Moral Argument for God's Existence

[Tree of Life]

1. Human moral judgments presuppose absolute moral norms.
2. Moral norms can only arise within a personal context.
3. If moral norms were grounded in non-absolute persons, they would not be absolute.
4. Therefore, absolute norms of morality must be grounded in a Personal Absolute.
5. Therefore, human moral judgments presuppose a Personal Absolute.

In other words, whenever you make a moral judgment you already presuppose God's existence. And if you deny God's existence, you have no basis by which you can make moral judgments.

 

[zippy2006]

The first two premises are crucial and therefore require argumentation and defense. For example, what are examples of some moral absolutes that underlie human moral judgments, and why are they necessary? What kind of a personal context is necessary for moral norms? Are we talking about conscience? Cultural moral norms?

 

[Tree of Life]

The first two premises are crucial and therefore require argumentation and defense. For example, what are examples of some moral absolutes that underlie human moral judgments, and why are they necessary? What kind of a personal context is necessary for moral norms? Are we talking about conscience? Cultural moral norms?

Yes I expect that every premise will require some explanation and defense.

For premise (1), I think we can demonstrate it in two steps.

First, we show that moral judgments always presuppose some kind of moral norm. For example, the statement: "You shouldn't go faster than 45mph on this road" presupposes the norm of the speed limit. This norm is not absolute, but it is a norm.

Second, we show that relative norms always depend upon absolute norms. A relative norm is something that can always be evaluated from a higher level. For example, human laws have some normative force, but we may always ask: "Is this law just? Is this law good?" In doing so, we are appealing to some higher moral norm by which human laws can be judged. At some point we arrive at a norm which cannot be measured by anything else. This norm is absolute.
​

For premise (2) we should point out that norms always arise in personal contexts. In other words, a norm is always imposed upon us by a person. We have obligations to persons and are held accountable to persons. If I say: "You shouldn't go fast than 45mph on this road," you might respond by saying "Says who?" By whose authority am I not allowed to travel faster than 45mph? Norms are always imposed by authoritative persons.

From there we can see how an absolute norm cannot be imposed by a non-absolute person. It must be imposed by an absolute person.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes I expect that every premise will require some explanation and defense.

For premise (1), I think we can demonstrate it in two steps.

First, we show that moral judgments always presuppose some kind of moral norm. For example, the statement: "You shouldn't go faster than 45mph on this road" presupposes the norm of the speed limit. This norm is not absolute, but it is a norm.

Second, we show that relative norms always depend upon absolute norms. A relative norm is something that can always be evaluated from a higher level. For example, human laws have some normative force, but we may always ask: "Is this law just? Is this law good?" In doing so, we are appealing to some higher moral norm by which human laws can be judged. At some point we arrive at a norm which cannot be measured by anything else. This norm is absolute.
​

For premise (2) we should point out that norms always arise in personal contexts. In other words, a norm is always imposed upon us by a person. We have obligations to persons and are held accountable to persons. If I say: "You shouldn't go fast than 45mph on this road," you might respond by saying "Says who?" By whose authority am I not allowed to travel faster than 45mph? Norms are always imposed by authoritative persons.

From there we can see how an absolute norm cannot be imposed by a non-absolute person. It must be imposed by an absolute person.

Okay, thanks.

Consider the norm, "You shall not eat too much" (do not commit the sin of gluttony). The grounding for this seems to be the nature of the human body, which could be considered an absolute if you like. Yet I am at a loss as to what person is required for me to assent to this norm? Or is it not a moral norm?

If that is not thought to be a moral norm, what about the (atheistic) Buddhist maxim, "Do not cause unnecessary suffering"? Their reasoning is fairly simple: suffering is bad, therefore do not cause it. The argument does not seem to require any outside personal force.

 

[Tree of Life]

Okay, thanks.

Consider the norm, "You shall not eat too much" (do not commit the sin of gluttony). The grounding for this seems to be the nature of the human body, which could be considered an absolute if you like. Yet I am at a loss as to what person is required for me to assent to this norm? Or is it not a moral norm?

We know that overeating can be harmful to the body. But who says that we cannot harm our body? Who says that we have a responsibility to maintain physical health?

If that is not thought to be a moral norm, what about the (atheistic) Buddhist maxim, "Do not cause unnecessary suffering"? Their reasoning is fairly simple: suffering is bad, therefore do not cause it. The argument does not seem to require any outside personal force.

Suffering is bad? Says who? Sure, I don't want to suffer. But sometimes it's easier to get what I want if I do it in ways that make others suffer. Who says I can't do this?

 

[zippy2006]

We know that overeating can be harmful to the body. But who says that we cannot harm our body? Who says that we have a responsibility to maintain physical health?

