‘oh but now we’ve got it right, before we hadn’t!’. But for a start people have ALWAYS said that. For a second, that’s just your SUBJECTIVE opinion, isn’t it? Your interpretation of the bible is as subjective as anyone else’s.”
No, I don’t ignore it. That actually proves my point that they are objective. One can only be mistaken and wrong about objective realities. One what basis can we say that it was wrong in the past and it be a meaningful statement? On what basis can we claim true progress (change towards an ideal or better state and not simply change for the sake of change)? The fact that you are even saying these things assumes objectivity – a real Right and Wrong – a real external standard by which we know that we have made progress.
“One can only be mistaken and wrong about objective realities.”
So you don’t deny that if we’d stuck with ‘biblical morality’ as it was 500 years ago, we’d be stuck with the WRONG objective reality? How do you know that you’ve got it right now?
“You must not steal (Exodus 20:15). ”
I know that the bible says stealing is wrong! Well done for avoiding the question. I’m asking you where it says that raping and torturing babies is the greater crime than stealing a loaf of bread. If it doesn’t say anywhere in the bible that it is the greater crime, how do you know that it is?
“Not at all, unless you try to convince me that the grass being green is only a matter of one’s opinion and not objectively true.”
OK. So does torturing someone fulfil the definition of being wicked or not? If it doesn’t, then what do you think the word ‘wicked’ means?
You’ve completely painted yourself into a corner where ALL moral philosophy is contemptuously derided as ‘mere opinion’, and no morality can come from anywhere but your own interpretation of a TRANSLATION of a bronze age book written when slavery was permitted. You can’t even give me a rational reason for stating that raping and murdering babies is a greater crime than stealing a loaf of bread.
However, thanks to all of you for this informative insight into the mind of the American Christian. I’m starting to understand why murder levels are so high in your country, and why your own government condones torture.
Indeed Andrew. It is a sad state in this country…
Never mind JJ, apparently Obama’s an atheist or something. Perhaps America will once again become a moral power house under him.
Obama’s not an atheist. He’s actually a Christian; there’s an entire propaganda campaign set up by the extreme right in this country to smear him by saying things like “he’s a Muslim” or “he’s an atheist.” And as the introductory video on this site shows, Christians are afraid of everything and everyone that isn’t Christian, so sadly, “he’s an atheist” is considered derogatory to that effect.
Damn Christian propaganda….
Yeah Tim, I was joking!
Ah, my bad 0_0
Sorry, I just came from an ant-Obama propaganda site….
Tim, stay off those sites. The posters on them will lie and lie and lie, often pharasaically cloaking themselves in religion as they do so. The Chutzpah is astonishing.
I’m going to try posting this a third time for Frank:
My premise is that all the evidence you offer that there exists ‘objective moral value’ would exist whether there was a God or not. To show me otherwise you’ve got to show that now of the evidence would apply in a universe where God didn’t exist.
So imagine two universes. One in which God exists, one in which he doesn’t. Obviously you believe that the first is the one that we are in. Tell me how the second would differ from ours.
According to you, it would be such that the following would no longer work: “1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist, 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist., 3. Therefore, God exists.”
What would this ‘Godless universe’ world be like if ‘objective moral values’ did NOT exist? How would you tell, how would it differ from the world we live in today? If you can’t show me how it would be different and why, then it means you’ve started with an unfalsiable premise.
Hi Andrew,
I happen to know that Frank is tied up this week. That’s probably why no reponse yet. I am hesitant to jump in late in this thread also, and I don’t have time to read all the previous posts in detail. So, if you would rather not go back over old material, that’s fine. Also, if you would rather wait on Frank to respond, just let me know and I’ll bow out.
Nevertheless, I am curious about your objection. Do you think that objective moral values exist and God does not (or does not necessarily)? Please clarify. To my mind the problem is a grounding problem. If there is no God, where would something like objective morality come from? chemistry and physics? DNA? Objective morality implies a obligation and an “oughtness.” If objective morality exists then a moral lawgiver must exist. Is there another way?
Jeff
Jeff, first off you can only explain why objective morals are important if you start from the position that having them is a desirable thing. And you can only show they are desirable if you already have a concept of ‘desirable options’. If you already know THAT then you are admitting that consequences are important. And given that, we have a starting axion for assembling a system of ethics.
Furthermore, any discussion of morals BEGINS with the axion that morals are important. That’s pretty much an indivisible starting point. Questioning that very axiom is equivalent to asking why pain hurts or why pleasure in nice. Morality is by definition ‘doing the right thing’.
But let’s go there, down the path of asking why we should even ‘do the right thing in the first place’. Unfortunately this either brings you to a dead end, or with a circular argument.
Frank asks why we should back Mother Theresa over Hitler. He rejects as a reason that Hitler caused more unhappiness. So what’s your next move? You can seek an answer that allows you to pick Theresa – eg God – but if you’re going down the reductive route, why should that be preferable to an answer that allows you to pick Hitler? Or preferable to admitting that you can’t pick? Without the very Obj Morality that you’re trying to prove (and having rejected utilitarianism or other systems), why is it a problem if we can’t pick and call both equal?
So offering God doesn’t help, as on this reductive route you can’t explain why choosing God is better than choosing Satan. If it’s because one way leads to heaven, then you’re back with the very consequentialist argument that Frank wanted to avoid. And by now you’re in such a reductive loop that you have to then ask why one should attempt to pick the ‘better’ option. Why not pick the ‘worse’ option?
If you accept that the ‘better’ option is by definition ‘better’ then you should be able to accept that the moral option is by definition better. If you accept that backing God leads to a better outcome than picking Satan, then you allow that consequences play a role, in which case we’re back to where we started and you can assemble a system of ethics doesn’t require God.
But go back to my last post where I explain why Frank is making an unfalsifyable premise (sorry for sp error last time). If you lived in a world where our morality only came from ‘chemistry, physics, DNA’, than how would you expect it to be different?
Frank only offers strawmen of what he thinks science would predict. He says that rape would be permissable, but I’ve pointed out that this is incorrect. Rape is bad for the human race. One would expect the species to develop a sense of this being immoral. Ditto his other examples such as baby torture.
“Given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and morally neutral in the animal kingdom.”
You’re missing out three important words. Some of these might be natural and morally neutral in the [REST OF THE] animal kingdom. Missing out those words is a logical fallacy along the lines of the following.
‘We believe blue whales are as big as a house. However you claim that whales are just part of the animal kingdom. Given that the animal kingdom contains no [other] animals as big as a house, the natural conclusion is that whales aren’t as big as a house. Given that whales obviously ARE that big, that means whales aren’t part of the animal kingdom.
In other words, just because a quality is unique to a particular species, it doesn’t mean that it’s not in actual fact part of the animal kingom.