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.
No comments:
Post a Comment