Before discussing this topic any further, I would
like to identify what I mean by “objective”.
“Objective” is being used with the meaning of, “independent of human
opinion”. For example, the Holocaust during
WWII was objectively bad despite whether the Nazis felt what they were doing
was objectively good. The reality is that it is objectively wrong to murder
innocent people. To illustrate another example;
murder, rape, torture, theft, adultery, and lying are also objectively
wrong. Those that participate in those
activities would be objectively wrong regardless of whether they think they are
doing something morally right.
Now that “objective” has been identified in its
proper context, it is now time to lay the foundation for the objectivity of
morals in relationship to the existence of God. This argument is called; “the
Moral Argument” and the premises are laid as follows:
1)
If God
does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2)
Objective
moral values and duties do exist
The further discussion will highlight the elements
of the argument that make it effective and philosophically compelling. In
addition to highlighting the elements of the argument, I’ll also evaluate the
most common objections to the moral argument while laying out a comprehensive
assessment of their shortcomings.
Affirmation
of Objective Moral Values and Duties
This is a powerful argument among Christians today
because a majority of people of all worldviews affirm the existence of
objective moral values and duties. The reason for wanting to affirm objective
moral values and duties is evident to anyone who has gone through a terrible
tragedy or has ever been exposed to tragic events such as the terror attacks on
9/11, the Holocaust during WWII, the Columbine High School shooting, the recent
shooting in a movie theater in Aurora, CO, and the like.
You may wonder why all people (atheists and theists)
desperately want to affirm objective moral values and duties. You may ask, “Why is that important?” I think
this is best illustrated when we look at the moral argument with the assumption
that God does not exist. Given that
we’re assuming that God does not exist, we then find ourselves in a world that
does not have objective moral values and duties. Any morals that we observe among society
would be the incidental byproduct of biological evolution and societal
conditioning that has developed within our species to assist humanity in its
survival. If we witnessed each other
performing seemingly good deeds within our society, it wouldn’t be because it
was objectively good. It would be
because our embedded natural instinct is to help each other in order to propagate
our species. By the same token, if we were
to observe someone in the act of murder; they wouldn’t be acting objectively
immoral. They would simply be acting unfashionably according to their social
structure and we could identify that action as being counter-productive in the
propagation of human species.
The reasons for this lack of moral objectively in a
universe with no God is specifically identified by its lack of foundation in
which to ground moral values and duties, thereby nothing can be considered
objectively good or bad. A competent authority is needed to establish these
objective moral foundations[2]. The atheistic worldview does not allow for
objective moral values and duties because it lacks God, which is the competent
authority needed to establish objective moral values and duties.
Misusing
“Good”
However, there are critiques posed upon this
argument which conclude that objective moral values and duties are also
attainable under atheism. A prominent atheist by the name of Sam Harris authored
the book, “The Moral Landscape”, and dedicated it to proving the notion that
you don’t need God to have objective moral values and duties. He is very creative in his argument; however
it falls quite short from fully justifying how atheism begins to reconcile
objective moral values and duties while being in a Godless universe.
It is creative because Harris uses the English
language to manipulate the meaning of “good”.
He plays a rousing game of semantics with the term, “good”. Meaning, he is not using the term “good” to
mean moral good. He often uses the term
“good” to mean something related to the flourishing of sentient life[3]. In order to identify the differences between
the word “good” in the moral context and the context that refers to “good” as
the flourishing of sentient life, I’ll illustrate the point with some examples.
For example, moral good would refer to what is identified
as an act such as generosity, putting others before oneself, loving one
another, volunteering at a local homeless shelter, and other traditionally
accepted actions associated with moral good. The way Harris is using “good” is
in reference to the flourishing of sentient life forms. For example, it would be beneficial for all
sentient life to behave in a manner that assists in their flourishing and
expansion3. However, we must ask, why is the flourishing of sentient
life objectively good in the moral sense?
While it is good for flourishing to occur among
sentient life, there is nothing that would lead us to conclude that it is objectively
moral for sentient life to flourish. Dr.
William Lane Craig likened it to the flourishing of corn3. We
can identify what helps corn to flourish but assisting it in its flourishing
doesn’t illustrate how objectively moral we are or it is. We can all
acknowledge the flourishing of sentient life is good because sentient beings
like to flourish, however there is no moral objectivity that underlies the
foundation of the flourishing.
This type of evaluation is an ontological versus
semantic analysis. The ontological
nature of evaluating morals would be to identify the foundation of those morals. Meaning, what the foundation for
objective morals? Is it God or is it nature? The semantic nature of “good”
would be to evaluate the meaning of the term and would not play any role in
trying to identify the ontological foundation for morality3. This distinction is important to identify
when responding to the claim that the objective moral foundation can be
identified by nature. Simply put, creaturely flourishing and objective morality
are two separate subjects3.
