The Argument From Morality

Theists often use morality to try to prove the existence of God.

William Lane Craig's argument

Possibly the best know is William Lane Craig's argument, one form of which is:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

The conclusion certainly follows from the premises, but are the premises true? I see no reason to suppose they are, and until the premises are proven, the conclusion remains unproven.

Let us think about why we need God for objective moral values to exist... Indeed, how is the existence of objective moral values even consistent with God?

Consider the issue of slavery. If slavery is morally wrong, then either God arbitrarily choose for slavery to be morally wrong - that is, he was free to choose either way - or it was not an arbitrary choice. Either it was possible that God could have make slavery moral or it was not. 

In the former case, the claim that slavery is immoral is, well, arbitrary, in which case it is not objectively true, it is just God's opinion, so Craig's premise 2 is not true, and thus his argument fails.

So what if it was not arbitrary? Maybe it flowed from his perfect goodness, maybe God is obliged to do what is good, maybe God chooses only what is good, etc. Whatever it was, God was not free to choose either way, because slavery is inherent - objectively - wrong. Thus, premise 2 is true in this case. However, the fact that slavery is immoral is now independent of God. Remove God from the system, and slavery is still morally wrong. Thus, in this case premise 1 is false, and so his argument fails.

Either way, his argument fails.

Metacrock

Here is an alternative take, by Joe Hinman (aka Metacrock), which he considers better, if less certain.

(1) Humans are possessed of moral motions which we find to be real and important. We cannot deny the senes of moral outrage over "evil" or the sense that one "ought" to do that which we find "good."

(2) Such moral motions can be understood as grounded in terms of behavior in our genetic endowment, but no explanation can tell us why we find them moral or how to justify them as "ought's."

(3) Genetic explanations only provide an understanding of behavior, they do not offer the basis of a moral dimension (trying to turn "is" into "ought").

(4) Social contract theory offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored in the shifting sands of social necessity and politics (this is both a practical issue and a matter meta ethical theory).

(5) In Christian understandng God is possessed of a loving nature that makes the good a matter of rationale on the part of the creator and his status as creator means he is more than qualified to be judge to translate te good into moral values.

(6) Therefore, God is the only source of grounding which works as a regulative concept for our moral axioms and at the same time actually explains the deep seated nature of moral motions. Universal Moral Law.

With regards to (1), I agree, but it must be noted that morality is not universal. We feel a sense of outrage when an atrocity is committed, but presumably the perpetrators do not. We can feel moral outrage at how the Romans would watch people being eating by wild animals at the circuses, but these were very popular events 2000 years ago. What people consider good and bad is not set in stone, but is part of their culture.

This brings us to (2), I would say they are cultural or social, rather than genetic; again think about the Roman circuses or consider changing attitudes to slavery. That said, I do not think this greatly impacts his argument.

These are rules mankind has developed to allow him to work in a community. We find them moral because our culture has conditioned us to, and that works because moral cultures survive better than amoral cultures. By amoral culture I mean one where individuals are free to steal and murder within the community. The basic rights of an individual who belongs to the in-group is preserved across all cultures because that in-group gets to set the rules. The in-group does not want people stealing from them or killing them, so develop rules to protect themselves from that, and morality springs from those rules.

In (3), Joe points out that genetic (and implicitly social and cultural) explanations fail to offer the basis of a morality - get cannot turn "is" into "ought". But why should we suppose there is such a basis? Maybe there is no moral foundation, and morality is merely what we all agree it is. How else can we explain the changes in morality between cultures?

Or maybe there is an objective morality that exists in the abstract, just as geometry does. Again, should we suppose there is an "ought"? 

With regards to (4), Joe says social contract theory (SCT) "offers only relativism that can be changed or ignored". What he fails to note is that that is what we observe! Morality does change, morality can indeed be ignored.

When we get to (5), Joe seems to be saying that God (according to Christianity) is good and judging what is right and wrong. It sounds like he sees morality as separate to God. There is an objective morality, and, say slavery is objectively wrong. God, given his situation, is particularly able at discerning that fact, and relaying that to mankind.

However, when we look at (6), it looks like Joe's position is the reverse of that. Now God is the "source of grounding", indicating that slavery is wrong because God says it is. It must be noted that Joe does not talk about objective morality, so he is not on the weak ground that Craig is at this point. For Joe, "Universal Moral Law" means laws that come from God, and are universal because God is universal.

So how can we relate that to (5)? I guess what Joe means is that God chooses what is right or wrong. Slavery is morally wrong because God has arbitrarily decided slavery will be wrong. However, as per (5), as the creator he is adept at deciding what will be morally wrong, so he made a good choice to make slavery morally.

Good on what basis? Well, one that aligns with our ideas of right and wrong, i.e., what God decided would be good is what God decided would be good! Frankly, the argument make as much sense without (5) in my opinion.

In summary, the argument comes down to:

People universally understand right and wrong (1)

Therefore there must be some underlying and fundamental morality (2)

God is the best explanation of that (3-6)

Therefore God likely exists

Is God the best explanation?

I do not think so, and one reason for that is the way morality has changed. If we are to believe Christianity, God at one time was pretty active. The Old Testament has numerous prophets in communication with God. Earlier still, God was talking directly to Adam and Eve, and later to Noah. What we would expect is for morality in ancient times to be closer to God's morality just because society at that time had a direct line to God.

And that does not seem to be the case, not unless we assume Old Testament morality is superior to modern morality (kids should be stoned to death if they disobey their parent, rape victims should marry their rapists, it is wrong to eat pork and shellfish and, of course, chattel slavery is moral for gentile slaves).

A good explanation has to explain all that we see. Social contract theory seems to better fit what we see (not that I am particularly convinced of that either).

A small part of me wonders if "God is the best explanation" is actually based on the tacit assumption that God exists. If God exists, then the probability of God being behind morality is far higher.