Lewis' Moral argument for God

[liamconnor]

The title is a bit misleading. I am not asking for an assessment of the argument for God on the basis of morality. That argument typically runs something like "all men agree upon right and wrong, which means that morality is objective...objective morality is inexplicable unless there is an objective source for this agreement....that source must be God".

The argument is typically countered with "the morality of cultures differ; therefore, morality is not objective, but subjective; therefore, there can be no 'standard, objective' source behind these varying moralities."

I found it interesting to read this very counter-argument online against Lewis' argument in Mere C., despite the fact Lewis already anticipated it!

Here then is the quote, and the Q for D is whether it answers the criticism that "morality is not objective, because cultures vary on their moralities".

The quote follows the assertion that "different ages have had quite different moralities".

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man;but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

Has Lewis successfully dealt with the objection against "objective morality" which was based on supposed "differing moralities"? Is there, in fact, a reducible principle that underlies all supposedly differing moralities?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 9 by marco]

So what I command is objective in the sense that all must strive to meet the same standard.

But I'm right in saying there's not freedom from subjectivity (my own) in crafting the laws as I initially saw fit, yes? Is that the distinction here? Objective morals and duties come from a subjectively discerning source, but that everyone under it's command must aspire to keep the same morals and duties is what makes it universally objective.

Is that it?

[rikuoamero]

Any follow up from Liam?

[Willum]

Any follow up from Liam?

I think Liam must be God, he creates these things, Earth's, topics, and then when Riku or DI or Satan corrupts them, he let's them go to pot.

Then he'll start over with a flood or a new topic which tries to repair the old world or topic, but just starts the cycle over again with the same flawed players.

[marco]

[Replying to post 9 by marco]

So what I command is objective in the sense that all must strive to meet the same standard.

There are various meanings we can apply to subjective and objective. For the grammarian the "love of God" can be either. It can mean God loves us (subjective genitive) or we love God (objective genitive.) If we live with a code imposed on us then that is an objective code; we know its dictates and follow them. Religious folk would say God has imposed such a set on rules and we are wired to know them, though we can break the rules if we choose, thanks to his generous gift of free will. I think this is as simplistic as saying God roars in thunder.

But I'm right in saying there's not freedom from subjectivity (my own) in crafting the laws as I initially saw fit, yes? Is that the distinction here? Objective morals and duties come from a subjectively discerning source, but that everyone under it's command must aspire to keep the same morals and duties is what makes it universally objective.

Is that it?

It's a description of a perceived model. I am not sure that we can say "duties COME from..." since that asssumes an objective source. We may well have derived moral responsibilities partly through self-interest. They were subjectively arrived at but have the semblance of a moral code by our acceptance that they should not be broken. People with a vested interest in selling God to the globe can find lots of ways to make it seem that morality is written in the sky. I don't think it is.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Then it seems to me the objective morals and duties argument only makes sense if a subjectively discerning authoritative agency is presupposed. It can't be the case that said agency is demonstrated by appeal to some apparently common moral impulse. I have no idea why this is a popular line of defense.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That argument typically runs something like "all men agree upon right and wrong, which means that morality is objective"

That is an inaccurate depiction of the argument. The argument isn't "all men agree upon right and wrong, which means morality is objective".

No. It is the complete opposite. If something is objectively wrong, then it is wrong REGARDLESS of who thinks it is right.

[marco]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Then it seems to me the objective morals and duties argument only makes sense if a subjectively discerning authoritative agency is presupposed. It can't be the case that said agency is demonstrated by appeal to some apparently common moral impulse. I have no idea why this is a popular line of defense.

Yes I can't see how else we could have an objective moral code. If we examine what we see as right or wrong I don't think there is anything written in stone. It is a useful to postulate that a code must have a code maker, so assuming the code does, as you say, assume the maker.