Are elephants people?

[Mountain Man]

I don't need to. We can agree to disagree.

If you want to try to provide a valid argument for why moral obligation cannot exist without God, I'll be happy to point out why I don't find it convincing.

But I'm not interested in trying to convince you that moral obligation can exist without God. Believe what you want.


No pretending.


P2 doesn't require an ultimate moral lawgiver in order for moral obligation to exist. If it did, I would just reject P2.

Because I do believe moral obligation exists, and I don't believe there is an ultimate moral lawgiver.

I'm certain you do believe it because it seems so intuitive and obvious to us (Romans 2:15); however, you can not logically ground that belief in your worldview. On the contrary, if we accept that atheism is true, then it inevitably leads to the conclusion that moral obligation does not exist.

Why ought I tell the truth?

Because your parents told you to.
Why ought I obey my parents?
Because society told you to.
Why ought I obey society?
Because the government told you to.
Why ought I obey the government?
Because...

It's an infinite regress. At no point can the atheist say, "The buck stops here," because there is no ultimate moral authority in an atheist universe, and if there is no ultimate moral authority, then there can be no moral obligation.

Dr. William Craig approaches this reasoning from the opposite direction, arguing that our intuitive belief in the existence of moral obligation proves the existence of God:

A number of ethicists such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended various moral arguments for God. In order to understand the version of the moral argument which I’ve defended in my own work, it’s necessary that we grasp a couple of important distinctions.

First, we should distinguish between moral values and duties. Values have to do with whether something is good or bad. Duties have to do with whether something is right or wrong. Now you might think at first that this is a distinction without a difference: “good” and “right” mean the same thing, and the same goes for “bad” and “wrong.” But if you think about it, you can see that this isn’t the case. Duty has to do with moral obligation, what you ought or ought not to do. But obviously you’re not morally obligated to do something just because it would be good for you to do it. For example, it would be good for you to become a doctor, but you’re not morally obligated to become a doctor. After all, it would also be good for you to become a firefighter or a homemaker or a diplomat, but you can’t do them all. So there’s a difference between good/bad and right/wrong. Good/bad has to do with something’s worth, while right/wrong has to do with something’s being obligatory.

Second, there’s the distinction between being objective or subjective. By “objective” I mean “independent of people’s opinions.” By “subjective” I mean “dependent on people’s opinions.” So to say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad independent of whatever people think about it. Similarly, to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong for us regardless of what people think about it. So, for example, to say that the Holocaust was objectively wrong is to say that it was wrong even though the Nazis who carried it out thought that it was right, and it would still have been wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them so that everyone believed the Holocaust was right.

With those distinctions in mind, here’s a simple moral argument for God’s existence:

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.

3.1. Premises 1 and 2

What makes this argument so compelling is not only that it is logically airtight but also that people generally believe both premises. In a pluralistic age, people are afraid of imposing their values on someone else. So premise 1 seems correct to them. Moral values and duties are not objective realities (that is, valid and binding independent of human opinion) but are merely subjective opinions ingrained into us by biological evolution and social conditioning.

At the same time, however, people do believe deeply that certain moral values and duties such as tolerance, open-mindedness, and love are objectively valid and binding. They think it’s objectively wrong to impose your values on someone else! So they’re deeply committed to premise 2 as well.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...uments-for-god

In short, when you accept the existence of moral obligation because it seems so obvious, you deny the truth of atheism.

Quite the conundrum, isn't it?

[seer]

In short, when you accept the existence of moral obligation because it seems so obvious, you deny the truth of atheism.

OK, a little clarification please. If God exists why do we have a moral obligation to Him?

[Mountain Man]

OK, a little clarification please. If God exists why do we have a moral obligation to Him?

Because He is the ultimate moral authority in the universe, and his judgement is inescapable.

[seer]

Because He is the ultimate moral authority in the universe, and his judgement is inescapable.

So we are morally obligated because He judges us?

[Stoic]

In short, when you accept the existence of moral obligation because it seems so obvious, you deny the truth of atheism.

That would only be the case if I accepted your (or Craig's) argument, which, you won't be surprised to hear, I don't.

Unlike Craig, I don't believe objective moral duties exist. Moral duties are the result of people's opinions, whether it's the opinion of the person with the duty, or the opinion of someone else who might think less of him or actually punish him for shirking that duty. The ones who might think less of him or punish him could be his parents, his peers, his society, or his government (or his God, for that matter). If I don't think I have a particular moral duty, and no one else does either, then I obviously don't have that moral duty. This is as obvious to me as the idea that there are objective moral duties is to Craig, and presumably yourself. And all without an ultimate moral lawgiver being required.

