If apologetics should be anything, I think it should be honest. I’d rather say, “I can’t prove God to you” than try to prove God with a rationale that I know is false or that doesn’t hold water. And the “moral argument” is one of those rationales that I think needs to vanish from people’s playbook on faith.
What is the moral argument? It’s the argument that we’re wired for objective morality, and that this objective morality proves that there’s a lawgiver, a God. (If you want to see a blog post where someone argues the moral argument, click here.)
I don’t know if it is the case that Christians who argue for the moral argument by and large have never heard about secular understandings and theories about where morality originates, but just in case that might be true, I’d like to introduce something called “social contract theory” to discussion. Social contract theory basically states that the reason that humans understand a relative common standard of morality (don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t harm) is because it is necessary for human society to function and exist for there to be some common “rules of the road.” In fact, traffic rules are a good analogy: are we going to argue that the reason we have relatively standard traffic rules in most developed countries in the world is because God gave us traffic rules? Or did traffic rules arise because people figured out pretty quickly through trial and error what rules each driver could abide by that would make the entire system work for everyone on the road at once?
When you drive, the one objective everyone has is to get from point A to point B without getting killed. Secondly, arriving in an optimum time frame AND not getting killed is ideal. Thus, there needed to be rules for say, intersections, where everyone could pass through the dangerous place where two roads connect and not get killed. It turns out, that if you make rules where everyone is working to keep from getting killed, you simultaneously are making rules where killing others is outlawed. Thus, making sure that others stop at red lights not only means that you can be reasonably assured of getting through an intersection safely while others have the red light, but also, for the system to work you too must stop at red lights. Thus, universal morality – or as we say, “objective morality” – is achieved.
The reason we feel certain things are wrong is because we don’t want them done to us. Humans are wired for self-preservation, and we are also likewise wired for empathy. Objective morality arises because we all have similar drives and pain receptors and concerns – thus, society agrees (and evolves with time and the complexity of civilization) to cater to human concerns. These concerns are generally those in our best interest as a whole, and promote the survival of our species. (We often don’t care about the survival of other species’ terribly much, until it becomes evident that their well-being is also linked to our well-being, and then that also becomes part of our ‘objective morality’ with time.)
One of the biggest problems with the moral argument is that it erroneously teaches that atheists and other unbelievers in regards to the Judeo-Christian faith are inherently less moral, or even amoral, compared to those who believe in God. While I’d like to root for the “home team” and agree with this premise, I have to cry foul – because it’s just not true. Atheists are bound by social contract in the same exact way that Judeo-Christians are. Now while the locus of motivation for moral behavior may differ both from person to person and from group mindset to group mindset, aka, some people’s motivations will be based on internalized morals (whether to please God or to feel good about oneself) while others will be more concerned with group pressures and even just “what they can get away with”, the fact remains that social contract affects everyone regardless of faith. Faith will modify the details of what a society thinks the contract should look like; but overall, basic morality is based on survival and empathy, two psychological and biologically based impetuses.
At this point, I would make one small nod to history and note that Hammurabi’s Code predates the Law of Moses – and while the details of the two laws are different at many points, it should be realized that the similarities are striking considering that two different religious faiths were behind them each. Now, I’m NOT saying that God, in His infinite beauty and wisdom, did not cause all these things to come about in a way that those who know Him can’t behold and see as His handiwork, both in societies untouched by Judeo-Christian ethics, and those informed by the Torah. But ascribing natural processes to God as His handiwork is fodder for the edification of hearts already convinced, and not so much for use as proof for unbelievers.
Now, aside from all of this, I do think it’s somewhat unhealthy that Christians in particular are prone at times to wanting to argue that their faith is the origin of morality – after all, the Old Testament contains much that is morally questionable by any “objective morality” and secondly, the Christian faith actually is not primarily ABOUT morality. The obsession Christians have with posting the 10 Commandments for instance in the United States’ public areas seems to display a wrongly emphasized concern with promoting morality as the heart of Jesus’s message, rather than the actual gospel message of love and self-sacrifice, which is considerably different from mere ‘morality.’ But that distinction should be for a different posting; suffice it to say, I think the moral argument is a red herring when it comes to proving God or Jesus to anyone.
