Transcript How do we know what is good from evil?

How do we know
what is good from evil?
An introductory Survey to
the Moral Law Argument
www.prshockley.org
Consider the following quote:
“The most important human endeavor is the
striving for morality in our actions. Our inner
balance and even our very existence depend on
it. Only morality in our actions can give
beauty and dignity to life.” Albert Einstein.
Moral Absolutism:
Biblical Christianity embraces moral absolutism which
posits the following beliefs:
1.
Absolute standards against which moral questions are
evaluated;
2.
Certain actions are considered right or wrong;
3.
Opposed to philosophical and moral relativism (all
truths are relative to social, cultural, historical
constructs, paradigms, or preferences;
4.
The infinite-personal God is the source of moral
absolutism;
5.
Moral laws are discoverable and knowable regardless
of time, place, or context.
What do we mean by Moral Absolutes?
1.
Moral obligation is a duty that is good in itself.
2.
It is something we ought to pursue, a duty.
3.
Morality is prescriptive (an “ought”), not merely descriptive (an “is”).
4.
Morality deals with what is right, as opposed to what is wrong.
5.
It is an obligation, that for which a person is accountable.
6.
It is demoralizing not to obey these moral absolutes.
What do we mean by Moral Absolutes?
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of
right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct:
religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
What do we mean by Moral Absolutes?
An absolute duty is one that is binding
on all persons at all times in all places.
Moral absolutists believe that a moral absolute
involves three qualities:
1. Is objective (not subjective) - a duty for all
persons;
2. Is eternal (not temporal) - a duty at all times;
3. Is universal (not local) - a duty for all places.
Now, let’s turn to the moral law argument:
The Moral Law Argument:
The belief in an objective moral law finds
expression in Judaism (Amos 1; Tosefta; Cain’s
defensive response to God after murdering Abel
in Genesis). In the N.T. the moral law is
articulated in Romans 2:12-15 in which
humanity is said to stand unexcused since there
is “a law written on the hearts.” Moral laws
don’t describe what is, they prescribe what ought
to be. In the early writings of the early church
fathers (even in Origen’s Commentary of
Romans) this view is taught.
The Moral Law Argument:
1. Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.
2. There is an objective moral law.
3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.
There exists an objective moral law:
What if someone denies objective moral
laws?
Consider the following eight points:
Have you ever been done wrong?
1. Absolutes are undeniable. Consider…we
know right from wrong best by our reactions
to wrongs committed against us (e.g., criminal
acts of Dahmer; stealing my car).
Is there any action or
event that is universally
unjust?
2. We wouldn’t know injustice
if there was no absolute sense
of justice (you only know
something is wrong by
comparing it to an
unchanging standard of what
is right); it is the unchanging
standard or basis of justice.
The Standard of Justice
[As an atheist] my argument
against God was that the
universe seemed so cruel
and unjust. But how had I
got this idea of just and
unjust? A man does not call
a line crooked unless he
has some idea of a straight
line. What was I comparing
this universe with when I
called it unjust?
C.S. Lewis
Mere Christianity, p 45.
Straight Line = Standard
Is every moral issue
just an opinion?:
3. Real moral
disagreements would not
be possible without the
Moral Law. Every moral
issue would be a matter
of opinion if you deny
objective morality.
Can you measure
moral judgments?
4. Everything can’t be relative
if there is nothing to be
relative to. There must be
some independent standard
otherwise nothing could be
measured (e.g., Nuremberg
Trials).
Any self-defense
mechanism will do.
5. We would not
make excuses for
breaking the
Moral Law if it
didn’t exist.
How do you know?
•
6. We wouldn’t know the
world was getting worse
(or better) if there was no
moral law.
Is it ever right to
disobey govt.?
7. The Moral Law is the
“prescriptive” basis for
political and social
dissent.
Is there any moral
judgment that is always
right?
8. Therefore, since we
know what’s absolutely
wrong, there must be an
absolute standard or
basis of rightness.
We know it, but we can deny it.
It seems then we are forced to
believe in a real Right and
Wrong. First, human beings all
over the earth have this curious
idea that they ought to behave
in a certain way. Second, they
do not in fact behave in that
way. The truth is, we believe in
decency so much that we
cannot bear to face the fact that
we are breaking it, and
consequently we try to shift the
C.S. Lewis
responsibility.
