Critique of the Argument From Morality (Christian Apologetics Part 1)

[Coloradomtnman]

The Argument From Morality basically states because there is objective morality God must exist.

Let me break this down into its parts for those not familiar with the argument:

1. There is an objective morality
2. God is the best or only explanation for this objective morality
3. Therefore, God exists.

The Moral Argument

Do you think this is a sound argument?

I don't because there is no objective morality.

1. There are no examples of objective morality.

2. People sometimes believe that at one time their actions are moral only to realize later that they no longer agree to the morality of those actions.

3. Different cultures have different morals.

I know this isn't in the Clean Debate forum but please try to stay on topic and refrain from insults.

@Peach @Hollie @Jeremiah @JoeB131 @Boss @THE LIGHT @JimBowie1958 @PoliticalChic @teapartysamurai @MaxGrit @amrchaos @sealybobo @PratchettFan @Quantum Windbag @Disir @CrusaderFrank @Uncensored2008 @walk_thetalk @UllysesS.Archer @Vandalshandle @Moonglow @Samson @BillyP @edthecynic @there4eyeM @S.J. @G.T. @Derideo_Te @editec @LittleNipper @Mr. H. @PostmodernProph @Mad Scientist @Avatar4321 @rightwinger @Luddly Neddite @koshergrl @R.C. Christian @SmedlyButler @C_Clayton_Jones @Delta4Embassy

 

[Peach]

The Argument From Morality basically states because there is objective morality God must exist.

Let me break this down into its parts for those not familiar with the argument:

1. There is an objective morality
2. God is the best or only explanation for this objective morality
3. Therefore, God exists.

The Moral Argument

Do you think this is a sound argument?

I don't because there is no objective morality.

1. There are no examples of objective morality.

2. People sometimes believe that at one time their actions are moral only to realize later that they no longer agree to the morality of those actions.

3. Different cultures have different morals.

I know this isn't in the Clean Debate forum but please try to stay on topic and refrain from insults.

@Peach @Hollie @Jeremiah @JoeB131 @Boss @THE LIGHT @JimBowie1958 @PoliticalChic @teapartysamurai @MaxGrit @amrchaos @sealybobo @PratchettFan @Quantum Windbag @Disir @CrusaderFrank @Uncensored2008 @walk_thetalk @UllysesS.Archer @Vandalshandle @Moonglow @Samson @BillyP @edthecynic @there4eyeM @S.J. @G.T. @Derideo_Te @editec @LittleNipper @Mr. H. @PostmodernProph @Mad Scientist @Avatar4321 @rightwinger @Luddly Neddite @koshergrl @R.C. Christian @SmedlyButler @C_Clayton_Jones @Delta4Embassy

I got redirected to "Microsoft surface forums"; morality, to me, is beyond simple 'objective/subjective' definition. Wrong however is objective, you will know when you harm another, if your heart remains OPEN. Evil exists because the inner soul can be closed. Thus humans must be ever vigilant.

I am a human, thus the same as other humans; empathy is the goal to be attained, ALWAYS.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

@Peach

Yet even the right/wrong dichotomy is an insufficient way for judging actions because of the large grey areas between the two. Harming a person who believes they are doing right to stop them from harming someone that the first party believes in doing wrong would fall into that grey area.

 

[LiberalMedia]

The Argument From Morality basically states because there is objective morality God must exist.

Let me break this down into its parts for those not familiar with the argument:

1. There is an objective morality
2. God is the best or only explanation for this objective morality
3. Therefore, God exists.

The Moral Argument

Do you think this is a sound argument?

I don't because there is no objective morality.

Absolutely agree. Not only is there no such thing as a higher power, there is also no such thing as morality, ethics, or facts. All of them are merely bigoted opinions being forced upon the masses by the ruling oligarchy of the global patriarchy.

 

[Peach]

@Peach

Yet even the right/wrong dichotomy is an insufficient way for judging actions because of the large grey areas between the two. Harming a person who believes they are doing right to stop them from harming someone that the first party believes in doing wrong would fall into that grey area.

Thus; thought, and soul, must work in tandem, no easy answers.

 

[LiberalMedia]

morality, to me, is beyond simple 'objective/subjective' definition. Wrong however is objective, you will know when you harm another, if your heart remains OPEN. Evil exists because the inner soul can be closed. Thus humans must be ever vigilant.

You'll have to elaborate on this. "Wrong" is objective because it would be "evil" to be unaware that one's actions have harmed another?

What is the "inner soul," and how does it differ from the regular soul that many religions allege exists?

And why do you declare "wrong" as being objective, when in the previous sentence you admitted that your answer to the objective/subjective morality question was merely an opinion ("morality, to me, is...")?

 

[Peach]

The Argument From Morality basically states because there is objective morality God must exist.

Let me break this down into its parts for those not familiar with the argument:

1. There is an objective morality
2. God is the best or only explanation for this objective morality
3. Therefore, God exists.

The Moral Argument

Do you think this is a sound argument?

I don't because there is no objective morality.

Absolutely agree. Not only is there no such thing as a higher power, there is also no such thing as morality, ethics, or facts. All of them are merely bigoted opinions being forced upon the masses by the ruling oligarchy of the global patriarchy.

That sure boxes in not only thought, but also soul. Since males are about one half of humanity, perhaps better training methods should be employed........no, I three of my favorite people I ever knew were/are male, two of whom would not adjust heat nor air without permission, nay INSTRUCTION from the women in the home, they failed patriarchy I guess...............

