₦airaland Forum

Why is it necessary to appeal to God for objective morals?
by Matt Slick

The reason it is necessary to appeal to God for objective morals is that without them we can't justify universal moral obligation. But, before we go further we need to answer two questions.

What are objective morals?
What is an example of an objective moral?

Objective Morals
In the context of our discussion, an "objective moral" would be a moral truth that is not based upon a person's subjective experience and that applies to all people and does not change with circumstances. By contrast, a subjective moral would be a moral that is based on opinion and does not apply universally. For example, one person might think that drinking alcoholic beverages is wrong where another person has no problem with it. This would be an example of a subjective moral based upon personal preference.

Example of an Objective Moral
"It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure."

Important points about this moral proposition.

This statement is universally applied to everyone all the time, "It is always wrong for anyone . . . "
" . . . merely for their personal pleasure" designates the reason the action is performed. There are no other conditions.
Now, if someone were to say that the statement is not universally true, then he or she would be arguing that there are cases in which it is morally good to torture a baby to death merely for a person's personal pleasure--and nothing more. In that case, we would be justified in asking for an example of when and where it would be morally proper to torture babies to death merely for a person's personal pleasure. Otherwise, the statement cannot be falsified. But, who would want to argue in favor of the moral goodness of torturing babies to death merely for a person's personal pleasure?

Why is the issue of torturing babies a moral issue that is also wrong? In a Christian worldview, we would say that it is a moral issue because it's against the revealed will of God where He declares such things to be morally wrong, i.e., the 10 Commandments which includes not murdering (Exodus 20:13). This way, we can account for objective morals because they are rooted in God Himself who is absolute and invariant. Therefore, morals based on His absolute nature would be objectively true, and we could then justify the truth that "It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure."

Even Atheists know . . .
Even atheists know that "It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure." But how do they know it? Do they use intuition? If so, how do they know that their intuition is correct? Do they intuit that their intuition is correct? If so, then they would have to intuit that their intuition about their intuition is correct, and so on. Do they use consensus of society? If that is the case, then they cannot complain against the consensus of Nazi Germany which sought to oppress the Jews. Or is it a product of evolution--because if we kill babies, then our race can't continue. But, that would mean that it isn't wrong. It is just practical.

What are the atheists, in their subjective experiences of morality, left to do? Some atheists have tried to provide a logical basis for morality since they realize that their personal, subjective preferences are not the basis of moral actions to be imposed on everyone else (sorry Stalin). Immanuel Kant tried to establish objective morals by saying that rationality is universal, immorality is irrational, therefore, proper morals can be deduced rationally. But, there are problems with this approach. First, how can it be established that immorality is irrational without begging the question? Second, how do you know when a person is being rational morally? Third, how do you rationally connect morality and logic?

Still, the default go-to-position generally held by the atheists is that unnecessary suffering is morally wrong.

Inflicting Unnecessary Suffering is Wrong
There's a problem. To say that unnecessary suffering is wrong does not establish that it's wrong. Such suffering might be inconvenient and painful, but why is the action of unnecessary suffering morally wrong? Again, to say that it is because it is unnecessary is to place a moral value upon the undesired experience of an individual. But this is subjective. To define it is wrong because people don't like it doesn't make it actually wrong. It is just not preferred. And, if enough people agree that an action or condition is wrong, then it is held to be normatively wrong. But this is the Argumentum ad Populum which is a logical fallacy that says something is true because a number of people believe it's true. See the problem?

So, how then can any objective moral standard be justified from an atheistic worldview? It cannot.

Therefore, without God it's not possible to establish objective morals. Without God a collection of subjective preferences based on the personal opinions and desires of the collective whole of society and the declared moral truth that unnecessary suffering is wrong is the best that can be offered without God. But, ultimately, it fails because it is subjective--not universal. If you think it is universal because all people don't like unnecessary suffering, then think again. There are people who prefer unnecessary suffering. The mentally ill, for example. Are they wrong for preferring it? If you say it's okay for them, then the moral is not universal since it doesn't apply to them. If you say it's not okay for them, then you are imposing of value on others, and what gives you the right to do that in a subjective world?

Without God, objective moral standards cannot be established and universal moral truths cannot be defended. All that is left is the atheist's subjective experience. But, what makes one atheist's subjective opinion better than another? In fact, how would the atheist know that his subjective opinion is right in the first place? He could not know. Therefore, his position leads to skepticism and can't be trusted.

In Christianity, God is the necessary precondition for moral objectivity. He would be the Revelator. He would be the one who reveals His moral character, and since He is the greatest of beings and the creator of all the universe, He has the right to do with His creation as He desires (Romans 9:20-23) and declare the moral standard that He, its creator, demands.

https://carm.org/why-necessary-to-appeal-to-god-for-objective-morals?platform=hootsuite

PastorAIO:
Why must Morals be objective?

OLAADEGBU:
It has to be objective because we can't impose our subjective moral code on others. Only God, who has the highest standard can do that and that's because He created us in His own image.

PastorAIO:
Why must Morals be objective?

PastorAIO:
Only God can impose a subjective moral code on others. Okay.

Why must you impose your moral code, subjective or objective, on others?

Will it pain you if you can't impose your moral code on others? If so, why so?

He created us in his image so he can impose his morality on us abi?