Atheists That Affirm No Objective Morals
I’ve used the example with Harris and his “moral
landscape” because he is of a minority of atheist scholars that continue to
propagate the notion of objective morals from an atheistic worldview. You may be
curious about what other atheist scholars have said about morality from an
atheistic worldview. I’ll list a few
quotes below that describe what has been said about morality in a universe that
is without a God:
“There
is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless
indifference…we are machines for propagating DNA…it is every living object’s
sole reason for being” – Richard Dawkins[4]
“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 our hands and feet and teeth…Considered as a rationally
justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I
appreciate that when somebody says “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” they think
they are referencing above and beyond themselves…Nevertheless,…such reference
is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and
reproduction,...and any deeper meaning is illusory” – Michael Ruse[5]
“Morality…is merely
an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends… In an important
sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes
to get us to cooperate” – Michael Ruse and E.O. Wilson[6]
As you can see, these atheists are being very
honest and candid about their approach to morality from an atheistic worldview.
They are indeed remaining true to their worldview. It is often hard to approach
this topic in a straightforward and honest fashion simply because it is
difficult for some people to come to the conclusion that we are no more
important than any other living creature on this planet in terms of our
morality without God. Without God, every action done by each of us wouldn’t be morally
good or bad. It would simply be morally
neutral without a basis for measuring good or bad. Any appearance of morals
would be the byproduct of social conditioning over thousands of years, and
nothing more. The following is an eloquent quote by Francis Beckwith on the
reality of objective morals:
“to deny the existence of universally objective moral
distinctions, one must admit that Mother Teresa was no more or less moral than
Adolf Hitler, that torturing three-year-olds for fun is neither good nor evil,
that giving 10 percent of one’s financial surplus is neither praiseworthy nor
condemnable, that raping a woman is neither right nor wrong, and that providing
food and shelter for one’s spouse and children is neither a good thing nor a
bad thing”[7]
Being
Untrue to your Worldview
However, many atheists still desire to affirm
that these moral values are objective despite their lack of belief in a God. It
is certainly a curious position to take from an atheistic worldview. Nearly all
of the atheists that I know are people I’d consider to be upright and moral
people. However, they don’t acknowledge their morals to be founded in a
transcendent source. I once had a discussion on the issue of morality with one
of my atheist friends. Needless to say, she was repulsed that I would ever
suggest that morals were founded in God rather than in nature. She took offense
that I would offer such a proposition because she thought I was attacking her
moral integrity. She thought that since she didn’t believe God, I was somehow suggesting
she wasn’t a moral person. Needless to say, that wasn’t the point I was
attempting to get across.
Please understand that atheists are fully
capable of being moral. This is a common misunderstanding among atheists when
speaking on this topic. Many atheists feel that theists are making the
assertion that people who don’t believe in God are not capable of being morally
good people. That is completely false. It is certainly possible to be a morally
good person without the belief in God. The distinctions between being morally
good and knowing how objective morals are grounded are two completely different
subjects. Simply put, the faith that there is a God isn’t a requirement for our
objective morality, God is[8].
The
Euthyphro Dilemma
There is a popular objection that many
atheists use called the Euthyphro dilemma. The Euthyphro dilemma was developed
as a character in one of Plato’s dialogues. The objection to the moral argument
is as follows:
“Either
something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it
is good”1
The first half of the dilemma states that, “something is good because God wills it”. That means that God could
have willed anything to be good. God
could have potentially willed rape, murder, lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc…
to be good. If those horrible actions were to be willed by God as good, then we
would have the moral duty to perform those things to one another. What is good
becomes arbitrary under this option. Therefore, the first half of this dilemma
clearly seems to be an implausible assertion because the possibility of murder,
lying, kidnapping, torturing, etc… being good simply because God wills it
undermines the fact that some moral values are necessary in this world 1.
The second
half states that, “God wills something
because it is good”. That means that whatever is good is completely
independent of God and would completely undercut the first premise of the moral
argument (If God does not exist, objective
moral values and duties do not exist). If we contend that the first premise of
the moral argument is true, we see that objective moral values are dependent
upon God for their moral grounding. Therefore, God does not will something
because it is good 1.
