Transcript PowerPoint No.9 -- The Moral Argument

The Moral Proof
The Argument
1.)
There is an objective moral law
(i.e. a moral law that is binding on
everyone at all times and at all places).
(Premise)
2.)
If there is an objective moral law
binding on everyone at all times and at
all places, then God exists. (Premise)
3.)
Therefore, God exists. (from 1 &
2)
• The Challenge to Premise No. 1 – Moral
Relativism
– Moral Relativism is the claim that
moral truth is relative either to cultural
convictions or individual beliefs.
– Thus, the same activity, e.g. abortion,
can be morally impermissible for one
culture or individual and morally
permissible for another culture or
individual.
– Why do people claim to be Moral
Relativists?
• Over the centuries, various cultures
and individuals have subscribed to
incompatible moral visions.
• Unlike with disputes over questions
of fact, disputes over morality seem
irresolvable because there is no
way for one moral vision to gain
ascendancy over its competitors.
– Response to Moral Relativism
• People never live relativistically.
– Often, when they are in a nice,
warm philosophy class room, some
people claim they are moral
relativists.
– When, however, those same people
leave the philosophy classroom,
they do not live their lives as moral
relativists.
– They live their lives as moral
objectivists, especially when they
believe they have been wronged.
• People exaggerate differences
among cultures and individuals
– “If anyone will take the trouble to
compare the moral teachings of,
say, the ancient Egyptians,
Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese,
Greeks, and Romans, what will
really strike him will be how very
like they are to each other and to
our own . . . . Men have differed
as regards
– “what people you ought to be
unselfish to – whether it was
only your own family, or your
fellow countrymen, or
everyone. But they have
always agreed that you ought
not put yourself first.
Selfishness has never been
admired.”
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
– Lewis’s point is that people often
agree about moral principles, but
disagree on how, or to what
extent, they should apply.
– For example, both pro-choicers
and pro-lifers agree that murder
(i.e. the killing of an innocent
human being) is immoral.
– What they disagree about is
whether a fetus is an innocent
human being.
• People who seem to be advocating
moral relativism really are not.
– Take, for example, those who
advocate the view that individuals
should be allowed to live whatever
lifestyle suites them best.
» Now, these advocates don’t
mean that every lifestyle is
morally acceptable.
» No one argues that the lifestyle
of a mafia hit man is morally
acceptable.
– Usually the lifestyles these
advocates refer to have to do with
people living, without fear of any
sort of discrimination, lifestyles
consistent with their sexual
orientations.
» Still, there are limits even here.
» These advocates might claim
that two men or two women
have as much of a moral right
to marry each other as a man
and a woman.
» Very few of these advocates,
however, claim that
pedophiles have a similar
moral right to live a lifestyle
consistent with their sexual
orientation.
– What’s more, when these
advocates claim two men or two
women have a moral right to
marry, they are clearly making a
claim they take to be objectively,
universally true.
» Thus, they advocate, through
such organizations as the United
Nations, universal recognition of
gay rights.
» They advocate such recognition
even in cultures, e.g. Islamic
cultures, where such a concept
is totally alien and inconsistent
with the indigenous morality.
• Moral disputes do not go on forever.
Disputes over morality are resolved.
– Take, for example, the dispute that
took place in the USA over the
moral equality of the races.
– When the USA was founded there
was great disagreement over this
point, with those believing the
races to be morally equal in the
decided minority.
– After much anguishing, which
included fighting a civil war,
Americans have come to the moral
consensus that all races are
morally equal.
– Only very a few Americans
dissent from this moral
consensus, and those who do
are usually considered
crackpots.
– The issue of the moral equality
of the races is no longer an open
question in the USA.
• All people seem to acknowledge
the existence of a objective moral
law, even if they dispute its exact
nature and requirements.
– “Two things fill the mind with
ever new and increasing
admiration and awe, the oftener
and the more steadily we reflect
on them: The starry heavens
above me and the moral law
within me.”
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical
Reason
– “In the depths of his conscience,
man detects a law which he does
not impose on himself,
– “but which holds him to
obedience. Always summoning
him to love good and avoid evil,
the voice of conscience, when
necessary, speaks to his heart:
Do this! Shun that!”
