Board index ‹ Morality

[Scape211]

So I have recently been discussing the moral argument with various people. I of course take the stance that our basis for objective morals comes from God. However, those who believe in subjective morality say that we have created or established those lines and leave the rest to subjectivity. Is there a good way to refute that claim or are there studies or data done to show how those moral lines were established before we even step into society?

[jimwalton]

I will cut-and-paste several replies. Read down the thread to get them all to use as you wish. These should get you started. I have more.

[jimwalton]

From Ravi Zacharias (Jesus and Other Gods, pp. 112-116):

The skeptic accuses that God cannot exist because there is too much evil evident in life. They see no logical contradiction within their system since they do not have to prove that evil coexists with a good Creator. Evil exists, therefore the Creator does not. Simple, right?

But here Christianity provides a counterchallenge to remind them that they have not escaped the problem of contradiction. If evil exists, then one must assume that good exists in order to know the difference. If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil. But if a moral law exists, must not one posit an ultimate source of moral law, or at least an objective basis for a moral law? By an objective basis, I mean something that is transcendently true at all time, regardless of whether I believe it or not.

A typical response is, “Why can’t evolution explain our moral sense? We don’t need God.”

This is the latest approach by anti-theists who seek to explain good and evil apart from God. Why can’t is just be a pragmatic reality? It’s fascinating: They want a cause for suffering, or a design for suffering, but they have already denied that either of these is necessary to account for every effect.

The attempt to deny God because of the presence of evil is fraught with illogic. Not one proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal, amoral first cause through a non-moral process has produced a moral basis of life, while at the same time denying any objective moral basis for good and evil. It’s odd that of all the permutations and combinations that a random universe might afford we should end up with the notions of the true, the good, and the beautiful? In reality, why call anything good or evil? Why not call it orange or purple? That way, we settle it as different preferences.

The truth is that we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say no. We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore God must exist.

J.L. Mackie (atheist) granted this logical connection: “We might well argue...that objective intrinsically prescriptive features, supervenient upon natural ones, constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are most unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events, without an all-powerful God to create them.”

Joel Marks (atheist) says, “The long and the short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality. I call the premise of this argument 'hard atheism.' ... A 'soft atheist' would hold that one could be an atheist and still believe in morality. And indeed, the whole crop of 'New Atheists' are softies of this kind. So was I, until I experienced my shocking epiphany that the religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality.”

Therefore, the conclusion must be agreed upon that nothing can be intrinsically, prescriptively good unless there also exists a God who has fashioned the universe thus. But that is the very Being skeptics want to deny because of the existence of evil.

Only one option, then, is left. If evil is admitted, and an objective moral law might be possible, the explanation then becomes: In a world of blind physical forces, some people are going to get hurt just as some are going to get lucky, and there is no rhyme or reason in it, nor any injustice. There is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

But if the skeptic starts with a long list of horrific things, identifying them as evil, they are claiming a state of affairs that evolution cannot create. There is no way to arrive at a morally-compelling “ought,” given the assumptions of naturalism. What then does the skeptic do? He denies objective moral values because to accept such a reality would be to allow for the possibility of God’s existence. He concludes that there is no such thing as evil after all.

And this is supposed to be an answer? If DNA neither knows or cares, what is it that prompts our knowing and our caring? Computers don’t care; they don’t grieve.

To deny an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself. We can take offense at no action.

In effect, while seeking an answer to the question of evil, he ends up denying the question. If I hack a baby to pieces, have I done anything wrong? An atheist would HAVE to answer no.

“All denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind, and the modern skeptic doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. … As a politician he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then as a philosopher that all of life is a waste of time. … He goes to a political meeting and complains at being treated as a beast, and then goes to a scientific meeting where he claims all men are mere beasts. He is forever engaged in undermining his own mines.”

[jimwalton]

A quote from William Provine, a biology professor from Cornell University (written in Monopolizing Knowledge, by Ian Hutchinson, p. 111):

“Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society … We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us … finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived—the freedom to make un-coerced and unpredictable choices among alternative courses of action—simply does not exist … There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make moral choices.”

[jimwalton]

From J. Warner Wallace:

Are there are any truly objective transcendent moral laws? (even if you find one, it proves the point)

“Killing is never OK.” Not objectively true. There are exceptions: Self-defense, or protecting the life of an innocent.
“Lying is never OK.” Not objectively true. There are exceptions: Corrie ten Boom. Save yourself, or protecting the life of an innocent.
“Stealing is never OK.” Not objectively true. There are exceptions: Save yourself, or protecting the life of an innocent.

Are there any objective moral truths that we can bank on? Yes, if we add the expression “for the fun of it.” Then it’s wrong.

