Week 3: The Moral Argument

Week 3: The Moral Argument – Our Inner Compass

Main Teaching

We have journeyed from the origin of the cosmos (the Cosmological Argument) to its intricate design (the Teleological Argument). These arguments look outward at the universe and reason from its properties to a Creator. Now, we turn inward, to an undeniable feature of our own human experience: the deep, persistent sense of right and wrong. The Moral Argument for God's existence contends that the reality of objective moral values and duties points to the existence of a transcendent Moral Lawgiver. In short, if objective morality is real, then God must exist. The argument can be stated in a clear, logical form, championed by contemporary philosopher William Lane Craig : 1. Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. This is a logically valid argument, meaning that if both premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. Our task, then, is to investigate the truth of these two premises.

Part 1: Defending Premise 1 – The Foundation of Morality

The first premise is the most debated, so it requires careful explanation. First, we must define our terms : • Objective vs. Subjective: Objective means independent of human minds or opinions; it is factual and true regardless of whether anyone believes it (like gravity). Subjective means it is dependent on personal or cultural opinion (like a favorite ice cream flavor). • Values vs. Duties: Moral values relate to what is good or bad, dealing with the worth of a person or action. Moral duties relate to what is right or wrong, dealing with our obligations. Premise 1 claims that without God, there is no solid foundation for morality to be objective. If atheism is true, what grounds our sense of right and wrong? Let's examine the most common naturalistic alternatives. Alternative 1: Socio-biological Evolution

This view suggests that our moral feelings are simply herd instincts that evolved because they were advantageous for our species' survival. Behaviors like altruism, cooperation, and caring for young helped our ancestors survive and reproduce, so these traits were passed down. • The Problem: While sociobiology might explain why we believe in morality or why we feel altruistic, it cannot tell us that we ought to be altruistic. It describes our behavior but cannot prescribe it. This is a classic philosophical problem known as the "is-ought" fallacy. Evolution might explain the is of our moral feelings, but it cannot provide the ought of objective moral duty. If morality is just about survival, then any action that promotes survival is "good" for that species, but it is not objectively, morally good. As C.S. Lewis brilliantly argued, we often have competing instincts (e.g., the instinct for self-preservation vs. the instinct to help someone in danger). The Moral Law is not either of these instincts, but the "sheet music" that tells us which "key" on the piano we ought to play. Alternative 2: Social Convention or Cultural Relativism This view holds that morality is simply what a particular society agrees upon. "Right" and "wrong" are defined by the culture. • The Problem: This view is deeply problematic and leads to disastrous logical conclusions. 1. It makes moral criticism of other cultures impossible. If this view were true, we could never condemn the actions of another culture, such as the Nazi regime in Germany or a society that practices slavery, as objectively evil. We could only say, "We disagree with their cultural norms. " 2. It makes moral reformers immoral. Moral reformers like William Wilberforce (who fought to abolish slavery) or Martin Luther King Jr. (who fought for civil rights) were, by definition, "immoral" because they were going against the accepted norms of their society. 3. It makes the idea of moral progress an illusion. We believe that abolishing slavery was a moral improvement. But if morality is just what a society decides, we can't speak of progress, only of change.

Alternative 3: Individual Subjectivism This is the common idea that "what's right for you is right for you, and what's right for me is right for me. " Morality is just a matter of personal opinion. • The Problem: While popular, almost no one actually lives this way consistently. If morality is just personal opinion, then you can never say anything or anyone is objectively wrong. If someone steals your car, your reaction isn't, "Well, I personally dislike that, but I can't say you did anything wrong. " You instinctively feel you have been wronged, appealing to an objective standard of fairness. A consistent subjectivist would have to admit there is no real moral difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler. Without a transcendent standard that stands above all cultures and all individuals, we are left with might-makes-right or mere preference. As the atheist philosopher J.L. Mackie admitted, if objective values exist, they are "queer" entities in a naturalistic universe; their existence would make the existence of God more probable.