July 21, 2015 at 2:23 pm
This is a really bad critique. It’s an integral part of intellectual honesty to make sure you thoroughly understand an argument before you criticize it, and it’s clear that you have not done your homework on the moral argument.
1. Your initial formulation of the moral argument is very strange. You say it is the claim that we are ‘wired for objective morality’. But that could mean a number of things: a) we are wired to ‘think’ there is objective morality, even if there is none, b) we are wired to thrive under an objective moral regime, again even if there is none, c) there is objective morality and human beings are wired to detect and respond to it. Only the third is a statement a serious defender of the argument could go along with, but even so I have not encountered that way of putting it among any serious defenders of the argument, like Robert Adams, C. Stephen Evans, Angus Ritchie, or Jerry Walls and David Baggett. It’s too open to misinterpretation, and doesn’t really capture the phenomenon (or phenomena) that its defenders think needs to be explained.
2. Another indication that you have not done your homework is that you seriously seem to think that defenders of the argument are not aware of social contract theory. That’s usually the first attempted naturalistic explanation of morality that is addressed in contemporary discussions. Even in secular circles social contract theory is not usually considered an adequate account of moral obligation. It is too ‘thin’, because it cannot contradict a stance of abiding by the rules only when it is convenient and when we cannot avoid getting caught. The optimal situation for an individual under a social contract view is not one where everyone abides by the rules, but one in which all the other rubes abide by the rules and I break the rules to benefit myself without getting caught. Even if I am successful at this, this is hardly a moral stance. For further discussion see this paper by Kelly James Clark: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/clark_kelly_j/why_be_moral.pdf
3. Another indication you have not done your homework is that you think the moral argument includes the claim that “atheists and other unbelievers in regards to the Judeo-Christian faith are inherently less moral, or even amoral, compared to those who believe in God.” That is just false, and is a misconception that defenders of the argument grow tired of rebutting. The defender of the argument happily grants that people without belief in God can behave morally and have a robust moral sense (that’s even granted in the Bible, see Romans 2:14-15). The claim is that, if God does not exist, there is no basis for objective goodness or value.
4. You contrast ‘mere morality’ with Jesus’ ethic of love and self-sacrifice. This is bizarre, since in many discussions self-sacrificial love is the paradigmatic moral behavior.
All in all this is a very shallow, frustrating discussion and I strongly suggest that you take the time to familiarize yourself with the literature on this topic. I would particularly recommend:
Robert Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Infinite-Goods-Framework-Ethics/dp/0195153715
C. Stephen Evans, God and Moral Obligation http://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Obligation-Stephen-Evans/dp/0198715374/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437488483&sr=1-1&keywords=god+and+moral+obligation
Jerry Walls and David Baggett, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality http://www.amazon.com/Good-God-Theistic-Foundations-Morality/dp/0199751811/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437488569&sr=1-1&keywords=good+god
LikeLiked by 1 person
July 26, 2015 at 5:12 pm
This article may be getting at something here. It may be saying that it would be hard to see why God is needed to have the sort of moral intuitions that we have. That is, it’s hard to go from the idea that we have objective moral intuitions to “therefore there is all-loving God who has established these things.”
We have to ask why God would be needed for a certain thing, say, love, to have good-making properties. “Is God good because He has these good-making properties? Or are they good-making because God has them? The first alternative seems, intuitively, to be the right one. Why should it make any difference to the good-makingness of compassion, say, if there is (or isn’t) a supremely compassionate God?”