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Gaudium et Spes, No. 16
– “If we ask someone to survey
the starry heavens above and he
or she responds ‘What starry
heavens?’, we judge that person
– “to be blind, irrational, or
otherwise lacking in a certain
faculty present in normal people.
Similarly, we would certainly
entertain serious doubts about
someone who appears utterly
oblivious to moral duty and
responsibility. Like the starry
heavens above, moral law is just
there; it is given.”
Ed L. Miller, God and Reason: An
Invitation to Philosophical Theology, p.
90
– Given all of the considerations
discussed above, it seems that
everyone acknowledges at least
some objective moral norms.
– To be sound, the Moral Proof needs
there to be only one objective moral
norm.
• The challenge to Premise No. 2 – why
is God necessary for there to be an
objective moral law?
– An objective moral law needs an
adequate foundation.
– Why, someone might ask, is it that
only God can serve as an adequate
foundation for an objective moral law?
– Isn’t there, asks the critic, any other
possibly adequate foundation?
– Could evolution provide an adequate
foundation?
• Objective moral law as “herd
instinct.”
– “The position of the modern
evolutionist . . . is that humans
have an awareness of morality . .
. because such an awareness is
of biological worth. Morality is a
biological adaptation no less
than are hands and feet and
teeth . . . . Morality is just an aid
to survival and reproduction, . . .
and any deeper meaning is
illusory . . . .”
Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and
Christian Ethics”
– Ruse, however, also claims “[t]he
man who says that it is morally
acceptable to rape little children is
just as mistaken as the man who
says 2+2=3.”
Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended
– But, how can this be, if objective
moral law is nothing more than a
herd instinct?
– In other words, can any being
endowed with thought and choice
be absolutely bound by a herd
instinct?
– To illustrate why the answer is
“No,” philosopher John Hick asks
us to imagine an ant suddenly
endowed with thought and choice:
» “Suppose [the ant] to be called
upon to immolate himself for
the sake of the ant-hill. He
feels the powerful pressure of
instinct pushing him towards
this self-destruction. But, he
asks himself why he should
voluntarily . . . carry out
» “the suicidal programme to
which instinct prompts him?
Why should he regard the future
existence of a million million
other ants as more important to
him than his own continued
existence . . . ? [S]urely, in so far
as he is free from the
domination of the blind force of
instinct, he will opt [and should
opt] for life – his own life.”
John Hick, Arguments for the
Existence of God
– Defenders of the moral proof claim
that an objective moral law requires a
Lawgiver who is superior, in every
way, to those who are bound by it.
• “A duty is something that is owed . .
. . But, something can be owed only
to some person or persons. There
can be no such thing as duty in
isolation . . . . The idea of political
or legal obligation is clear enough .
. . . Similarly, the idea of an
obligation higher than this,
• “and referred to as moral obligation,
is clear enough, provided reference
to some lawmaker higher . . . . than
those of the state is understood. In
other words, our moral obligations
can . . . be understood as those
that are imposed by God. This
does give a clear sense to the
claim that our moral obligations are
more binding upon us than our
political obligations . . . . But, what if
this higher-than-human lawgiver is
• “no longer taken into account?
Does the concept of a moral
obligation . . . still make sense . . . ?
[T]he concept of moral obligation
[is] unintelligible apart form the idea
of God. The words remain, but
their meaning is gone.”
Richard Taylor, Ethics, Faith, and Reason
• Famous atheists concede that
objective moral law requires that
God be the Lawgiver.
– “[I]t is very distressing that God
does not exist, because all
possibility of finding values in a
Heaven of ideas disappears
along with Him . . . . [A]s a result,
man is forlorn, because neither
within him nor without does he
find anything to cling to . . . . If
God does not exist, we find no
values or commands to turn to
which legitimize our conduct.”
Jean Paul Sartre, “Existentialism”
» As the quote indicates,
since he believed that an
objective morality can be
grounded only in God and
since he also believed God
does not exist, Sartre
believed that human life is
absurd and meaningless.
» This is why he said man is
forlorn.