Biko, why did he then not want us to have knowledge of Good and Evil, according to your source?

Why wasn't the moral code automatic when he made us in his image, instead Man had to eat the knowledge of good and evil first?

malvisguy212:
By saying morality is objective, it means that certain actions are wrong simply because they are wrong. It doesn't matter if a lot of people recognize that they are wrong. When we use the word "shouldn't" or "can't" we are implying that their is a way we human can behave, and your isn't it. Human don't invent moral out of nothing. If morality is subjective, then
statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true. If objective moral values exist,
then this statement would be true even if the
Nazis had won World War II and had convinced
every human being in the entire world that the
Holocaust was good. But if morality is subjective then the nazis german who believe the holocaust was Good will be indeed good for them.

malvisguy212:
do you think being moral mean your acts will earn you favor with God ?

Ranchhoddas:
Which of the gods?They all seem to have different moral standards.

finofaya:
The problem of finding objective moral values is not solved by calling on a God who decides what the moral values are. Objective moral values have to be independent of every moral agent, and God, like man, is a moral agent.

finofaya:
Besides, we live in a world where there is no consensus as to what the objective moral values are, if any. Everyone, theists and atheists alike, disagrees on what it might be. Most of us are probably wrong about what it is, which is the same thing as not knowing what it is. Any objective moral values which exist are currently of no use to humanity since most or all of us don't know them. Looking for a moral code which allows us to coexist in harmony is a more worthwhile pursuit than squabbling over where we can find objective morality. If such a thing were to be found we most likely still wouldn't follow it anyway since you can hardly convince everyone of it. For example, assume you are right and whatever moral code you follow is indeed objective. Now tell me what effect your discovery of this objective morality has had on our moral landscape.
Does telling people that it is objective cause them to adopt it?

PastorAIO:
Only God can impose a subjective moral code on others. Okay.

Why must you impose your moral code, subjective or objective, on others?

Will it pain you if you can't impose your moral code on others? If so, why so?

He created us in his image so he can impose his morality on us abi?

Biko, why did he then not want us to have knowledge of Good and Evil, according to your source?

Why wasn't the moral code automatic when he made us in his image, instead Man had to eat the knowledge of good and evil first?

malvisguy212:
By saying morality is objective, it means that certain actions are wrong simply because they are wrong. It doesn't matter if a lot of people recognize that they are wrong. When we use the word "shouldn't" or "can't" we are implying that their is a way we human can behave, and your isn't it. Human don't invent moral out of nothing. If morality is subjective, then
statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true. If objective moral values exist,
then this statement would be true even if the
Nazis had won World War II and had convinced
every human being in the entire world that the
Holocaust was good. But if morality is subjective then the nazis german who believe the holocaust was Good will be indeed good for them.

malvisguy212:
do you think being moral mean your acts will earn you favor with God ?

OLAADEGBU:
He is the King of heaven. The Holy One, The Infinite God who is infinite in Knowledge and wisdom. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

PastorAIO:
I know what objective morality is.

What I asked was Why is it so imperative that our Morality must be objective?

Ranchhoddas:
Allah also has infinite everything.

OLAADEGBU:
Why is it necessary to appeal to God for objective morals?

Example of an Objective Moral
"It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure."

This way, we can account for objective morals because they are rooted in God Himself who is absolute and invariant.

OLAADEGBU:
No Muslim will dispute the fact that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the Infinite Creator of everything. If you do then you are not a true Muslim.

Ranchhoddas:
Is Allah your God?

KAG:
I agree:

1st Samuel 15:2-3

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants...

OLAADEGBU:
You should note that execution is not murder get your facts right.

OLAADEGBU:
Ask the Muslims. Who is your god?

OLAADEGBU:
The Infinite uncreated Creator has the authority to set the rules for our morality and His has the absolute moral standard that He has set into our consciences.



The objective moral values are their in our consciences it is up to us whether we choose to either take heed to it or muffle it.

OLAADEGBU:
It has to be because your subjective morality will not wash with the moral code of others. Therefore you cannot expect others to follow your moral code.

OLAADEGBU:
His moral code was implanted in us when He made us in His own image before this image became marred by sin. He is our Maker and we have to go back to the Owners Manual to reawaken our conscience. God's Holy Spirit will be reconnected to our spirits the moment we accept God's forgiveness in repentance and with His help we would be able to trust and obey His Moral Law.

malvisguy212:
By saying morality is objective, it means that certain actions are wrong simply because they are wrong. It doesn't matter if a lot of people recognize that they are wrong. When we use the word "shouldn't" or "can't" we are implying that their is a way we human can behave, and your isn't it. Human don't invent moral out of nothing. If morality is subjective, then
statements like, "the Holocaust was evil," can be objectively true. If objective moral values exist,
then this statement would be true even if the
Nazis had won World War II and had convinced
every human being in the entire world that the
Holocaust was good. But if morality is subjective then the nazis german who believe the holocaust was Good will be indeed good for them.

KAG:
I guess we have different ideas of morality, then. I consider the execution of children to be immoral, and can never find any reason to justify their wholesale execution. But that's just me. Perhaps it's why I don't appeal to your god for "moral objectivity".

Ranchhoddas:
we are still on the subject of morality, pay attention!