Defense of the Moral Argument

Moral Values: Have to do with whether something is good or bad.

Moral Duties: Have to do with whether something is right or wrong, and insist upon a moral obligation; what one ought or ought not do.

(Good/Bad are different from Right/Wrong- It is good to become a doctor, but one is not morally obligated to become one)

Objective Values and Duties: Independent of people's opinions.

Subjective Values and Duties: Dependent upon people's opinions.


The Moral Argument goes like this:
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.

This is a logically air-tight argument. If premise 1 and 2 are more probable than their negations then the conclusion follows necessarily, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. The reason why this deductive argument is so powerful is because it uses the Modus ponens inference:

• if p is true, then q is true
• p is true
• therefore, q is true

Defense of Premise 1

Objective Moral Values require God
Traditionally, moral values have been founded in God, who is by definition the highest Good. But what if God does not exist? What would be the basis for such moral values?  Namely, why think that human beings have any moral worth? For on atheism, moral values are nothing more than the by-product of biological evolution and social conditioning. Just as a troop of baboons may exhibit a sort of self-sacrificial behavior because natural selection has determined such a thing to be advantageous in the struggle for survival, so their primate cousins Homo sapiens exhibit similar behaviors for absolutely the same reasons.

To think that human beings still have intrinsic moral worth, even with these propositions in place, would be to succumb to the temptation to speciesism, which is an unjustified bias toward one's own species. Once one removes God from the equation, all were left with is a sort of ape-like creature living on an infinitesimal speck of dust beset with delusions of moral grandeur.

Objective Moral Duties Require God
Traditionally, moral duties were thought to spring from God's commandments (such as the 10 Commandments). But if God does not exist, what reason is there to think that we have moral obligations to one another? Animals in the wild may kill in order to survive, but they do not murder one another- there is no moral dimension to such actions. And if humans are animals, which on atheism we are, what reason is there to think that we have moral obligations?

For example, certain actions such as rape or incest may not be biologically and socially advantageous and so in the course of human development have become taboo. But if God does not exist, what reason is there to think that such acts are morally wrong? Such behavior occurs all the time in the animal kingdom. The rapist who goes against traditional herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably, similar to burping at the dinner table.

If life ends at the grave, and there is no punishment for anything we have done on earth, I see no reason to believe that a moral law exists, or that humans should care for it. For if there is no transcendent Moral Lawgiver whom holds us to a standard, then there is no Moral Law.


Defense of Premise 2

Moral Experience
There is no more reason to distrust our moral experience than there is to distrust the experience of our 5 senses. I believe that my 5 senses communicate to me that there is an actual world with physical objects out there. Although my senses are not infallible, that doesn't lead me to think that there is no external world around me. Similarly, in the absnse of some reason to distrust my moral experience, I should accept what it tells me; some things are objectively good or evil, right or wrong.

(Notice that I am not arguing what the morality is, or how we know, or interact with a Moral Law. A further explanation can be found in my "Moral Relativism Failure #1: Self-Refuting" blog in which I differentiate between Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology)

Now, there are a large amount of people whom I speak with that give lip-service to Moral Relativism, but can then be quickly convinced that objective moral values do exist after all. All I have to do is produce a few illustrations and let them decide for themselves.

I will be using the famous Atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, as a prime example. Here is a famous quote by Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion", in which he states, "Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Notice that Dawkins strongly affirms the truth of Premise 1 of the Moral Argument. So therefore, in order to avoid the conclusion (that God exists), he must deny Premise 2 of the argument.

What is hysterical is that Dawkins is a very stubborn moralist. Even within the pages of the very same book, he strongly denounces the Doctrine of original sin as "morally obnoxious". He rigorously condemns such actions as the harassment and abuse of homosexuals, the religious indoctrination of children, and the practice of human sacrifice. Dawkins even goes so far as to create his own rendition of the 10 Commandments, as a guide to moral behavior! Similarly, he declares himself "mortified" that the Enron Executive, Jeff Skilling, declares Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene" to be one of his all-time favorite books! Subsequently, Dawkins calls compassion and generosity to be "noble emotions". All the while completely oblivious for the logical contradiction of such claims when combined with his ethical subjectivism.

