Verifiable evidence basis of the "moral argument"

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads someone said:

Most of the central claims of theism come from reason based on verifiable evidence. Such arguments – like the cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, and free will arguments – are well known and based on verifiable evidence.

One of the most popular apologetics using Moral Law is attributed to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, and used extensively by William Lane Craig as Argument from Morality (AfM). It can be summarized as follows:

1. Absolute morality exists; there are moral commands that are universal in scope and do not vary from person to person.

2. For absolute moral commands to have real moral force, there must be a moral lawgiver.

3. The best explanation of a moral lawgiver is that it is the God of the Bible.

4. Therefore, God exists.

Questions for debate (Kindly restrict comments to the "moral argument" in this thread – there will be others to deal with evidence basis of other arguments):

1) What conclusive evidence proves that the premise "moral law exists" is true?

2) What conclusive evidence proves there must be a "moral lawgiver?"

3) What conclusive evidence proves that the best explanation is the God of the bible?

4) If any of the above three cannot be proved conclusively, does the "Argument from Morality" hold water?

[dianaiad]

.

The question being raised in this debate is whether there is an absolute morality.

Exactly. Some have claimed that "Absolute Morality" exists. First, proponents must define the term "absolute morality" and then provide verifiable evidence to support the claim.

So far it doesn't seem as though an attempt has been made.

Notice that the OP does NOT ask for evidence that such a thing doesn't exist.

Therefore the bit about whether absolute morality exists is the question, not the premise. Simply claiming that absolute morality does not exist is fine and all, but since it IS the question being offered for consideration, you will need to give us some evidence/reason/justification for your claim that it does not.

Now me, I think it does; I do think that there is an 'absolute morality,' for beings who can actually stop and consider whether there might be.

An "absolute morality", by definition must apply at all places and all times to all people. Right?

What are examples of moral absolutes?

Now THAT is an interesting question.

Looking at all the cultures with which I am familiar, I'd say that "thou shalt not kill without good cause," which would translate, I suppose, to 'thou shalt not murder," where 'murder' is killing not sanctioned by the culture surrounding the killer.

I know of very few, if any, large cultures in which killing is always against the moral code, but I know of none where one can go killing without justification...just because one feels like it. The justification for killing might be no justification at all according to OUR standards, but that killing needed to be justified according to theirs...whatever it was.

Can you think of another that might qualify? Perhaps...stealing someone else's property in cultures that had a concept of private property?

Not, of course, that people did not go around killing just for the heck of it and stealing stuff just because they could, but the 'moral code' is about what everybody agrees is 'the way things should be,' not 'the way things are.'

If one can't break the code...if no-one does break a code, then there would be no need for one, right?

.When, where and by whom was the claimed absolute morality formulated – and how can that be shown to be true?

Why would having such a code mean that it was artificially formulated, designed and declared?

I mean, really. I'm a theist and even I don't think that logic follows.

Could have been...oh...'survival of the fittest' at work.

My position is that having such a universal 'moral code' does not prove that God exists, but that the utter lack of such universal behavioral codes would be a pretty good indication that He doesn't.

At least, not in the 'Personal creator God' sort of way, anyhow.

.Note: "Absolute" is defined as: "something that is always true and accepted as fact, with no arguments against it or conditions necessary for it to be true."

OK...I would say that having every single human culture ever recorded have, as part of that culture, a requirement to justify killing to that culture because killing indiscriminately and without cause is a Bad Thing...that would satisfy the above definition.

Whether those killings satisfy OUR criteria or not is beside the point; that they must be justified at all is the telling thing.

]
.quote="dianaiad"]
One cannot prescribe it, but only describe it; what moral and ethical precepts seem to be most important to sentient cultures, and how serious are the consequences of breaking them?

Are you using "moral and ethical precepts" as synonymous with "Moral law?" [/quote]

(thinking)

...........................

(thinking some more)

......................................................

Probably.

.Precept is defined as: a commandment or direction given as a rule of action or conduct

These would be the required justifications within the cultures, I would imagine. The fact that they all require such justification, thin as that justification might be to us, is what puts the 'absolute' in it, I think.

.Absolute morality does not connote what is "most important to sentient cultures cultures"

I think it does, when it applies to all of 'em.

At least in the sense that 'absolute' is used in this discussion, anyway.

.

because of course moral precepts are always broken by someone, somewhere, or nobody would have to actually codify them or teach them.