• One can ask: Does the Lawgiver
who stands the behind the
objective moral have to be the
maximally perfect God of Classical
Theism?
– Perhaps not, but clearly he
would have to be very similar.
– To construct a law objectively
and universally binding on all
humans, the Lawgiver would
clearly have to be very wise and
very good.
– Also, the matter of the ultimate
enforcement of the objective
moral law suggests the
Lawgiver must be very
powerful.
– Defenders of the Moral Proof
maintain that it makes sense to
claim humans are absolutely bound
to obey the objective moral law, only
if, ultimately, everyone gets his/her
just desserts.
• “[Immanuel] Kant . . . builds his
argument for the existence of God
on . . . the observed disparity
between moral worthiness and the
possession of happiness. If the
universe is a truly moral place, then
God must exist as an omnipotent
Being capable of ensuring a just
relation (if not in this world, then in
the next) between moral worthiness
and the attainment of its reward.”
Ed. L. Miller, God and Reason: An Invitation
to Philosophical Theology, p. 92
• As Miller indicates, Kant, along with
the other defenders of the moral
proof, maintain that the objective
moral law requires not only the
existence of God but also the
existence of an afterlife.
– It is clear that not everyone gets
his/her just deserts in this life.
– But, for it to make sense that
there is a objective moral law,
ultimately, everyone must get
his/her just desserts.
– Thus, there must be a life after
this one in which everyone does
get his/her just desserts.
– “If there is no immortality, then
all things are permitted.”
Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers
Karmazov
• It’s not, say the defenders of the
moral proof, that you can’t trust
people to do the right thing when
they have no fear of Hell.
• It’s that it does not make any sense
to do anything other than exactly
what you want to do, if you never
have to account for what you do.
– “Somebody might say that it is in
our best self-interest to adopt a
moral life-style. But, clearly, that
is not always true: We all know
situations in which self-interest
runs smack in the face of
morality. Moreover, if one is
sufficiently powerful,
– “like a Ferdinand Marcos or a
Papa Doc Duvalier or even a
Donald Trump, then one can
pretty much ignore the dictates of
conscience and safely live in selfindulgence.”
William Lane Craig, “The
Indispensability of Theological MetaEthical Foundations for Morality”
– “[If there is no afterlife or God,]
[t]here is no objective reason why
man should be moral, unless
morality ‘pays off’
– “in his social life or makes him ‘feel
good.’ There is no objective
reason why man should do
anything save for the pleasure it
affords him.”
Stewart C. Easton, The Western Heritage
– A critic of the Moral Proof might raise
the Euthyphro problem.
• A problem for all God based
moralities.
• The problem was first raise by Plato
in his dialogue The Euthyphro.
• To wit: Is something good because
God wills it, or does God will
something because it is good?
• Neither possibility is appealing.
– If the first possibility is correct,
then the objective moral law is
totally arbitrary.
– If the second possibility is correct,
then God really isn’t the ground of
the objective moral law because
there is something beyond even
Him by which He is bound.
• Response to the Euthyphro
Problem
– “God’s own holy and perfectly
good nature supplies the
absolute standard against which
all actions and decisions are
measured . . . . He is the locus
and source of moral value. He is
by nature loving, generous, just,
faithful, kind, and so forth.
Moreover, God’s moral nature is
expressed in relation to us
– “in the form of divine commands
which constitute our moral duties or
obligations. Far from being
arbitrary, these commands flow
necessarily from His moral nature . .
. . On this foundation we can affirm
the objective goodness and
rightness of love, generosity, selfsacrifice, and equality, and condemn
as objectively evil and wrong
selfishness, hatred, abuse,
discrimination, and oppression.”
William Lane Craig, “The Indispensability of
Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality”
• Final Thought
– “If God does not exist, then it is plausible
to think that there are no objective moral
values, that we have no moral duties, and
that there is no moral accountability for
how we live and act. The horror of such a
morally neutral world is obvious. If . . . we
hold, as it seems rational to do, that
objective moral values and duties do
exist, then we have good [if not
conclusive] grounds for believing in the
existence of God.”
William Lane Craig, “The Indispensability of
Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality”