Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222:829]

This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.


Soooooo, is morality objective? Is it subjective? Is it absolute? Is it relative? How do you support your position?


To start the brainstorming, consider this moral question... Is it ever okay to painfully torture babies for fun?


Also consider this example...
Dad: "Did you steal a hammer from that man?"
Son: "Yes, dad, but he was going to hit me with it!"


Doesn't it seem like both father and son intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal “for the fun of it”? The action of stealing seems to require proper justification before anyone finds it to be morally acceptable.


I think it's obvious what my position is, especially if you've seen my comments in other threads, but what's yours (and why do you think that is so)?

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.


Soooooo, is morality objective? Is it subjective? Is it absolute? Is it relative? How do you support your position?


To start the brainstorming, consider this moral question... Is it ever okay to painfully torture babies for fun?


Also consider this example...
Dad: "Did you steal a hammer from that man?"
Son: "Yes, dad, but he was going to hit me with it!"


Doesn't it seem like both father and son intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal “for the fun of it”? The action of stealing seems to require proper justification before anyone finds it to be morally acceptable.


I think it's obvious what my position is, especially if you've seen my comments in other threads, but what's yours (and why do you think that is so)?

Click to expand...

Is it OK to kill someone because to save anothers life?
Is it OK to kill someone because they threaten soemone else?
Is it OK to kill someone if you think they are threatenign another person?
Is it Ok to kill someone if you think they might kill somone?
Is it OK to kill someone if they are in your house univited?
Is it OK to kill someone because for your self? for others?
Is it Ok to steal if you are starving?
Is it Ok to steal if the person you steal from stole what you took?
Is it Ok to steal if the person you steal from stole somethign else?
Etc etc etc...
We can agree on most general principles of morality because we are in a similar society. Thats doesnt make them objective it just means wse are living in similar societies. Morals change depending upon the time/place and soceity you look at if they were objective they wouldnt.
Example: slavery was considered moral for most of human history.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

The second line makes the claim you are supposedly arguing for. That is not an argument for ojective morality. It is not even a valid argument for the existence of god. If objective morality depends on god you cannot claim it proves god's existence. It is circular reasoning. First you need to establish god's existence. Next, you need to establish god's nature. There is no reason that a god could be completely indifferent toward its creation.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

No. Morality is subjective. Even if we are genetically wired to believe certain things are right and wrong and even if 100% of humanity all agreed a particular thing is right or wrong, it would still just be the opinion of humans. There could just as easily be an alien species out there that all believes something different.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.


Soooooo, is morality objective? Is it subjective? Is it absolute? Is it relative? How do you support your position?


To start the brainstorming, consider this moral question... Is it ever okay to painfully torture babies for fun?


Also consider this example...
Dad: "Did you steal a hammer from that man?"
Son: "Yes, dad, but he was going to hit me with it!"


Doesn't it seem like both father and son intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal “for the fun of it”? The action of stealing seems to require proper justification before anyone finds it to be morally acceptable.


I think it's obvious what my position is, especially if you've seen my comments in other threads, but what's yours (and why do you think that is so)?

Click to expand...

Argument Number argument Number1) It's a leap of logic. It's also 'begging the question. I don't see how you can show that statement to be true2) It's a leap of logic. It's also 'begging the question. I don't see how you can show that statement to be true.

Well, when it comes to argument number 2) it depends, where is the defintiion of 'objective morals'. there are at least 4 or 5 out there.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Click to expand...

A basic valid argument, but like all religious arguments not a sound one.

Your first premise is highly questionable. What reason can you give for thinking objectivity in morality needs a god to exist. Are humans by themselves incapable of deciding a moral point?

Let's try your moral question another way.

If there was no god then what would stop you from thinking it is okay to painfully torture babies for fun?

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Quag said:

Is it OK to kill someone because to save anothers life?
Is it OK to kill someone because they threaten soemone else?
Is it OK to kill someone if you think they are threatenign another person?
Is it Ok to kill someone if you think they might kill somone?
Is it OK to kill someone if they are in your house univited?
Is it OK to kill someone because for your self? for others?
Is it Ok to steal if you are starving?
Is it Ok to steal if the person you steal from stole what you took?
Is it Ok to steal if the person you steal from stole somethign else?
Etc etc etc...

Click to expand...

Thank you, Quag, for your thought provoking post to get things started. You do bring up a good point concerning just how difficult determining "proper" moral epistemology can be. But I do want to make it clear that moral epistemology and moral ontology are two completely separate things, and that epistemology is a red herring in the case of determining whether or not objective morality exists because how we "come to know" moral duties is a different discussion than how we "give foundation to" moral duties. Affirming that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.