That bodily health is valuable strikes me as common sense, requiring no external argument from authority.

Suffering is bad? Says who? Sure, I don't want to suffer. But sometimes it's easier to get what I want if I do it in ways that make others suffer. Who says I can't do this?

Again, that suffering is bad strikes me as common sense. Anyone who has experienced suffering knows that it is bad; they do not require external norms to understand this. Further, causing suffering for some end is causing necessary suffering (from the point of view of the subject). The maxim I quoted speaks of unnecessary suffering. If there is no greater good at stake you should not cause suffering. Why? Because everyone knows that suffering is bad.

 

[Tree of Life]

That bodily health is valuable strikes me as common sense, requiring no external argument from authority.

We may value bodily health and if we do then that would give us reason to not over eat. But I'm not talking about hypothetical norms here. I'm talking about objective norms.

Again, that suffering is bad strikes me as common sense. Anyone who has experienced suffering knows that it is bad; they do not require external norms to understand this. Further, causing suffering for some end is causing necessary suffering (from the point of view of the subject). The maxim I quoted speaks of unnecessary suffering. If there is no greater good at stake you should not cause suffering. Why? Because everyone knows that suffering is bad.

I'm talking about cases like this - I can make more money more easily by defrauding others. Sure, they don't like it and society doesn't like it. But I do like it and it makes my life better. Who says I should stop?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Who says I should stop?

We do.

 

[Tree of Life]

We do.

Ah. Well then this is a very relative norm. All I have to do is change my mind and I'm no longer bound by it.

But there are plenty of other norms that don't seem to be so relative. I recently watched a documentary about the Fyre Festival. Hundreds of local Bahamians were defrauded thousands of dollars because of this scam festival. Moral sentiments would say that these people ought to be paid back and they ought not to have been defrauded. What happened to them was wrong, regardless of what the law says or what people think. But says who?

 

[Tinker Grey]

All I have to do is change my mind and I'm no longer bound by it.

If society binds you to it, you are bound to it or suffer the consequences. That's what I mean by 'we': society.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

If society binds you to it, you are bound to it or suffer the consequences. That's what I mean by 'we': society.

Different societies can and do have different moral norms and laws of moral nature. So 'we' only applies under the same society and or if societies have equal laws of moral nature as they pertain to governing a particular behavior.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Different societies can and do have different moral norms and laws of moral nature. So 'we' only applies under the same society and or if societies have equal laws of moral nature as they pertain to governing a particular behavior.

That's right.

 

[Tree of Life]

If society binds you to it, you are bound to it or suffer the consequences. That's what I mean by 'we': society.

So is society as far as it goes? There are no moral authorities higher than human governments?

 

[Tinker Grey]

A wouldn't call a human government a 'moral authority'. They are the agency we as society employ to implement the will of society. We, as society, are the authority. At such time as governments fail, we overthrow them.

 

[Tree of Life]

A wouldn't call a human government a 'moral authority'. They are the agency we as society employ to implement the will of society. We, as society, are the authority. At such time as governments fail, we overthrow them.

Do you deny that morals are real things?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Do you deny that morals are real things?

What do mean by real things? AFAIK, morals are abstract constructs of the brain the inform our actions.

 

[Tree of Life]

What do mean by real things? AFAIK, morals are abstract constructs of the brain the inform our actions.

I'm talking about objective moral norms. These would be norms that are true regardless of what people or societies think. It sounds like you believe that norms come from societies and not that societies recognize objective norms.

 

[Tree of Life]

For any societal norm - whether it would be a cultural preference or a national law - we may ask the question: "Is this law just?" or "Is this cultural taboo justified?"

When we ask a question like that, we've obviously kicking things up to a higher level, a higher court of appeals, as it were. But to whom are we kicking it?

 

[Tinker Grey]

When we ask a question like that, we've obviously kicking things up to a higher level, a higher court of appeals, as it were. But to whom are we kicking it?

I don't believe in objective morals at least in the sense that they are "out there." It is true that we evolved as a social species. It is true our species has defined that killing of individuals by individuals without societal agreement is bad.

In the sense that we've evolved this way, it is objective that we have evolved this way. It is also true that individuals still kill without compunction, without any awareness of this "objective" truth.

When I ask, "Is this law just?" I'm really asking just my listeners and/or myself to consider the question. There is no higher court of appeals.

 

[Tree of Life]

When I ask, "Is this law just?" I'm really asking just my listeners and/or myself to consider the question. There is no higher court of appeals.

This would allow for some fairly monstrous regimes wherein the majority persecute and oppress the minority. So long as the majority believe a law is just, it stays on the books. Isn't it possible that the majority could be wrong?