Another issue is where the Euthyphro dilemma will take us. No doubt the original dilemma is solvable. God doesn’t will a thing bc it’s good, and it’s not good simply because he will it. The answer you’d have to give is that God’s nature is goodness and he couldn’t possibly act any other way. Is a thing God-like bc it’s good? Or is it good because it is god-like? This takes us back to the point Wes M. was getting at.
We couldn’t say that it is God-like because it is good, for this grounds The God in the Good, and that’s exactly backwards of what you’d have to argue. We cannot place the logical priority on Goodness. We have to say choose the option “A thing is good because it is God-like.” But it’s hard to see why the God-like would be a necessary condition to make the good what it is. It’s simply problematic. Any time we treat some feature like “the good” a being a Platonic Form in need of grounding, we’re entering into issues.
“If then, we identify the ultimate standard of moral goodness (not moral obligation) with God’s moral nature, it seems that we are identifying it with a set of properties – and it is these properties, not God or God’s existence, that are doing the real work in a theory of value. . . .
Is God good because He has these properties? Or are they good because God has them?”
the only option to defend is the latter, because the former makes the standard of goodness exist apart from God.
“If the relation between God and the property of being morally good were like the case of the standard meter bar. . . . God might provide a criterion for ascriptions of moral goodness. But He would not figure in the truth conditions of such ascriptions. Some of his properties – lovingkindness, justice, and so on – might well belong to the proper account of moral goodness. But moral goodness would supervene on those properties directly, and not merely because they are properties of God.”
Quotes are from here: http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/GodGood.pdf
LikeLike
December 1, 2015 at 1:19 pm
I know this is a late response but I’m just realizing I still owe you one – forgive me.
This post is not aimed at serious philosophers or even serious apologists. Rather, it is aimed at the common person’s understanding of this argument, which usually comes down to a soundbite such as “we know there is a God because we are wired for objective morality.” If you read the link I linked to, there is a demonstration of how this theory plays out in the church and how it is used by relatively untrained folks to argue a point – and that is the argument I am refuting. It might be said that it is the folk version of this theory I am confronting – not that the more academic version holds any more water, but it’s just not the version most people know about or are concerned with. A more formalized rebuttal to the argument would be worthwhile, but would also not be aimed towards the general audience I am concerned with.
LikeLike
July 21, 2015 at 5:44 pm
Well said.
LikeLike
July 26, 2015 at 4:32 pm
http://fairmindednotions.com/2015/07/24/the-spineless-moral-argument-for-gods-existence-an-argument-without-a-backbone/
LikeLike
April 21, 2022 at 2:04 am
It is frustrating to me how “the common person” seems to thinks all philosophical arguments must be deductive, so that the conclusions must be necessary. They are perfectly willing to accept inductive arguments in science; why are they not willing to accept them elsewhere?
For example, philosophers of religion like Alvin Plantinga and Eleonore Stump don’t even try to offer proofs to deal with the problem of evil; instead, they offer “defenses.” ISTM that while the moral argument could fail as a proof for God’s existence, it can be an important part of a defense for his existence.
Perhaps part of the problem lies with apologists who think they can wield philosophical arguments like clubs. I’ve often noticed that many of these folks have degrees in apologetics, not philosophy. It’s like they are trying to farm after only having ridden a tractor. IMO nobody should do apologetics until they’ve gotten a graduate degree in philosophy from a reputable university.
Perhaps another part of the problem is the way philosophy and the humanities have been marginalized as core courses for bachelor’s degrees. If students had a better philosophical foundation, they might learn about virtue ethics and divine command theory, and see that Christ’s gospel message of love and self-sacrifice is also a type of virtue ethics.
LikeLike
April 21, 2022 at 7:40 pm
Fair point that “something that fails as proof could still be useful as defense.” I’m not sure I’d use the word defense, but I can accede that there are ideas that those already convinced of God can hang on to for themselves as confirmation of what they see of HIm. Thanks for your contribution. 🙂
LikeLike