Quag said:

We can agree on most general principles of morality because we are in a similar society. Thats doesnt make them objective it just means wse are living in similar societies.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "similar society" (the specific society(s) of which you speak of) so idk how to respond to that part. But I would say that you are right; that reason alone doesn't make them objective, but it also doesn't make them subjective either. It sounds like it would be a fallacious conclusion either way.

But I'm not so sure about the dependence on what society one looks at... For example, is there a society that exists now, or ever existed, that thinks (thought) it is morally acceptable to painfully torture babies for the fun of it? Now, obviously a psycho(socio)path might not sense the existence of that objective moral value, but does that mean that everybody else should doubt what they clearly see as an objective moral value? That would be making the mistake in thinking that, just because there are persons who deny the existence of objective moral values and duties, that objective moral values and duties are not properly basic and do not exist.

Quag said:

Morals change depending upon the time/place and soceity you look at if they were objective they wouldnt.
Example: slavery was considered moral for most of human history.

Click to expand...

I don't find this particular assertion to be absolutely true, as I have outlined above.

Also, I find that changes in epistemology, such as your slavery example, are irrelevant to the ontology discussion because changes in epistemology don't disprove the existence of objective moral duties, such as how one ought not painfully torture babies for fun.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Also, even if there is a god why would that mean objective morality exists? If God says “tofu tastes better than bacon” does that make it objectively so? No, it is just God’s subjective opinion.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.


Soooooo, is morality objective? Is it subjective? Is it absolute? Is it relative? How do you support your position?


To start the brainstorming, consider this moral question... Is it ever okay to painfully torture babies for fun?


Also consider this example...
Dad: "Did you steal a hammer from that man?"
Son: "Yes, dad, but he was going to hit me with it!"


Doesn't it seem like both father and son intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal “for the fun of it”? The action of stealing seems to require proper justification before anyone finds it to be morally acceptable.


I think it's obvious what my position is, especially if you've seen my comments in other threads, but what's yours (and why do you think that is so)?

Click to expand...

Well, first we need to define an "objective moral value".

1. Something that all people understand is moral/immoral.

This is obviously false since even something as simple as murder or rape isn't immoral to psychopaths. If this is the definition then objective moral values can't exist.

2. Something that is immoral/moral due to something outside of human empathy or logic or other materialist/naturalistic reasons.

This is possible for something like this to exist, but as of yet we have no evidence for such.

3. Something that is objectively good/bad for people or increases/decreases human happiness or human flourishing.

Well, here we are at a point where we can all come together and create some objective, fact based moral standards based off reality. Psychopaths will disagree because they don't care about human happiness or flourishing or pain, but just like 2+2 still equals 4 even if an idiot disagrees, we can still say that throwing acid on a child's face is bad for the person and causes pain for the person and therefore is immoral even if a psychopath disagrees. So with this method we will have disagreements, especially on the edges of moral reasoning, but we can get many of the obvious moral questions answered without much trouble if we consider the objective facts of the moral question. Once you accept that morality is about human suffering/flourishing/pain then it merely becomes a question of whether an action is on one side of the equation or the other.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

Thank you, Quag, for your thought provoking post to get things started. You do bring up a good point concerning just how difficult determining "proper" moral epistemology can be. But I do want to make it clear that moral epistemology and moral ontology are two completely separate things, and that epistemology is a red herring in the case of determining whether or not objective morality exists because how we "come to know" moral duties is a different discussion than how we "give foundation to" moral duties. Affirming that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.

Click to expand...

Actually it does because morality of anything is basically down to the individual to decide, they will generally follow the morality of the society that they are in but is is inherently subjective because each person (ie subject) views it according to their own beliefs. If it were objective it would be the same for everyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by "similar society" (the specific society(s) of which you speak of) so idk how to respond to that part. But I would say that you are right; that reason alone doesn't make them objective, but it also doesn't make them subjective either. It sounds like it would be a fallacious conclusion either way.

Click to expand...

Modern western society.
Whether you live in the USA/England/Germany the morals will be similar, there will also be differences. Same within the USA, The societal morals of New York are not the same as say Los Angeles or Wichita or Salt lake city. They are subjective because they are different to different people. If they were objective they would be the same.

