How Objective Morality Disproves An All-Good God
The claim is often made that morality is objective and, as such, proves God. To begin, what do we mean by objective? Usually, we mean a proposition or fact is objective if its true regardless of anyone's opinion. That chocolate ice cream tastes good is subjective to me; other people may feel differently. But that 2+2=4 is objective, regardless of what I think. Objective morality, therefore, is the idea that there are things which are right or wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks.
Anyone except God, that is. For laws require a lawgiver so things are objectively moral or immoral because God considers them so. Our opinions dont count. Therefore, to use a standard example, that the Nazis murdered Jews is objectively wrong. Even if the Nazis had won the war and everyone accepted the Nazi worldview today, what the Nazis did would still be wrong, objectively wrong.
So, murdering women for the imaginary crime of witchcraft was objectively wrong, even if medieval Christians believed they were doing Gods will. And slavery is objectively wrong even if Christians in the southern United States believed for centuries it was in accordance with Gods will.
But now we come to a problem. If slavery and death for witchcraft are objectively wrong, THEN HOW COULD A GOOD GOD HAVE FAILED TO INFORM US OF THOSE FACTS?? Even today, we wonder if capital punishment is objectively wrong or not, if euthanasia is allowable or not, if we should eat sentient animals or be a vegetarian, if stem cell research is objectively wrong or not, etc.
Once you decide objective moral values exist, if you believe God is good, then you must explain why God doesnt clearly tell us what is and is not objectively moral. This, clearly, God has not done. States in the southern U.S. needed a war to be convinced slavery was wrong. Why? Why didnt God tell them it was wrong during the centuries they bought and sold humans like cattle?
Of course, some Christians will make the (laughable) claim that God via the Bible does tell us what is right and wrong. But somehow all the bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church, who burnt witches, and all the preachers and pastors in the U.S. South, who thought slavery was A-OK with God, were wrong. For centuries. If the Bible is that difficult to understand correctly (for instance, Exodus has explicit rules for buying and selling foreign slaves), then what good is it?
Is stem cell research moral or not? In a century, after weve discerned the truth, some Christian will surely claim that the Bible could have given us the answer if only wed asked. But ask today and Christians give contradictory answers. So much for the Bible having the answers to all moral questions.
If objective moral values exist, then for most of human history, God has kept objective moral values secret. Only after a few centuries, did Christians figure out that killing for witchcraft is wrong. Only after the Civil War forced them, did Southern slave owners give up their slaves.
Today, the morality of many issues is an open question. Why? Where is God? One conclusion is that God doesnt exist or God is not all-good.
Anyone except God, that is. For laws require a lawgiver so things are objectively moral or immoral because God considers them so. Our opinions dont count. Therefore, to use a standard example, that the Nazis murdered Jews is objectively wrong. Even if the Nazis had won the war and everyone accepted the Nazi worldview today, what the Nazis did would still be wrong, objectively wrong.
So, murdering women for the imaginary crime of witchcraft was objectively wrong, even if medieval Christians believed they were doing Gods will. And slavery is objectively wrong even if Christians in the southern United States believed for centuries it was in accordance with Gods will.
But now we come to a problem. If slavery and death for witchcraft are objectively wrong, THEN HOW COULD A GOOD GOD HAVE FAILED TO INFORM US OF THOSE FACTS?? Even today, we wonder if capital punishment is objectively wrong or not, if euthanasia is allowable or not, if we should eat sentient animals or be a vegetarian, if stem cell research is objectively wrong or not, etc.
Once you decide objective moral values exist, if you believe God is good, then you must explain why God doesnt clearly tell us what is and is not objectively moral. This, clearly, God has not done. States in the southern U.S. needed a war to be convinced slavery was wrong. Why? Why didnt God tell them it was wrong during the centuries they bought and sold humans like cattle?
Of course, some Christians will make the (laughable) claim that God via the Bible does tell us what is right and wrong. But somehow all the bishops and cardinals of the Catholic Church, who burnt witches, and all the preachers and pastors in the U.S. South, who thought slavery was A-OK with God, were wrong. For centuries. If the Bible is that difficult to understand correctly (for instance, Exodus has explicit rules for buying and selling foreign slaves), then what good is it?