Agreed, laws and commandments are broken. However, absolute moral codes cannot vary from culture to culture or from time to time.

True. Which is why "thou shalt not kill without justification" would qualify here. Or...'thou shalt not murder," where 'murder' is defined as killing without culturally acceptable justification.

The justification required might vary from culture to culture, but that there has to BE some? That doesn't seem to.

[Zzyzx]

.
Diana,

Thank you for the thoughtful response (as usual).

Looking at all the cultures with which I am familiar, I'd say that "thou shalt not kill without good cause," which would translate, I suppose, to 'thou shalt not murder," where 'murder' is killing not sanctioned by the culture surrounding the killer.

It would seem to me as though when you say "sanctioned by the culture" the morality is no longer absolute -- but is culturally determined.

If the culture determines what behavior is "moral", and different cultures make different determinations, how can one claim that it is absolute (applies in all cases, all times, all examples, no exceptions)?

That position would seem to acknowledge that morality is a function of culture -- not an absolute imposed externally (or by a God, or whatever).

[dianaiad]

.
Diana,

Thank you for the thoughtful response (as usual).

Looking at all the cultures with which I am familiar, I'd say that "thou shalt not kill without good cause," which would translate, I suppose, to 'thou shalt not murder," where 'murder' is killing not sanctioned by the culture surrounding the killer.

It would seem to me as though when you say "sanctioned by the culture" the morality is no longer absolute -- but is culturally determined.

If the culture determines what behavior is "moral", and different cultures make different determinations, how can one claim that it is absolute (applies in all cases, all times, all examples, no exceptions)?

That position would seem to acknowledge that morality is a function of culture -- not an absolute imposed externally (or by a God, or whatever).

I would argue, in return, that although the acceptable justifications for killing may differ among cultures, that all cultures require justification; that killing without explaining oneself (or having that killing explained to the members of the culture) is not acceptable in any culture.

As in: one culture may decide that a parent may kill his own children...because they are, after all, his children...but he may not kill someone else's 'just because.'

Our culture says that one may kill in self defense. Another culture may say that no, that's only true if the victim is in the same, or higher, heirarchical class as the assailant. That culture may also say that killing someone on a lower rung of the ladder is fine...but someone is going to ask the question. There will always be a 'because' that must be acceptable to the culture.

True, one must 'drill down' to the very basics here, but we'd have to do that to find the 'absolute' anyway, right?

I would say that "thou shalt not commit murder" would be an 'absolute' moral standard held by all cultures, where 'murder' is " killing unjustified by the standards of the culture."

If one has to explain oneself in order to 'get away' with it, then that 'rule' applies.

Even if the explanation is abhorrent to us.

[bjs]

First, Z seems to be changing the standard. In the context of the original post we are talking about things which could not be conclusively proven or verified. Specifically, we were talking about preparing for future events which cannot be conclusively known. Rather, we can make reasonable choices based on the available information. To avoid shifting goalposts I will stick with the standard of reasonable choices, as opposed to conclusive proof, that Z established in the other thread.

I have never heard the version of the moral argument found in the first post. Perhaps it came from Craig, whose work I have not read. I will give a more traditional explanation of the argument.


1. Objective morality exists. Certain moral laws exist regardless of the individual or the culture.

2. Objective morality is better explained by the work of an intelligent will than by unthinking forces.

3. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that an intelligent will – God – moist likely exists.


Let’s look at each part.



1. Objective morality exists.

The existence of objective morality is the ground assumption of this argument. It is based on a belief already held by most non-theists and theist alike, including many non-theists who post on this site.

Many non-theist on this site have said thing like, “I do what is right because it is right.� That statement assumes the existence of objective morality. If there is no objective morality then there is no such thing as “right.� There are actions which are beneficial, or socially acceptable, but not morally right.

A recent thread in this forum claimed that the flood recorded in Genesis was, “The Most immoral Act in the History of the Earth.� For that statement to make sense there must be objective morality. No act can be the most immoral act in history if there is no such thing as objective morality.

The strongest (only?) positive argument for atheism is the problem of evil/suffering. It has been brought up many times on this forum. This argument is built on the existence of objective morality. Without objective morality there can be no evil. There can be things I, or my culture, do not like, but nothing can be meaningfully called “evil.� Suffering is only bad if we believe that there is a way that things “ought to be.� If there is not a way that things ought to be – if there is no objective morality – then suffering can be called disagreeable but not wrong.


