Sunday, August 7, 2016

The Argument (for the existence of God) from Objective Morality - Does Qualia Soup defeat it?



The Argument from Objective Morality is one of the most popular arguments for the existence of God that is used by Christian apologists.  The youtube site “Qualia Soup”, hereafter referred to as just QS, has a 3 part video series on morality.  Part 1 is on evils committed by religious people and Part 2 is on the evils of “religious books”.  Both of these can be responded to and I may do so in future articles but my focus here will be on the argument from objective morality and only Part 3 deals with it.

The Argument from Objective Morality is explained in this video:

The argument is as follows:
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.

The 3 part video series by QS can be found here:

Part 3, which I will be evaluating, begins at the 27:48 mark.

QS does not dispute the logical validity of the argument – that is that the conclusion (3) necessarily follows from the premises (1 and 2) if they are true.  QS goes after both 1 and 2 to show they are not or cannot be true.

QS argument against objective values
QS, first, deals with the definition of objective moral values, as used by prominent Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig, hereafter referred to as WLC.  The definition that WLC uses is that to say that something has objective moral value is to say that it has good or bad value independent of whether anyone believes it to be so.  It would be to say that it is not a result of opinion, which would be subjective.

QS argues against this idea by saying that if two people perform an action with one thinking it evil and the other having no sense of evil (i.e. they are ignorant of it) we don’t accept their harmful behavior but we don’t call it evil.  That is not true.  In our society the acts are still deemed as evil acts but the punishment may be altered given a person’s ignorance of the crime, possibly for reasons called insanity.  Murder is still deemed murder but may carry a lesser degree in the sentence.1 

QS also argues that if good and evil are independent of anyone’s beliefs about it then it is unintelligible.  QS states “To say that some things have unevaluated value becomes unintelligible”.  Should we believe that statement to be true?  Are things true or false only if they can be evaluated?  I don’t think so.  Consider 2+2=4.  Would that mathematical statement be true even if nobody ever thought about it?  I think it would.  QS may object and say that evaluating math concepts and moral concepts cannot be treated the same.  Why not?  Suppose the world was coming to an end and there was just one person left.  Would the idea that it would be wrong to murder still be true?  I think so.  Despite the inability to carry out a murderous act or even think about it, it would still be a wrong act.

WLC points out in his presentation of the Argument from Objective Morals that the animal kingdom is morally neutral (amoral).  When one animal kills another it kills it but it does not murder it.  It has done no evil act.  If humans are just more advanced species than the rest of the animals, to think humans actions have good or bad value would then be a demonstration of speciesism.  QS objects, stating, “our greater capacity for moral reflection is not ‘unjustifiable bias’.  It is a relevant difference”.  This seems to miss the point though.  Our greater capacity for moral reflection is an issue of epistemology (i.e. how we come to know things) but the Argument from Objective Morality is about ontology (i.e. the existence of things).  WLC’s point is that if the animal kingdom is amoral and humans are just more advanced via evolution then why should we not think humans are amoral as well if there is no objective standard?

QS argues that values come from “what we judge morally valuable or important”.  This concept, when actually carried out, has led to some of the most oppressive and destructive societies the world has ever seen.  History is full of societies that have abused various sects of people because the ruling party did not deem others to be morally valuable or important.  A subjective base for morality is dangerous.

QS argues that “given ‘Sufficiently specified standards’ – It will be an objective issue…how well any particular specimen measures up to those standards.  The choice of standards is not objective but is not arbitrary.”  This is just moving the target.  Objectively determining if a non-objective standard is measured up to works fine when we are talking about how well an athlete performs in a given set of rules for an athletic event but when the playing field is the moral landscape of humanity it doesn’t get one out of the problems of a subjective framework – problems which would be that it is left to majority rule or most powerful rule.  QS rightly points out that majority rule or most powerful rule does not establish an objective moral framework.  In fact, within the athletic analogy we only need to look at instances where a player has not only committed a foul within the rule of the given game they are in but also stepped out of bounds of the moral standard.  Society does not view their actions as having just violated a current subjective standard but that they have done something that is wrong period!  For example, when Metta World Peace (aka Ron Artest) elbowed a player in the head in a playoff game it was viewed as something that was wrong, not just in the game but in life.2  For the Oklahoma City fans it was probably equivalent to the unpardonable sin.  I, being a long time Laker fan, was able to forgive him. :)

