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 self-indulgence.”

William Lane Craig, “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical 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, self-sacrifice, 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”