Killing for the mere fun of it is never OK.
Lying for the mere fun of it is never OK.
Stealing for the mere fun of it is never OK.
Torturing babies for the mere fun of it is never OK.
There is a vast difference between describing something and prescribing something. Describing is “what is” and “what is not.” Prescribing is “what ought to be” or “what ought not to be.”

If there is a right way to live, it must transcend you, or all is relative and the only definition of “right way to live” is my opinion; morals are mere opinions and evil is as valuable as virtue, and that's the best that evolution can produce. If that’s true (and every culture has their standards of virtue), in the end, who has a right to judge?

The United Nations is an organization formed to adjudicate between nations. Are morals subject to the vote of the majority? If that’s the case, you could never have a moral reformer (Mohandas Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr.), because a moral reformer is always in the minority.

At the Nuremberg trials, the German officers claimed that their culture championed this behavior as virtuous. But Robert Jackson, prosecutor there who later rose to being on the U.S. Supreme Court, said, “There is a law above the law.”
In a lie detector test, they ask test questions. Why does that work, when there is no shame, fear of punishment, or any consequences?

See Romans 2. We are all aware of an objective morality, even when we’re given permission to lie! Even when people are sociopaths. Even when it’s a test question.

[jimwalton]

From a completely secular source: Robert G. Olson, A Short Introduction to Philosophy (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967) p. 107

THE INADEQUACIES OF MORAL RELATIVITY

Morally responsible behavior is usually defined in contemporary philosophy as behavior for which the agent may legitimately be praised or blamed. Defined like this, the concept of moral responsibility is closely related to the concept of subjective right or wrong.

But what if morality is, instead, objective? If one holds the agent morally responsible and blames him, the agent will typically have recourse to one of three types of defense:

1. He may claim ignorance. “I didn’t know.”
2. He may claim that his motives were morally acceptable. “I meant well.”
3. He may claim to have been compelled to act as he did. “I didn’t have a choice.”

It’s legitimate to ask when someone is morally responsible for their behavior. If morality is subjective, a defense can always be legitimately claimed. If a person is ignorant, he cannot be held directly responsible. If a person means well, he believed he was performing a moral good, and he cannot be held directly responsible. It must also be questioned what qualifies as good moral motives (well being? human dignity? culturally-recognized moral law? morality of the majority?), and who gets to decide. And if the person is constrained, he cannot be morally responsible—only if the act was freely performed.

[Scape211]

Thanks Jim. Other thoughts:

I have always thought the basis for our morality is grounded by inherently knowing what is right and wrong because it is instilled in us from God (made in His image). Is this the correct way to think of morality? Or is it better to say God as the moral authority, His moral law is transcendent and we learn it from His nature and what we know of Him through history and the bible? Or do both play a part?

Also - I've always thought the data we have when viewing various civilizations and societies throughout time suggests a moral basis all subscribe to. Would that be accurate to say? I ask because people often use the case of morality becoming objective when it is shown to be effective in a society while still promoting the core ideal of being mutually beneficial for everyone. I suppose this falls more inline with the 'well-being' approach, but I just didn't know if we have data to suggest otherwise.

[jimwalton]

There are several problems with your assumptions:

1. There is no notion that the imago dei (the image of God) has any relationship with morality. First, is the image in us, or is it us? Second, many feel that the image of God is expressly stated in Genesis 1: to rule and subdue, i.e., that we are God's co-regents. Third, other perspectives on what that imago dei is range all over the map, with speculations touching just about every area of humanity. That the imago dei has anything to do with morality is simply not a position we can take any kind of firm stance on.

2. The concept of objective morality can be defined in different ways. A moral system could be designated objective if it finds its source outside of humanity (i.e., God). Another possible definition allows that such a system could be considered objective if it attempted to derive its components objectively (i.e., from pure reason) rather than subjective (from biased reason).

3. In either case, if someone believes there is objective morality, one has to determine where to get it. One cannot derive it from the Bible, however, because the Bible never does and never claims to provide a full moral system. And if we have to pick and choose which components we use, it is not objective.

4. Furthermore, if someone believes our concept of objective morality comes from our knowledge of the nature of God, we still come up short because God's revelation of his character is not thorough enough for us to derive a full morality. Even the glimpses of moral insight that the biblical texts contain do not carry the authority of God because the Bible is teaching us something other than a full moral system. (Don't get me wrong: The Bible carries the full authority of God. What it isn't authorizing is all the information we'd ever need to understand this complete picture of objective morality.)

5. The problem with deriving morality from the inherent conscience of humans is that there are too many gaps, ambiguities, and false places. The experiences of humans cannot transcend humanity. In the end, we have to pick and choose which human insights about nature or which human experiences of conscience will get on our list, and which will not.

Yes, morality (and objective morality) is in all these places, but all of them are incomplete, and therefore they can serve as the guide we desire. Regardless, we do believe in morality, and we do believe in objective morality. Pinning the latter down, however, is trickier than we might like.

