Moral • -Introduction • -“Right and wrong as clue to the meaning of the universe.” • C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity) • -If there is a moral “law”, then there is a moral lawgiver. • -Society, culture, and individuals are inadequate sources for • morality • -Humanity largely holds to objective moral law. • -Question: “Where did these objective moral • laws come from?” • -“Objective” moral values mean they are • binding whether anyone believes them or not
Moral Argument • -The issue is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral • lives?” No • -The issue is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values • exist?” • Formal Presentation: • P1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist • P2: Objective moral values do exist • C: Therefore God exists • *Key* - defend the idea that morality is objective and that society and individuals are inadequate sources for them
Moral • Defending P2: Objective Moral values exist • In order to avoid God’s existence atheists deny that objective moral values exist. The late Professor J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, an atheist, admitted: “If … there … are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have … a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.”
Moral • Defending P2: Objective Moral values exist (cont’d) • On the atheistic view, some action, say rape, may not be socially advantageous (which is questionable) and has become socially taboo (i.e., impolite, like picking ones nose in public, or burping at the dinner table) • That does not prove that rape is morally wrong, if you can escape the social consequences, there’s nothing really wrong with raping someone, thus without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on us • But, the fact is, rape really is wrong if you believe it or not or get caught or not and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse aren’t just socially unacceptable (i.e., impolite) they’re abominations, morally wrong actions.
Moral • Defending P1: Objective morality is dependent on God • Ethical relativism – right and wrong are subjective, not objective • “What is right for you, might not be right for me.” • Relativism holds that ethics are determined by a society or individual • Critique: - If society determines ethics, then the Nazis were right in their society in killing 6 million Jews since societies determine what is ethical or moral, but this must be wrong - If individuals determines ethics, then individuals could determine that rape, murder, etc. are morally right. • Conclusion: it seems evident that moral values cannot be relative (subjective), but are objective which cannot exist without God, thus God must be the source of objective morality.
Moral • -Defending the Conclusion: There must be a law giver • >An objective moral value tells us what ought to be done or • not to be done • >This implies moral obligation or duty • >Only a person, mind, or authority can give a sense of • obligation or duty • Example: With a law you have an obligation. Government • gives the law, which gives it a sense of obligation. • >Then there must be a law giver of morality which breeds the • sense of obligation.
Summary Moral • Begin by appealing to human intuition of absolute right and wrong. • Ask what is the grounds or the source for this obligation. • Societies and individuals are inadequate sources. • The only source can be God