Is stem cell research moral or not? In a century, after weve discerned the truth, some Christian will surely claim that the Bible could have given us the answer if only wed asked. But ask today and Christians give contradictory answers. So much for the Bible having the answers to all moral questions.
If objective moral values exist, then for most of human history, God has kept objective moral values secret. Only after a few centuries, did Christians figure out that killing for witchcraft is wrong. Only after the Civil War forced them, did Southern slave owners give up their slaves.
Today, the morality of many issues is an open question. Why? Where is God? One conclusion is that God doesnt exist or God is not all-good.
Comments (28)
To err is human. Morality then is not simply rule following otherwise perhaps wed never got out of Eden but as human curiosity is such that everything must be tried to en extent obviously depending on the corruption or deviousness of such beings then morality can be leaned on through other ways.
To learn it the hard way is of course the natural way I mean do not covet thy neighbours wife is law. But feel free to try it. Once the neighbour starts coveting your wife then you start to understand morality a bit better.
Go swinging for all I care.
I would say this complements the argument from divine hiddenness.
Why hide and let us make mistakes that harm our fellow beings, and lead us to damnation? We would still have the free-will to follow or ignore god's advice, so he can't use that as an excuse.
Correct. One of the Ten Commandments could have been "Thou Shalt Not Enslave."
Or, thinking outside the box, there could have been eleven commandments.
The OP concerns the claim that objective moral values prove Gods existence.
So, God is part of the claim I'm addressing.
Why do we always have to know what is objectively right and why would God necessarily have to will ubiquitous clarity?
I've generally held that theists have no objective basis for morality - all they can do is express personal preferences about what they think god wants. Usually by subjectively cherry picking or interpreting scripture. Even within one religion morality is all over the place. Theists do not agree on morality.
Quoting Art48
A third option. From a Christian perspective - there are commandments to follow and there are the teachings of Jesus. Humans are flawed and have free will and make bad choices. Morality is all there in your communion with God and in scripture - the fact that humans are inconsistent and weak and choose badly is a problem of people and comes with freedom.
Quoting Art48
There are 613 commandments in the Hebrew Bible.
:up:
To suffer is to cry-out for help to solicit silently or not for other sufferers to help stop or reduce the suffering. The moral fact. Like hunger: either feed a hungry child or ignore her. So what does a g/G have to do with it? :roll:
Besides, since g/G is "mysterious" (i.e. inexplicable), to answer "Why do A and not do B?" with "because the Inexplicable (g/G) says so or commands it" only begs the question. When a priest, preacher, imam, rabbi, lay believer or politician says this, in effect, what they are saying is "This is such and such because I say so." :eyes:
Freedom is beyond good and evil.
Quite true.
Quoting Agent Smith
Are people in heaven free?
Good question. Could it be that those who make the cut are the ones who choose good over evil? A selective breeding program, si? Free will? :chin: Hmmmm.
Indeed, hence the problem of evil vis-à-vis god?
:up: :sparkle:
Only good people go to heaven, just like only some dogs/cattle/sheep/pigs are bred.
Only bad people who have redeemed their sins go to the heaven :death: :eyes:
We must accept our condition as sinners.
:up: :sparkle:
I am not embarrassed about it
Cynicism?
No, self-confidence
:lol:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/740227
Indeed, mon ami, indeed! Without God, everything is sacred!
Maybe animal-eating is as bad for one's spirit as it seemingly is for one's body.
Much, if not most, of the plentiful violence committed by humankind is against Gods animals, their blood literally shed and bodies eaten in mind-boggling quantities by people. That fact even leaves me wondering whether the metaphorical forbidden fruit of Eden eaten by Adam and Eve was actually Gods four-legged creation.
I can see that really angering the Almighty a lot more than the couples eating non-sentient, non-living, non-bloodied fruit. Ive yet to hear a monotheist speak out against what has collectively been done to animals for so long.
(Just to be clear, Im not vegetarian. Though I seldom eat mammal meat, I do enjoy eating prawns or shrimp pretty much on a weekly basis.)