We do have moral obligations, and we have every reason to think they are grounded in the character of God. But whether we can have a distinctly "Christian" morality (the ontology of right and wrong) may not be much different than thinking we can have a distinctly "Christian" cosmic geography (the characteristics of the universe). We believe that morality is necessarily part of the reality of being, just as the structures of the universe are part of the reality of being. We Christians may generate quite respectable moral codes and moral lists, and we know they come from our biblical understanding and our perception of the character of God. And yet at the same time we know we can't just study the Bible and make a complete list, confident that we have it all. We all know it doesn't work that way, but if it doesn't work that way, how does it work, and how do you know?

> I've always thought the data we have when viewing various civilizations and societies throughout time suggests a moral basis all subscribe to.

What data might that be, and what are those bases? If you study various civilizations and societies throughout time, what are the common elements to which you refer?

My brother makes this analogy: instead of conceiving of a moral system as analogous to laws, obedience, and crimes, it might be more helpful to conceive of morality as analogous to the category of health. In today's Western cultural river, few things are considered as important as good health, which requires vitamins, diet, exercise, nutrition, and numerous smaller factors. Doctors and researchers are constantly trying to determine what will lead to good health so they can pass those results on to a public that prioritizes that value above most others. Frustration can result when different studies produce different results. Even in today's climate of advanced research and understanding, people recognize the goal (good health) and pursue it aggressively, but it is still difficult to provide a complete list of specific guidelines for how that goal can be achieved. Furthermore, although some potential foods are universally recognized as dangerous (some poisonous mushrooms) and must always be avoided, others are dangerous to some (sugar for diabetics) but necessary for others (sugar for those who are hypoglycemic). No universal set of instructions exists that anyone anywhere could be given in order to achieve this goal of health. Further, when we visit the doctor, the doctor does not legislate how we ought to eat. The doctor will not inflict us with heart disease as punishment for failing to exercise. What the doctor does is provide us with knowledge about what we can do if we decide health is something we want. Further still, the advice the doctor gives one person may differ from the advice for another because these two people are in different contexts. Even though they are listening to the same doctor and trying to achieve the same goal of ideal health, the differing contexts may require them to go about obtaining their goal in different ways.

It would complete the matter significantly and prove utterly unreliable to try to look to the Bible to derive universally applicable principles for good health. God has offered no revelation about how to achieve good health, though no one would therefore conclude that good health was irrelevant, imaginary, or harmful.

(John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Torah, p. 163).

Morality is a worthy pursuit, and we believe that there is such a thing as objective morality, just as there is such a thing as good health. Looking to the Bible for a complete list only leads us to frustration, and while we assume God is the source of such, that doesn't help us with a list or necessarily with understanding either.

But of course God is interested in good health, just as He is interested in our morality. We have every reason to believe God is interested in our moral behavior. Of course He is—He gives us many such teachings and examples in the Bible. Finding specific Scriptures for all we want to say and for all we claim from the character of God is much more difficult not only to define but also to grasp.

[Scape211]

Very interesting stuff. I also found this article very interesting:

https://theconversation.com/morality-re ... -not-42411

The author of it clearly states they are not religious, but also shows how morality requires a god. I believe this is similar to Joel Marks who you referenced earlier.

[jimwalton]

Yes, that article is clearly in the same vein. Here are some other quotes by notable atheists:

Bertrand Russell: “The whole subject of ethics arises from the pressure of the community on the individual.”

J.L. Mackie: “If…there are…objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have…a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.”

Paul Draper: “A moral world is…very probable on theism.”

Richard Dawkins: “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Kai Nielsen: “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, must be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. … Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”


Here's another argument, this one from An Answer to Everyone, ed. By Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), p. 113:

"If morality is just the product of naturalistic evolution or cultural development or personal choice, then rights do not truly exist. But if they do exist and humans truly have value in and of themselves—regardless of what their culture says—, what is the basis of this value? Did this intrinsic value come from impersonal, nonconscious, unguided, valueless processes over time? The contextual fit is not a good one. A more natural fit is the theistic position.

"Given materialistic, impersonal, nonconscious, valueless, deterministic processes, the atheist is hard pressed to account for personal, self-conscious, valuable, morally responsible persons. Theism offers a better fit because personhood and morality are necessarily connected. That is, moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal being), no persons—and thus no moral values—would exist at all. The moral argument points to a personal, good Being to whom we’re responsible. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized or instantiated."

Don't expect any of these arguments to gain you traction in your discussion, though they're always worth putting out there. My experiences has been that those who argue against you will tenaciously hold to their position, despite all illogic, somehow justifying in their minds that morality is just fine as an evolved social construct and that nothing more is needed. They don't see it's simply an impossible and self-defeating position.