Mere Christianity, p 21.
Other Expressions of
The Moral Law Argument:
Hastings Rashdall
1858-1924
English Philosopher
at Oxford University.
Embraced (and was the
first to use the term)
Ideal
Utilitarianism.
1858-1924, English
Philosopher, Fellow at Oxford
& ideal Utilitarian.
Other Expressions of
The Moral Law Argument:
Ideal Utilitarian is an
ethical theory that denies
that the exclusive concern
is the consequential
maximization of pleasure.
Other things have intrinsic
value such as beauty and
friendship which should be
sought while pain, hatred,
and appetites that lead to
destructive behaviors
should be rejected.
1858-1924, English
Philosopher, Fellow at Oxford
& ideal Utilitarian.
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall
(1858-1924):
Beginning with the objectivity of the moral law, Rashdall reasons
to an absolutely perfect Mind:
1.
An absolutely perfect moral ideal exists (at least
psychologically in our minds).
2.
An absolutely perfect moral law can exist only if there is an
absolutely perfect moral Mind:
(a) Ideas can exist only if there are minds (thoughts depend on
thinkers).
(b) And absolute ideas depend on an absolute Mind (not on
individual [finite] minds like ours).
3.
Hence, it is rationally necessary to postulate an absolute Mind
as the basis for the absolutely perfect moral idea.
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:
Rashdall’s argument for the objectivity of the absolute moral
ideas is argued this way:
1.
Morality is generally understood as objectively binding.
2.
Mature minds understand morality as being objectively binding
(i.e., binding on all, not just some).
3.
Moral objectivity is a rationally necessary postulate (because
something cannot be judged as better or worse unless there is
an objective standard of comparison).
4.
Objective moral ideals are practically necessary to
postulate.
The Moral Law Argument by Hastings Rashdall:
Rashdall’s argument for the objectivity of the absolute moral
ideas is argued this way:
If an objective moral law exists independent of
individual minds, then it must ultimately come from
a Mind that exists independently of finite minds. It is
rationally necessary to postulate such a Mind in
order to account for the objective existence of this
moral law.
Moral Law Argument according to
Dr. W. R. Sorley:
William Ritchie Sorley
1855-1935
British Idealist;
Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy in the
University of Cambridge;
Author of A History of British Philosophy to
1900.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
British idealism is generally distinguished by several ideas:
1.
A belief in an Absolute (a single allencompassing reality that in some sense formed a
coherent and all-inclusive system);
2.
3.
A high view of reason as both the faculty by
which the Absolute's structure is grasped and as that
structure itself;
A rejection of a dichotomy between thought and
object. Rather, reality consisting of thought-andobject together in a strongly coherent unity.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
Introduction to Sorley’s argument:
1.
It depends on the objectivity of the
moral law.
2.
Since there exists a moral ideal prior to,
superior to, and independent of all finite
minds, there must be a supreme moral
Mind from which this moral ideal is
derived.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
1.
There is an objective moral law that is independent of human
consciousness of it and that exists in spite of human lack of
conformity to it:
(a) Persons are conscious of such a law beyond themselves;
(b) Persons admit its validity is prior to their recognition of it;
(c) Persons acknowledge its claim on them, even while not
yielding to it;
(d) no finite mind completely grasps its significance;
(e) all finite minds together have not reached complete
agreement on its meaning, nor conformity with its ideal.
The Moral Law Argument by W. R.Sorley:
“
2.
But ideas exist only in minds.
3.
Therefore, there must be a supreme Mind (beyond all
finite minds) in which this objective moral law exists.
Moral Law Argument according to
Dr. David Elton Trueblood:
Popular 20th Century American Quaker,
philosopher, & Evangelical theologian.
Chaplain to both Harvard & Stanford
University.
Senior advisor to President David
Eisenhower; close friends with
President Hoover.
Founder of the Yokefellow Movement
Author of 33 books including the Humor of
Christ, The Predicament of Modern
Man, Abraham Lincoln: Theologian of
American Anguish; Trustworthiness of
Religious Experience
The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:
1.
There must be an objective moral law; otherwise:
(a) There would not be such great agreement on its meaning.
(b) No real moral disagreements would ever have occurred,
each person being right from his own moral perspective.
(c) No moral judgment would ever have been wrong, each
being subjectively right.