[Mountain Man]

So we are morally obligated because He judges us?

More or less. As the creator of all things and the author of our very existence, we have a duty to live by the standards he has set for us.

[Mountain Man]

That would only be the case if I accepted your (or Craig's) argument, which, you won't be surprised to hear, I don't.

Unlike Craig, I don't believe objective moral duties exist. Moral duties are the result of people's opinions, whether it's the opinion of the person with the duty, or the opinion of someone else who might think less of him or actually punish him for shirking that duty. The ones who might think less of him or punish him could be his parents, his peers, his society, or his government (or his God, for that matter). If I don't think I have a particular moral duty, and no one else does either, then I obviously don't have that moral duty. This is as obvious to me as the idea that there are objective moral duties is to Craig, and presumably yourself. And all without an ultimate moral lawgiver being required.

So it's back to moral preference where nothing is objectivity right or wrong, and everything is permissible.

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. Some action, say, incest, may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Kurtz states, “The moral principles that govern our behavior are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion,” then the non-conformist who chooses to flout the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...od-without-god

[Teallaura]

Only if you think something other than God can serve as an ultimate moral law giver. We're still waiting on Stoic to plug that hole.

MM, the argument is missing several pieces - that's why it's unsound. It does not logically follow that there is no moral obligation without a moral law giver. You failed to establish that bit which undermines the argument.

Add it as P4. That improves the argument but it's still going to be a point of contention stated that way. You need to establish that moral obligation only flows from moral law.

FYI: I think it's fully doable.

I also think Stoic is being lazy - it's an easily refuted argument as stated because of the unsoundness. But he may not want to deal with a sound formulation of the argument.

Edit: Never mind - y'all are way past that now.

[Stoic]

So it's back to moral preference where nothing is objectivity right or wrong,

Correct.

and everything is permissible.

Incorrect. You'll find that your parents, your peers, your society, and your government don't permit everything.

[Teallaura]

Correct.


Incorrect. You'll find that your parents, your peers, your society, and your government don't permit everything.

Er, seriously, think that one through. By what right are these other people limiting your freedom? And if merely being able to limit the freedom of others by withholding permission is how morality is defined, then it follows that might not only makes right, but good and evil become mere tomato/tomahto.

[Stoic]

I also think Stoic is being lazy - it's an easily refuted argument as stated because of the unsoundness. But he may not want to deal with a sound formulation of the argument.

There's a good reason for my laziness. This argument is going to end the way all such arguments end; neither side will be convinced by the other. There is always at least one premise that seems obvious to one side, but not at all obvious to the other. And no amount of effort has ever changed that.

We can generally reach a consensus regarding the validity of an argument. Not so much with the truth of the premises.

[Mountain Man]

Correct.


Incorrect. You'll find that your parents, your peers, your society, and your government don't permit everything.

If nothing is immoral, then everything is permissible. Whether or not parents, peers, society, and the government disagree is irrelevant. What obligation do I have to regard their opinion as some sort of moral absolute?

[Stoic]

Er, seriously, think that one through. By what right are these other people limiting your freedom?

"They" aren't just limiting my freedom, they're limiting their own freedom too. That, and the fact that the vast majority of us see the rules as sensible and acceptable, gives it legitimacy.

And if merely being able to limit the freedom of others by withholding permission is how morality is defined, then it follows that might not only makes right, but good and evil become mere tomato/tomahto.

Might doesn't make right, but in some sense, might makes the rules; the rules mean nothing if they aren't enforced. The individual isn't going to be strong enough to do the enforcing, but that doesn't mean he can't have an opinion. If the individual can't abide by the rules of his society, then it would be best if he removed himself from that society.

[Stoic]

If nothing is immoral, then everything is permissible.

That's beside the point. Nobody is claiming that nothing is immoral.

Whether or not parents, peers, society, and the government disagree is irrelevant. What obligation do I have to regard their opinion as some sort of moral absolute?

I said nothing about moral absolutes.

I simply pointed out that "everything is permissible" is false if there are some things not permitted by some people.

[tabibito]

If nothing is immoral, then everything is permissible. Whether or not parents, peers, society, and the government disagree is irrelevant. What obligation do I have to regard their opinion as some sort of moral absolute?

The absence of an ultimate law-giver would not preclude the absence of sub-ultimate law givers.