A non-theist can deny objective morality, but he/she will have to deal with the consequences of that in discussing differing worldviews.



2. Objective morality is better explained by the work of an intelligent will than by unthinking forces.

In every instance when we know the cause when there are laws of any kind they are the result of an intelligent will at work. In every instance when we know the cause if there is no intelligent will at work then there are no laws. Moral laws – objective morality – are more likely to come from an intelligent will than from any other source.

If both premises are truth then the conclusion is true.


Again, this is not absolute proof, but a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence. Also, this does not get us all the way to Christianity specifically. This argument only provides reasonable support to the belief that an intelligent God of some kind exists.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 14 by bjs]

Let's define "objective" as it is used here – Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. ...

More specifically

Objective Morality is Universal
Philosophers define objective morality by its universality, believing that some moral ideas are so fundamentally important that everyone should follow them. Immanuel Kant, in 1785, stated that in order to be considered an objective moral law, a moral ideal must be universal and must never treat humanity as a means to an end, and that the world should accept the ideal as a universal law.

An (or the?) alternative is Subjective Morality

Subjective Morality is Optional
As opposed to the ideal of universal morality, personal choice determines subjective morality. The idea is that each individual has the right to choose specific moral ideals by which to live her life. Subjective morality also suggests that no one has the right to demand that others adhere to the same ethical ideals as they do. For instance, you may believe that you have a moral responsibility to vote in public elections; however, this feeling does not mean that you believe that everyone has a moral responsibility to vote in public elections or that society should mandate voting. http://www.ehow.com/info_8623529_differ ... ality.html

Do you (generic term) disagree with the above?

First, Z seems to be changing the standard. In the context of the original post we are talking about things which could not be conclusively proven or verified.

More specifically, this thread OP asks:

1) What conclusive evidence proves that the premise "moral law exists" is true?

2) What conclusive evidence proves there must be a "moral lawgiver?"

3) What conclusive evidence proves that the best explanation is the God of the bible?

4) If any of the above three cannot be proved conclusively, does the "Argument from Morality" hold water?

Those who cannot answer those questions may feel a need to "change the standard" to enable them to present at least a semblance of argument on the topic.

Specifically, we were talking about preparing for future events which cannot be conclusively known.

In this thread we are talking specifically about "Verifiable evidence basis of the 'moral argument'"

Rather, we can make reasonable choices based on the available information.

Okay, kindly present the information favoring a "reasonable choice" in favor of "objective morality." That seems to be lacking. All offered so far seems to be opinion and conjecture. Is there any verifiable evidence – or do you recommend making "reasonable choices" based on opinions and conjecture?

To avoid shifting goalposts I will stick with the standard of reasonable choices, as opposed to conclusive proof, that Z established in the other thread.

Okay, if you acknowledge that conclusive evidence is not available to support your claim, water it down and try to convince readers (and fellow debaters) that "reasonable choice" favors objective morality.

I have never heard the version of the moral argument found in the first post. Perhaps it came from Craig, whose work I have not read. I will give a more traditional explanation of the argument.

Neither Craig's argument nor yours holds water.

1. Objective morality exists. Certain moral laws exist regardless of the individual or the culture.

2. Objective morality is better explained by the work of an intelligent will than by unthinking forces.

3. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that an intelligent will – God – moist likely exists.

Let’s look at each part.

1. Objective morality exists.

The existence of objective morality is the ground assumption of this argument.

That assumption cannot be / has not been shown to be truthful and accurate.

It is based on a belief already held by most non-theists and theist alike, including many non-theists who post on this site.

Argument ad populum

There is strong disagreement regarding the existence of a proposed "objective morality" and thus no justification for assuming it is correct.

Many non-theist on this site have said thing like, “I do what is right because it is right.� That statement assumes the existence of objective morality.

OH? Are you saying that when SOME Non-Theists say something it must be true?

A more accurate "quotation" of Non-Theist statements that I have observed is "I do what is right because I conclude (or think) it is the right thing to do."

If there is no objective morality then there is no such thing as “right.�

Societies decide what is "right" in their area of influence – and decide very differently from one another. If there was such a thing as "objective morality" it would be unanimous between societies and individuals.

There are actions which are beneficial, or socially acceptable, but not morally right.

Who decides what is "not morally right?"

Who decides what is "beneficial" in the absolute or universal sense?