An attentive observer of this dilemma will
notice that this dilemma is not exhaustive of all the options for the
foundation of morals. Essentially, Plato didn’t include every option for why
morals are good or bad from a theistic point of view. This third option not
included in the Euthyphro dilemma is as follows:
“God
wills something because He is good”6
This alternative means that God’s own nature
is the standard by which goodness is measured and the commands placed upon us
are reflective of His nature. Our duties are dependent upon the commands issued
to us by God, which are reflective of His nature6
By no means is the Euthyphro dilemma the
authoritative and empirical method for identifying how morals can be identified
as good in a theistic worldview. In fact, we are presented with an insufficient
amount of choices under the Euthyphro dilemma. The reality is the moral status
of an action is determined by the nature of God and any moral action is
determined by God’s will6.
Atheistic
Moral Platonism
This is a rather confusing objection to the
moral argument however it is often posed. Plato also proposed that moral good
exists on its own independently of God. When Christian thinkers evaluated this
idea, they identified that the moral good Plato was referring to was actually
God himself. Given this proposal, many atheistic thinkers may say that morally
good actions exist without the need for any foundation because moral good is
believed to be objectively independent of God6.
Given the principles that have been laid out
thus far regarding the moral argument, we find that it is implausible to infer
that objective moral values exist without being founded in a transcendent
Being. This view also doesn’t address how objective moral duties can result
from it. This view does imply that good moral qualities exist independently of
God however under this view, what objective obligation do I have to perform any
of these good moral duties? 6
Under this very same worldview of moral
Platonism, morally bad actions like hate, rape, murder, lying, etc… identically
exist just as the morally good actions do. Without the ontological foundation
supporting moral Platonism that addresses moral duties, the moral good and bad
are meaningless because there is no moral obligation to be good or bad6.
Lastly, to be a committed moral Platonist, you
would be committed to believing that biological evolution developed in a manner
that would separate the moral realm from the realm of creatures. As a result, these
creatures would then need to be capable of comprehending the objectivity of
morals. Given that morals are objective under this view, creatures would have
to identify with this moral realm that is completely distinct from them and
identify with the objectivity of its morals. On the whole, it appears
drastically more plausible that the wholly independent natural and moral realms
are under the authority of God rather than interpreting the presence of
objective morals as a coincidental biological compatibility6.
Conclusion
As I touched on in the introduction, while the
secular media freely scrutinizes Christians for remaining true to their
worldview, they freely violate theirs by saying that what Christians represent
is morally wrong. They can’t make that type of conclusion if there is no
objective right and wrong. Gaining insight into the moral argument can give you
an understanding of the fallacies that are being made when you hear secular
individuals speak of objective morality while disaffirming God’s existence.
Many reasons have been laid out for the
understanding of objective moral values and duties, the reasons for their
objectivity, and the analysis of the most common objections to the moral
argument. The moral argument is one of the most valuable arguments for any
Christian apologist. The reason why is because people can relate to the reality
of objective moral values and duties in their hearts.
People want to know that objective moral values
exist because it brings them peace of mind knowing that there will ultimately
be justice done to those who have committed wrongdoing and for those who have acted
righteously. Why else would people be so distraught when they see unspeakable
acts like 9/11, the Holocaust, and the Aurora, CO movie theater shooting? The
reason why is because we have an innate belief that these actions are
objectively wrong. If we felt that all actions are morally neutral, we couldn’t
objectively differentiate between an act of love and an act of hate.
This moral argument is an important argument
to understand. We are made in the image of God[9] and the nature of God is the reflection of the
moral good. If we are made in the image of God, it makes perfect sense why we
have an innate grasp on objective morality and strive to affirm it despite
whether we believe in God or not. Humanity does affirm these values naturally
without being incentivized. While we desire to affirm these objective morals
that we experience, we must address and investigate which worldview makes the
most sense of these objective moral values and duties. To me, it is clear that
without God, we cannot claim the existence of objective moral values and duties
as true while claiming to have been led by the evidence to the most plausible
conclusion.
[1] William
Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton,
IL: Crossway Books) Chapter 4
[2]
William Lane Craig, Does Theistic Ethics Derive an “ought” from
an “Is” from
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-theistic-ethics-derive-an-ought-from-an-is
[3] William
Lane Craig vs. Sam Harris debate on “Is the Foundation of Morality Natural or
Supernatural?” at Notre Dame University on April 2011
[4] Richard
Dawkins, River out of Eden; A Darwinian
View of Life (New York: Basic Books, 1996), p. 133 and Richard Dawkins, “The Ultraviolet Garden” Lecture 4 of 7,
Royal Institution Christmas Lectures (1993)
[5] Michael
Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 262, 268-89.
[6] Michael
Ruse and Edward O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” in Philosophy of Biology,
ed. Michael Ruse (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 316
[7] Francis
Beckwith and Greg Koukl, Relativism
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books)
[8] William
Lane Craig, One Guard (Colorado
Springs, CO: David C. Cook) Chapter 6
[9] Genesis
1:27