(d) No ethical question could ever be discussed, there being no
objective meaning to any ethical terms.
(e) Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites
could be equally correct.
The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:
2.
This moral law is beyond individual persons and beyond
humanity as a whole:
(a) It is beyond individual persons, since they often sense a
conflict with it.
(b) It is beyond humanity as a whole, for they collectively
fall short of it and even measure the progress of the whole
race by it.
The Moral Law Argument by Elton Trueblood:
3.
This moral law must come from a moral Legislator because:
(a) A law has no meaning unless it comes from a mind; only
minds emit meaning.
(b) Disloyalty makes no sense unless it is to a person, yet
people die in loyalty to what is morally right.
(c) Truth is meaningless unless it is a meeting of mind with
mind, yet people die for the truth.
(d) Hence, discovery of and duty to the moral law make sense
only if there is a Mind or Person behind it.
4.
Therefore, there must be a moral, personal Mind behind this
moral law.
The Moral Law Argument by Linda Zagzebski:
An argument from moral order.
Dr. Zagzebski is Linda is
Kingfisher College Chair of the
Philosophy of Religion and
Ethics & George Lynn Cross
Research Professor at
University of Oklahoma.
Author of approx. 8 books
including Virtues of the Mind
Faith.
President of the Society of
Christian Philosophers; 2004-7.
The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Zagzebski:
Zagzebski's version is rooted in the idea that
naturalism entails moral skepticism.
1.
Morality is a rational enterprise.
2.
Morality would not be a rational if moral skepticism
were true.
3.
There is much too much unresolved moral
disagreement for us to suppose that moral skepticism
can be avoided if human sources of moral knowledge
are all that we have.
4.
Therefore we must assume that there is an extrahuman, divine source of moral wisdom.
A Practical Moral Law Argument
by Dr. Robert Adams
If there is no source of moral order morality will collapse. In other
words, morality cease to be a sustainable enterprise.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
It would be demoralizing not to believe there is a moral order
to the universe.
Demoralization is morally undesirable.
There is a moral advantage in believing that there is a moral
order in the universe.
Theism provides the best theory of the source of moral order.
Therefore there is a moral advantage in accepting theism.
(Adams, Virtues of Faith, 151) .
A Practical Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas
Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.
In essence, Douglas Drabkin argues that the moral
problems and ills that would afflict humanity if there
was no God give justification to pause and seriously
investigate, not for the belief that there is a God, but
whether one's reasons for rejecting belief in God has
been carefully thought out.
The Moral Law Argument by Dr. Douglas
Drabkin: Atheism is demoralizing.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Morality demands that we ought to aspire to become as good
as we can be.
If there is no source of moral order in the world, then the
project of becoming as good as we can be is fraught with
difficulties.
These difficulties would be taken away if we were assured of
the truth of theism.
Therefore we have a moral reason for getting ourselves in a
state whereby we can come to be believe in the truth of theism.
(Drabkin, “A moral argument for undertaking theism”, 169)
The Moral Law Argument by William Lane Craig in debate with
Paul Kurtz titled, Goodness without God is good enough
which took place at Franklin & Marshall College, Oct. 24, 2001.
1.
If the Theist is wrong, this doesn’t mean the humanist is right by
default. Nihilism must be considered as well. Nihilism says there is
no basis for morality.
2.
If Theism is true, then we have a sound foundation for morality.
a. If Theism is true, then we have an objective basis for moral values.
b. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral duties.
c. If Theism is true, then we have objective moral accountability.
3.
If Theism is false, then there is no sound foundation for morality.
a. If Theism is false, then why think human values are special?
b. If Theism is false, then where is the basis for objectivity duty?
c. If Theism is false, then what is the basis for moral accountability?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Robert, The Virtue of Faith, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987) 144163;
Budziszewski, J., Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (Downer’s Grove:
InterVarsity Press), 1997.
Drabkin, Douglas, 1994, “A moral argument for undertaking theism”, American
Philosophical Quarterly, 31: 169-175 .
Geisler, Norman L.: Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids,
Mich. : Baker Books, 1999 (Baker Reference Library), 498-99.
______ & Frank Turek: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist (Wheaton:
Crossway, 2004), 169-83.
Linda Zagzebski, “Does ethics need God?”, Faith and Philosophy (1987) 4: 294-303.