It is very hard to believe that all of Dawkin's moral denunciations of such actions are just "his opinion". It would be obtuse to conclude that in spite of all the vigorous condemnation that he finds himself whispering to his colleagues "I really don't think that anti-homosexuality and child abuse are wrong; its just my opinion. You can go ahead and believe whatever you want. It doesn't matter, because there is no moral objectivity." Therefore we conclude that Dawkin's truly does affirm the existence of objective morals, even though it is incompatible with his atheism. Since Dawkins seems to affirm both of the premises, he is then forced to affirm the conclusion: God exists.

If anyone believes that certain things are truly wrong, then you affirm the existence of objective morals and in turn affirm the existence of God.

Therefore, God exists.

Moral Relativism Failure #1: Self-Refuting

Moral Relativism: There are no moral absolutes. Any assertions one makes that humans ought/ought not act in certain ways (morality) is dependent upon human opinion. An act is moral/immoral because individual humans dictate what morality is for themselves.

Moral Objectivism: There are moral absolutes. Humans ought/ought not act in certain ways because morality is independent of human opinion. An act is moral/immoral because there is an absolute standard of rightness which we are all held accountable, that is completely independent of our opinions and our having knowledge of it.

Moral Relativism is Self-Refuting:

Moral Relativism claims to speak universal truth to at least one thing - Specifically, that someone's truth can be someone else's falsehood - and therefore contradicts itself by claiming that nothing is right or wrong. If that is true (nothing is right or wrong) then why believe the relativist if he has absolutely no truth to utter?

What the relativist is saying would be the equivalent of saying, "I can't speak a word of English" or "God told me He does not exist" Such statements do not meet their own standard or criteria; they are self-referentially incoherent because they do exactly what they deny is possible. All of these statements, including "morality is relative", are necessarily false. That is to say that there is no possible way for them to be true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction states that A and non-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. For example, I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. This would violate the law of non-contradiction.

So if I were to say "I do not exist", you would clearly see the obvious self-refuting nature of the statement. Relating this to the real issue at hand, the relativist falsifies his own system by self-defeating statements, such as "Everyone's morals are right or wrong only relative to himself." If moral claims are only right for the one who speaks them, then his claims are only true for himself, and it's very difficult to see why they should matter to the rest of us. Normally, when the relativist says, "morality is relative," he expects his hearers to believe his statements and embrace his view of reality. The position of the moral relativist fails in its own practical application.

• Objection #1: By claiming "morality is relative" one is not making a claim about morality, and is therefore not being self-refuting.

Refuting Objection:

Moral-Claim Incoherence Issue: Although the statement, "morality is relative" is not a claim in regards to morality, the implication of the assertion is nonetheless the same, thus it is still self-refuting. Since the moral relativist does not believe that any cultures values are any more correct than others, he attempts to tolerate all positions. The logic is that since there is no correct ethical system of beliefs, then we ought to tolerate the morality of all cultures.

But what does the moral relativist do with the moral objectivist who doesn't believe that all morals are correct? Christians are not relativists; we do not think that all beliefs are equal. We believe there is only one correct way to see reality and that is through God's Word, not moral opinions and cultural dictations. Yet the close-minded relativists refuse to tolerate Christianity!

The relativist's belief system forbids him to judge the exclusive belief system based on his own moral belief system and thus forbids him from making his original assertion about being tolerant; for that would be intolerant of the intolerant culture! Thus the other culture has no moral obligation to value tolerance and the relativist has absolutely no foundation for supporting tolerance. This is complete and total hypocrisy because, in actuality, moral relativism cannot tolerate any belief system except it's own, without violating its own standards. Again, the repercussions of moral relativism still fail the test of self-refutation.

Truth-Claim Incoherence Issue: Although the claim that "morality is relative" is not a moral statement, there is still a self-defeating nature that appears in its implications. As soon as a moral relativist makes an objective claim in regards to good/bad or right/wrong, their statement is no more than their opinion, and one is not obligated to it. Any ethical claim that the moral relativist makes means absolutely nothing. Even the assertion, "people ought to realize that morality is relative" is without foundation. For it is a baseless objective claim that is without warrant due to their moral relativism. This applies to any and every single ethical claim that the moral relativist makes. It is non-sensical for the him to assert this proposition and then imply a moral obligation of any kind. Such obligations do not exist within that worldview.