Part 2: Defending Premise 2 – The Reality of Morality

The second premise is that objective moral values and duties do exist. This premise is far more intuitive and is confirmed by our deepest moral experiences. • Our Universal Moral Experience: We all know, in our bones, that some things are truly wrong. Torturing a child for sport is not just something we dislike or our culture disapproves of; it is objectively evil. It would be wrong even if the torturer's society applauded him for it. Our deep-seated reactions to profound evil (genocide, rape, terrorism) and profound good (selfless love, courage in the face of injustice) all testify to our belief in a real, objective moral law. • The Argument from Quarreling: As C.S. Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, the very fact that we quarrel and make excuses for our behavior shows that we appeal to a standard of conduct that we assume the other person knows and accepts. When someone cuts you in line, you don't just say, "I don't like what you did. " You say, "That's not fair!" appealing to an objective standard of fairness you expect them to recognize. • Properly Basic Belief: Many philosophers argue that our fundamental moral intuitions are "properly basic. " This means we are justified in believing them without needing to prove them from other beliefs, just as we are justified in believing in the reality of the external world through our senses or the reality of the past through our memory. We should trust our powerful moral experience unless we are given a very strong reason to doubt it. Conclusion: God as the Moral Foundation If both premises are true—that without God morality is subjective, but that objective morality clearly exists—then the conclusion follows: Therefore, God exists. God's own perfect, holy, and loving character serves as the ultimate, transcendent standard for what is good. His commands, which flow from that perfect character, constitute our objective moral duties. This provides a solid, unchanging foundation for morality that is rooted in the very nature of ultimate reality. It is crucial to clarify what this argument is not saying. It is not claiming that atheists cannot be good people or cannot know the difference between right and wrong. Of course they can. The

Christian worldview explains this through the doctrine that all people are made in God's image and have His moral law written on their hearts (Romans 2:14-15). The argument is not about the recognition of morality (epistemology), but about the grounding or foundation of morality (ontology). In an atheistic worldview, there is no ultimate reason why compassion is good and cruelty is evil. The atheist can behave morally, but his worldview cannot justify why that morality is objectively true. Addressing the Main Objection: The Euthyphro Dilemma This classic philosophical puzzle, originating in a dialogue by Plato, is the most common objection to grounding morality in God. It asks: "Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" This presents a dilemma with two seemingly bad options ("horns") for the believer : 1. Horn 1 (The Arbitrariness Problem): If something is good simply because God commands it, then morality becomes arbitrary. God could have commanded cruelty, hatred, and torture, and those things would have become "good. " This makes God's goodness meaningless; it just means God is powerful. 2. Horn 2 (The Sovereignty Problem): If God commands something because it is good, then the standard of "goodness" is independent of and external to God. God is no longer the ultimate standard, but is subject to a moral law higher than Himself, which compromises His sovereignty. The Solution: A False Dilemma The Christian answer is that this is a false dilemma. There is a third option that escapes both horns: God commands something because He is good. Goodness is not an external standard God consults, nor is it an arbitrary creation of His will. Rather, goodness is grounded in God's own eternally good, loving, just, and holy nature. God is the standard of goodness. His commands are not arbitrary; they are necessary expressions of His perfect character. He cannot command cruelty to be good any more than He can cease to be God,

because doing so would contradict His very nature. This solution preserves both God's sovereignty and the non-arbitrary nature of objective morality.

Extra Notes & Resources for Deeper Study

Key Thinkers to Know:

• C.S. Lewis (1898-1963): His book Mere Christianity contains one of the most popular and accessible defenses of the moral argument, focusing on the universal "Law of Human Nature. " • Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): A highly influential German philosopher who argued that the existence of a moral law implies the existence of God as a necessary condition for morality to be rational and meaningful. • William Lane Craig (1949-Present): A leading contemporary defender of the moral argument in its deductive form, which we have studied today. • Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): An atheist philosopher who famously understood the implications of the "death of God, " arguing that it meant the end of any objective, universal morality. • J.L. Mackie (1917-1981): An atheist philosopher who, while not believing in God, acknowledged that the existence of objective moral values would make God's existence more probable. Recommended Reading: • For a clear and accessible introduction: o C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Book I. This is the classic and most readable starting point for the argument from our innate moral sense. o Natasha Crain, Talking with Your Kids about God. Contains a very clear chapter on the moral argument aimed at parents and laypeople. • For a more in-depth academic treatment: o William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Chapter 3 contains a detailed defense of the moral argument. o Francis Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. An excellent book-length critique of moral relativism.