A recent thread in this forum claimed that the flood recorded in Genesis was, “The Most immoral Act in the History of the Earth.� For that statement to make sense there must be objective morality. No act can be the most immoral act in history if there is no such thing as objective morality.

That supposed act of "divine worldwide genocide" is regarded by SOME people as immoral. Others, primarily Christians, regard it as morally right.

If the claimed "objective morality" was true, there would be little or no disagreement. Thus, your own argument defeats your own argument.

The strongest (only?) positive argument for atheism is the problem of evil/suffering.

Correction: The only necessary "positive argument" for Atheism is: "I require evidence of truth and accuracy before accepting claims."

It has been brought up many times on this forum. This argument is built on the existence of objective morality. Without objective morality there can be no evil.

Straw man

There can be things I, or my culture, do not like, but nothing can be meaningfully called “evil.�

Okay, society deems various behaviors to be undesirable and/or illegal (group opinion or majority rule). Individuals deem that various behaviors are objectionable to them (personal opinion). There is no universal agreement between societies and individuals identifying which behaviors are illegal, immoral or objectionable – as there should be if "objective morality" was more than a myth.

Suffering is only bad if we believe that there is a way that things “ought to be.�

Suffering itself is neither bad (evil?) nor good but is a statement of human conditions or perceptions. If an entity (or individual) causes suffering by others, that action can be regarded as evil – but not all agree on even that.

If there is not a way that things ought to be – if there is no objective morality – then suffering can be called disagreeable but not wrong.

EXACTLY. I would add "not immoral."

One can choose to "suffer" by their own volition. Is that "immoral" or in opposition to "objective morality?"

A non-theist can deny objective morality, but he/she will have to deal with the consequences of that in discussing differing worldviews.

Consequences?

What, exactly, are the consequences of refusing to accept the concept of "objective morality?"

2. Objective morality is better explained by the work of an intelligent will than by unthinking forces.

In every instance when we know the cause when there are laws of any kind they are the result of an intelligent will at work.

Laws are a product of humans and their societal systems (including biblical laws that cannot be shown to be anything more than the opinions of humans).

In every instance when we know the cause if there is no intelligent will at work then there are no laws.

The "intelligent will at work" is human thought and action. There is no proof of involvement by any of the thousands of proposed "gods."

Moral laws – objective morality – are more likely to come from an intelligent will than from any other source.

Agreed – moral "laws" come from intelligent (or less than intelligent) HUMAN will.

If both premises are truth then the conclusion is true.

Neither premise has been shown to be true – or anything more than imagination, opinion and conjecture.

Again, this is not absolute proof, but a reasonable conclusion based on available evidence.

In the absence of evidence of extraterrestrial involvement, the most reasonable conclusion is that what humans regard as morality is of human origin

Also, this does not get us all the way to Christianity specifically.

Agree

This argument only provides reasonable support to the belief that an intelligent God of some kind exists.

Disagree



When one argues for a morality attributable to some extraterrestrial or supernatural entity or source they are arguing for their OPINION – since the entity or source cannot be shown to be anything more than human imagination. Any "morals" attributed to an entity or source that cannot be conclusively demonstrated to be of that origin are purely subjective opinions, or in other words subjective morality.

[Bust Nak]

1. Objective morality exists. Certain moral laws exist regardless of the individual or the culture.

2. Objective morality is better explained by the work of an intelligent will than by unthinking forces.

You don't see the huge contradiction between premise 1 and 2? The work of an intelligent will is the work of an individual. Said work cannot exist regardless of said individual.

Many non-theist on this site have said thing like, “I do what is right because it is right.� That statement assumes the existence of objective morality.

Not necessarily, what is right, in the context of moral subjectivism, is synonymous with what is preferable.

If there is no objective morality then there is no such thing as “right.� There are actions which are beneficial, or socially acceptable, but not morally right.

Incorrect. If there is no objective morality then there is no such thing as "objectively right." There are still as many subjective rights, as there are moral agents.

[The problem of evil/suffering] is built on the existence of objective morality... If there is not a way that things ought to be – if there is no objective morality – then suffering can be called disagreeable but not wrong.

This argument is built on the mere existence of morality, with no mention of objectivism. What made you think disagreeable is mutually exclusive with wrong?

As for the OP, at least the way the argument is phrased:

2. For absolute moral commands to have real moral force, there must be a moral lawgiver.

Classic case of appeal to consequence fallacy. It is saying it'd be bad if absolute moral commands don't have have real moral force, therefore absolute moral commands have real moral force.