But even then, as I argued in the above paragraph, moral relativism is, by definition, at odds, or is contradictory, to moral objectivism (see blog of definitions) For the moral relativist, tolerance is a cardinal virtue. They believe we must tolerate all other moral systems. But then, of course, one is to conclude that moral relativists must tolerate moral objectivists, as well. Tolerance must be for every single belief. But by being tolerant of the objectivists, they are being intolerant to themselves! Either way, whether he chooses to tolerate objectivism, or not, the relativist is being self-defeating by violating the law of non-contradiction. Regardless of the relativist's moral stances, he is being intolerant, and therefore self-refuting, simply by asserting his position.

• Objection #2: Personal experience is a necessity when it comes to moral responsibilities. Without subjective/personal experience, there would be absolutely no difference between "rape" and "sex" or "taking" and "stealing" There is no Moral objectivist who can believe in moral absolutism without appealing to relative personal experience. 

Refuting Objection:

Issue 1 Moral Ontology vs. Moral Epistemology:

Moral Ontology: The study of the existence and foundation in reality of moral values and duties. (What is the existence and foundation that moral standards are based upon?)

Moral Epistemology: The study of the meaning of moral sentences and the justification or knowledge of moral principles. (How do we know these moral standards? What are the moral standards? What are the implications of these moral standards?)

The disagreement in this objection raises a concern in regards to Moral Epistemology. I have made no claims that have to do with the Epistemological implications of morality. I have been arguing against moral relativism strictly through a Moral Ontological approach. That is to say, I make no claims/mentions about the inference (Moral Epistemology) that comes as a result of a foundation for morality (Moral Ontology) Any questions raised that have to do with knowledge, insinuation, or conclusion that moral obligations bring up, are a completely separate issue. By giving a scenario, such as rape/sex or taking/stealing, the objector is raising a concern with Moral Epistemology. But I am only arguing the existence of an objective law, and that is it. Anything added on is completely irrelevent to the topic.

This objection raises no real concern to any of what I have argued and cannot be considered as even an attempt at a refutation. For it proposes not a single defeater for anything that has been said.

Issue 2 Clearing up misunderstandings:

There is some misrepresentation in regards to this persons understanding of objective morality and subjective experience. First off, it does not logically follow to say that, "since moral/immoral acts are experienced between two separate subjective individuals, therefore morality is relative." That is a non-sequitur. In the example of rape/sex; this objection assumes (does not give sufficient evidence) that since the difference between the definition of rape/sex are contingent upon someone's subjective experience, therefore the immorality comes as a result of one person conflicting suffering onto another person.

The definition of Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivism have nothing to do with "subjective experience". The objector blindly asserts that because humans experience immoral/moral acts, that therefore the act is immoral/moral because one experienced it. But subjective experience does not mean relative-opinionated morality. In the Christian-worldview, rape and stealing are immoral, independent of the acts being committed against someone. This is because God's nature is the standard for justice that exists whether someone rape/steals or not.

Thus, with a clearing up of these misunderstandings, this proposed defeater is nothing more than a misrepresentation of definitions and a lack of knowledge about God's nature in relation to our experience.

Battle of Ideas

There is a battle of ideas being waged in modern America; many have called it the culture war. As Christians, we are to fight this battle in a very specific way. It is crucial that we attack the deeper cause of the cultural conflict. We must dig down to the deep philosophical roots of the battles that we are fighting. The fact of the matter is that over the past thirty years, the American mind has been drastically transformed. 67 percent of Americans deny the existence of absolute truth. More than 70 percent say there are no moral absolutes. This confusion over Truth is the fundamental crisis of our day and age. Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5 that we are to "destroy" careless thoughts and arguments that keep people from knowing Christ. And that is what I hope to do with this blog. Secondly, my goal is to prepare other believers to make a defense for their faith in Christ. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to be prepared to give an answer for the Christian faith that we have, and to do so with gentleness and respect. We receive this command from God and ought to obey Him. Through studying Christian Apologetics, not only will you be prepared to share your belief with others, but your faith will be strengthened in the process.