Online Resources: • ReasonableFaith.org: William Lane Craig's website has numerous articles, podcasts, and animated videos that explain and defend the moral argument. • YouTube: Search for debates and lectures by William Lane Craig on the moral argument for many hours of in-depth content.

Discussion Questions

1. Think of a time you felt something was truly, objectively wrong, not just a matter of opinion. What was it? What made you so sure? 2. How have you seen the innate human sense of 'fairness' or 'injustice' play out in your professional life or family, regardless of a person's religious beliefs? 3. If morality is just a product of evolution for survival, can we say that any action (like sacrificing oneself for another) is truly "good" or just "genetically programmed"? What's the difference? 4. How does grounding morality in God's character solve the Euthyphro Dilemma (the problem of whether morality is arbitrary or above God)? 5. The Bible says we are made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27). How does this idea help explain why all people, religious or not, seem to have an in-built sense of right and wrong?

Further Study Worksheet: "Can You Legislate Morality?"

We often hear the phrase, "You can't legislate morality. " In one sense, this is true: laws cannot change a person's heart. But in another sense, it's false: all laws are, in fact, a legislation of some form of morality. Consider the following: • Laws against murder are based on the moral value that human life is sacred. • Laws against theft are based on the moral value of private property. • Laws against fraud are based on the moral value of honesty. Our legal system is built upon a foundation of shared moral beliefs. But this raises a deeper question: where do those moral beliefs get their authority? Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Laws It's helpful to understand the difference between two kinds of "laws. " • Descriptive Laws: These are scientific laws, like the law of gravity. They describe how things consistently behave. They can't be broken; if an apple floated up, the law of gravity wouldn't be "broken, " it would be wrong. • Prescriptive Laws: These are moral laws. They prescribe how we ought to behave. They can be, and often are, broken. The Moral Law is a prescriptive law. It tells us what we should do, not just what we do. The Problem of a Standard Imagine a society where 70% of the population votes to make it legal to steal from the wealthiest 10%. The human law has now changed. But has the morality of the act changed? Is it now morally right to steal from that group? Most of us would instinctively say no. Stealing is wrong, regardless of what the law says or what the majority believes. This very instinct reveals that we believe in a higher law—a Moral Law—that stands in judgment over human laws and popular opinion. Human laws can be just or unjust, which only makes sense if there is a real standard of justice by which to measure them.

This points to the need for a source of that Moral Law that is not human. If the standard for right and wrong transcends all human cultures, opinions, and legal systems, its source must also be transcendent. The Moral Argument concludes that this transcendent source is the character and will of a perfectly just and good God, who is the ultimate Lawgiver.

Supplemental Study

Week 3: The Argument from Desire

A complementary argument to the logical Moral Argument is a more personal, existential argument made famous by C.S. Lewis, often called the Argument from Desire (or Joy). It appeals not to our sense of "ought, " but to our sense of longing. The Argument: Lewis observed that every natural, innate desire we have corresponds to some real object that can satisfy it. We feel hunger, and there is such a thing as food. We feel thirst, and there is such a thing as water. We feel a desire for companionship, and there is such a thing as friendship and community. He then points to a deeper, universal human experience: a profound, inconsolable longing for something that nothing in this world—no achievement, no relationship, no pleasure—can fully satisfy. We experience moments of intense joy, beauty, or longing that feel like echoes or signposts pointing to something more. Lewis called this experience "Joy" and described it as a "sharp, wonderful stab of longing. " The argument follows this logic: 1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire. 2. There exists in us a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy. 3. Therefore, there must exist something beyond this world which is capable of satisfying that desire. Lewis concludes, "The creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. "

Connecting to the Moral Argument: This argument connects to our study of morality because it addresses the "why" behind our moral striving. The Moral Law tells us we ought to be better than we are, creating a sense of unease and failure. The Argument from Desire suggests that the "better" we are striving for is not just an abstract standard, but a destination—a relationship with the very Source of all goodness, beauty, and joy. Our hearts are restless, as St. Augustine said, until they rest in Him. This deep-seated longing is a clue, woven into our nature, that we were made for more than just this material world.