Let's Argue: The Moral Argument

We’re looking at several philosophical arguments for God’s existence.  First we looked at the Cosmological Argument, showing that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe.  Next we will look at the Moral Argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties.

Remember what we said about argumentation: a “good” argument is a series of statements, or premises, that lead to a conclusion.  These premises must be logically sound (the conclusion follows the premises by the rules of logic), and its premises are true.  Along with this, it must be shown that there is good reason to believe that what this argument is stating is true.

DEFINE THE TERMS

First we need to define what we mean by “objective moral values and duties.”

Objective as opposed to Subjective.  Objective means that they exist independent of opinions, belief systems, etc.  Subjective means they are dependent on these things.

Values = Good and Bad, having to do with something’s worth.

Duties = Right and Wrong, having to do with what we ought to do or ought not to do.  This has to do with moral obligation.

THE MORAL ARGUMENT

Now let’s look at the 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.

LET’S EXAMINE

Most people affirm the first two premises.

Premise 1:

God’s existence (not our belief in Him or lack thereof) constitutes our belief in objective moral values.  If God does not exist, how could there be moral values?  We would simply be the result of random evolutionary processes that have developed a subjective morality for biological and sociological reasons.  We would develop a subjective sense of morality because they would be beneficial for society.

But it would end there.  There could be no true objective morality.

Darwin himself asserts this.  Without the existence of God, there would be no objective moral values.  On the atheistic worldview, we are merely animals that are products of our environment.  This is the only other alternative we can turn to.

“If…men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.”  -Darwin, The Descent of Man

This means that nothing you do is really right or wrong, but is merely beneficial or not beneficial for society.  Without God being the cause of objective moral values, acts such as murder or rape would not be truly wrong, as nothing could be truly right or wrong.  They would merely be acts that we disapprove of as a society.  However, most would probably not agree with this assertion.  

Premise 2:

Although one might not believe in God, I think it’s difficult to claim that acts such as murder and rape aren’t truly wrong, but are acts that society just doesn’t seem to like.  I think all of us would say what the Nazis did in World War II is horrific and wrong, no matter what world or universe it would have occurred in!

Most of us also find it wrong to impose our belief systems on other people.  With this being the case, all of us would still agree that values such as open-mindedness, love, and tolerance are objective and that we ought to affirm these.  This also means that we ought not to force our beliefs on anyone else.  These are objective values that we hold to!

A contemporary example is what is currently happening in North Korea.  The international community believes that it is time to intervene in this country because of “the crimes against humanity.”  Even though one could argue that this has no effect on the world at large, we know that we have a moral obligation to act upon this atrocity.  It would be truly wrong to sit back and do nothing about this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-26220304

So we see that objective morals do exist.

Premise 3:

Being that we have affirmed that objective morality cannot exist without God, and we have affirmed that objective morals exist, we can conclude that God exists.

THE EUTHYPHRO DILEMMA

One might then ask this question: Is something good because God wills it?  Or does God will something because it is good?

In other words, are acts such as murder and rape wrong simply because God decided they should be?  What if he changed his mind and made rape ok?  Would this make rape ok?

Or, does God recognize that murder and rape are wrong, and then command us accordingly?

This dilemma seems to show that if something is good because God wills it, good is arbitrary and therefore not objective.  Or, if we say that God wills something because it is good, that means morality exists independent of God, which contradicts Premise 1. 

However, this dilemma does not consider a third possibility: God wills something because he is good.  This means that God’s character defines what is good.  In his own nature he is loving, kind, compassionate, etc.  His nature is the moral standard by which good and bad is determined.  God doesn’t decide what is right and wrong on a whim, causing good to be subjective and arbitrary.  God doesn’t “recognize” right and wrong, causing morality to exist independent of God.

Thus, although The Euthyphro Dilemma brings up a valid point, we see that it is defeated.  God’s own nature is the standard by which we measure objective moral values and duties.

FINAL THOUGHTS

We’ve seen that all these premises are true and follow logically.

God is the best explanation for the existence of moral values and duties.

Just like our other argument, this argument by itself is not enough to show that we should “give up everything and follow Jesus.”  This must be taken along with other arguments that we will continue to look at.  We can use these arguments to help us make an informed decision about God and Jesus.

“Instead, you must worship Christ as Lord of your life.  And if someone asks about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it,”  (1 Peter 3:15)

*Much of the above content was borrowed from Reasonable Faith.  For more see this resource:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god