QS argument against objective duties
QS’s first objection to objective moral duties is the same as one of its objections to objective moral values – that if it exists independent of any persons knowledge then it is unintelligible, or in this case QS says that it “has no purchase”.  My response to that objection is the same as my response in the objective values section above.  Here QS says that as our knowledge increases our understanding of our moral duties may change.  QS establishes a measuring device here – a “protective attitude”.  But why think this “protective attitude” is a duty or something a moral duty should sprout from?  The Argument from Objective Morality posits a reason why we could use a “protective attitude” as a measuring device but absent an objective morality it is just arbitrary.  Some may argue that it is reasoned to but if it involves reasoning to a subjective standard, it is still at its roots, arbitrary.

QS refers to David Hume to state that we can’t get an “ought” from an “is”.  That is a statement that Christian apologists agree with.  QS continues, though, to illustrate Hume’s view that evil isn’t a feature of murder but a judgement arising from sentiment.3  Supposing a non-objective framework I would agree with Hume that this is what it would have to be – sentiment.  It would just be a feeling but nothing really evil about murder and that feeling could vary from person to person.  But is that how we treat murder?  No, we treat it as if it is really wrong – not just a feeling for some people.

QS states that “If I want others to not hurt me”, “to avoid hypocrisy”, “this obliges me not to hurt them”.  This is a behavior rule we can all agree with but it still does not set a right and wrong.  In fact, it is saying that it is not really wrong to hurt someone unless you want to avoid hypocrisy but that just moves the question of why, given a non-objective framework, is it wrong to hurt someone to the question of why, given a non-objective framework, is it wrong to be a hypocrite?  QS says that this is a preference and that when we dissect all moral obligations we find some element of preference.  Is this true?  If we assume a non-objective framework then, yes, it is necessarily true - but what about God as an objective foundation for morals?  Morals as part of the nature of an uncreated, necessary being would not be based on a preference.

QS notes WLC’s use of St. Anselm’s concept of God as the ‘greatest conceivable being’.  Here QS goes on to make a refute of Anselm’s Ontological Argument but WLC does not use the Ontological argument as part of the reasoning in the Argument from Objective Morality.  WLC simply uses the ‘greatest conceivable being’ concept as the definition of God and we can reason to what some of the necessary qualities would be for this ‘greatest conceivable being’. 

We can actually start with premise two of the Argument from Objective Morality – if it is true then we can responsibly ask what would be required for this objective standard to exist.  It would require that it not be an opinion; it could not be arbitrary; it would have to be unchanging; it would have to be necessary; we could even rightfully argue that it would have to be good in nature.  All of these are qualities commonly attributed to God so that if objective morals actually exist then it would follow that God must exist.

QS then makes an argument that if we had to choose a model for morals it wouldn’t be the God of “ancient scriptures” since that God “violates principles we hold to be most basic”.  What are these “most basic” principles if not an objective standard?  It seems that in trying to defeat an objective standard QS is appealing to one.  Furthermore, ancient scriptures such as The Bible are irrelevant to the Argument from Objective Morality.  While I believe The Bible to be true and The word of God and a good source to learn morals from and that it can be defended; it is not part of this argument and can be dealt with elsewhere.

I have not addressed point by point each of QS’s arguments but I believe what I have refuted covers them all, i.e. in some cases an individual refute of mine covered multiple points by QS.  I believe the Argument from Objective Morality remains a valid and strong argument for the existence of God.

At the end of the video QS states a part 4 will be coming out that will explain the “origins and components of a more well rounded morality”.  I searched for that video but could not find it on the QS youtube site.
Notes

3.       I did not take the time to review Hume’s statements that QS refers to.  It sounds correct to my recollection but if it is not, my response is to QS’s presentation of Hume’s views and not necessarily Hume’s view if they differ.

Bill Clute is the Greenville, SC chapter director for Reasonable Faith.  He works as an IT professional with a degree in Computer Systems from the University of North Carolina-Asheville where he was also a member of the basketball team.  He has also been a professional airshow pilot and now flies a plane which was built from scratch by he and his father.