 

[BreezeWood]

.

The Argument From Morality basically states because there is objective morality God must exist.

no, it may also mean there is simply something in charge, a Spirit that has survived a very long time that rules the universe.

the Triumph of Good vs Evil, the map to the Everlasting -

begins with life at the base of the pyramid, with knowledge and energy a Spirit may begin ascending becoming ever more knowledgeable and with enough energy and time and the correct conclusions may eventually reach the apex to all that is knowable - the path to Spiritual freedom, however that must also include the Triumph of Good vs Evil or at the Apex by the Ruler of the Universe the door will forever be closed.

.

 

[MaxGrit]

It's not a good argument since the premise relies on proof that absolute morality is true, which requires proof that morality is true.

However, the argument works well to convince people who already thinks morality is true.

 

[MaxGrit]

If morality is a true concept, then it follows that perfect morality exists, which we call absolute morality.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

The Argument From Morality basically states because there is objective morality God must exist.

Let me break this down into its parts for those not familiar with the argument:

1. There is an objective morality
2. God is the best or only explanation for this objective morality
3. Therefore, God exists.

The Moral Argument

Do you think this is a sound argument?

I don't because there is no objective morality.

1. There are no examples of objective morality.

2. People sometimes believe that at one time their actions are moral only to realize later that they no longer agree to the morality of those actions.

3. Different cultures have different morals.

I know this isn't in the Clean Debate forum but please try to stay on topic and refrain from insults.

@Peach @Hollie @Jeremiah @JoeB131 @Boss @THE LIGHT @JimBowie1958 @PoliticalChic @teapartysamurai @MaxGrit @amrchaos @sealybobo @PratchettFan @Quantum Windbag @Disir @CrusaderFrank @Uncensored2008 @walk_thetalk @UllysesS.Archer @Vandalshandle @Moonglow @Samson @BillyP @edthecynic @there4eyeM @S.J. @G.T. @Derideo_Te @editec @LittleNipper @Mr. H. @PostmodernProph @Mad Scientist @Avatar4321 @rightwinger @Luddly Neddite @koshergrl @R.C. Christian @SmedlyButler @C_Clayton_Jones @Delta4Embassy

Only way to plausibly state there is no objective morality is to widen your frame of reference to encompass the entire universe and use non-human animals and aliens as examples of those who may not share our ideas of morality. For humans then, there is moral objectivity. Don't murder other humans is a universal moral concept. As is don't steal or lie maliciously.

I've heard the arguement applied to immortal or extremely long-lived aliens that they may not understand death and thus not object to murder, but I think that's highly speculative at best. Would argue anything capable of feeling pain can die, and anything that can die will have a pain response it understands, thus why not to inflict pain on others, let alone murder them.

Similarly, if you're eating food to sustain your biology, you'd understand how someone walking up and snatching it away from you to eat it themselves is likewise objectionable (although I've noted birds tend to do that often with no apparent resentment heh.)

And lying requires communication and/or language. But isn't hard to imagine how relaying inaccurate information or deceiving someone for personal gain or motives would also be universally understood as something negative.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Absolutely agree. Not only is there no such thing as a higher power, there is also no such thing as morality, ethics, or facts. All of them are merely bigoted opinions being forced upon the masses by the ruling oligarchy of the global patriarchy.

Oh...Now I get why they hate liberals.

 

[PratchettFan]

Morality is purely subjective because it is personal. Each of us lives by their own moral code, believing what they do is right and proper. God is not the source of morality, only a justification for it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Morality is purely subjective because it is personal. Each of us lives by their own moral code, believing what they do is right and proper. God is not the source of morality, only a justification for it.

Every belief or fact is personal though. If morality doesn't exist just because it's personal, then nothing exists because everythign's personal.

 

[PratchettFan]

Morality is purely subjective because it is personal. Each of us lives by their own moral code, believing what they do is right and proper. God is not the source of morality, only a justification for it.

Every belief or fact is personal though. If morality doesn't exist just because it's personal, then nothing exists because everythign's personal.

I didn't say it didn't exist, only that it was personal. Decisions you make in your life can only be made by you, but that does not mean decisions are not made. Morality is nothing more than the standard you use to make those decisions. Do you let the person into traffic or speed up to keep them from getting in front of you? Do you open the door and let others in or go in first? Do you point the gun and shoot someone you never met or tell the officer giving the orders "no"? Every decision is a choice and morality is about choices.

Perhaps what people are thinking about is not morality but mores. That is about what is acceptable by the standards of the group. But those standards are also subjective based upon which group is involved. Bank robbers in the 30's were often seen as heroes by one group and villains by another.

 

[Disir]

Morality is subjective and a deity gives it oomph. It's also very true that it's cultural. Tribal honor killings are based on morality justified with a warped version of a religion. The rest of us think this is heinous. Locally-within certain Christian sects-domestic violence is justified via the Bible. You can't leave your husband because that would be immoral and not doing what God wants. The rest of us think this is heinous.

To an extent, Liberal Media is right. Morality is dictated by those at the top. It doesn't actually address problems and is used to force compliance through fear. Many times over it creates additional problems because the justification is shoddy to begin with. There is too much grey area and new questions and issues replace the old ones that it was meant to resolve.

I agree, there is no objective morality.
You have to jump through hoops.
Moral Law and the Ten Commandments Institute for Faith Work Economics

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Great responses so far. Will reply more later (bump).