But I'm not so sure about the dependence on what society one looks at... For example, is there a society that exists now, or ever existed, that thinks (thought) it is morally acceptable to painfully torture babies for the fun of it? Now, obviously a psycho(socio)path might not sense the existence of that objective moral value, but does that mean that everybody else should doubt what they clearly see as an objective moral value? That would be making the mistake in thinking that, just because there are persons who deny the existence of objective moral values and duties, that objective moral values and duties are not properly basic and do not exist.

Click to expand...

There are general rules needed for a society to operate, without which the society will break down and cease to exist. Lord of the flies is fictional but a good book to read how morality can be fluid (ie subjective) You can also look to what happened to the Moriori in the Chatham islands.

A Māori chief, Te Rakatau Katihe, said: "We took possession ... in accordance with our custom, and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed; and others also we killed — but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom." Despite the Chatham Islands being made part of New Zealand in 1842, Māori kept Moriori slaves until 1863.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Islands#Māori_Settlement
Is that moral according to you? It was according to the Maori.

Many societies have considered it morally correct to enslave/rape/kill/torture/eat others, usually those taken from other societies in battle or slaves born to such an existence but occasionally those from the society were treated this way as well. Again unless morality is always the same for all societies in all places at all times it IS subjective and we know morality of all societies is NOT the same.

I don't find this particular assertion to be absolutely true, as I have outlined above.

Also, I find that changes in epistemology, such as your slavery example, are irrelevant to the ontology discussion because changes in epistemology don't disprove the existence of objective moral duties, such as how one ought not painfully torture babies for fun.

Click to expand...

The ontological argument fails because morality has already been shown to be subjective. You have taken one example and claimed no society, that you know of condoned the torture of babies. But you need to show that all cultures had the same morals for them to have a chance of being objective (note if all societies all had the same moral values at all times it still wouldn't necessarily mean that morality is objective)
There is no way you can claim objective morals when you live in a society that once considered slavery moral.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

soylentgreen said:

A basic valid argument, but like all religious arguments not a sound one.

Your first premise is highly questionable. What reason can you give for thinking objectivity in morality needs a god to exist. Are humans by themselves incapable of deciding a moral point?

Click to expand...

My reason would be because God is the definition of moral goodness; he gives meaning and grounding to what 'good' is. Humans can decide a moral point, but they are imperfect; God is perfect.

soylentgreen said:

Let's try your moral question another way.

If there was no god then what would stop you from thinking it is okay to painfully torture babies for fun?

Click to expand...

I think that's the problem at hand... there would be no objective standard... it would be an amoral action.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

roughdraft274 said:

Well, first we need to define an "objective moral value".

Click to expand...

I agree.

roughdraft274 said:

1. Something that all people understand is moral/immoral.

This is obviously false since even something as simple as murder or rape isn't immoral to psychopaths. If this is the definition then objective moral values can't exist.

Click to expand...

I completely agree here, and that is not the definition of OMV's.

roughdraft274 said:

2. Something that is immoral/moral due to something outside of human empathy or logic or other materialist/naturalistic reasons.

This is possible for something like this to exist, but as of yet we have no evidence for such.

Click to expand...

This would be getting closer to the definition of OMV's, but still not there.

roughdraft274 said:

3. Something that is objectively good/bad for people or increases/decreases human happiness or human flourishing.

Well, here we are at a point where we can all come together and create some objective, fact based moral standards based off reality. Psychopaths will disagree because they don't care about human happiness or flourishing or pain, but just like 2+2 still equals 4 even if an idiot disagrees, we can still say that throwing acid on a child's face is bad for the person and causes pain for the person and therefore is immoral even if a psychopath disagrees. So with this method we will have disagreements, especially on the edges of moral reasoning, but we can get many of the obvious moral questions answered without much trouble if we consider the objective facts of the moral question. Once you accept that morality is about human suffering/flourishing/pain then it merely becomes a question of whether an action is on one side of the equation or the other.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much correct for both the definition and explanation... The definition of OMV's is "moral values that are independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinions." The "disagreements ... on the edge of moral reasoning" gets into moral epistemology, which is a whole different topic than moral ontology. Moral ontology is asking if morals objectively exist independently to be discovered by people, or if morals are merely a mental construct of people and therefore inseparable from people. Moral epistemology is about knowledge of, and the understanding of, how one arrives at morals and what those morals are.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

Soooooo, is morality objective? Is it subjective? Is it absolute? Is it relative? How do you support your position?

Click to expand...

It's subjective, but nearly always referred to in absolute terms to give it legitimacy. Moral standards vary across time and place despite their claim to be rooted in absolute truth.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Affirming that one’s moral duty varies with the circumstances is not to say that we have no objective moral duties to fulfill.

Click to expand...

Quag said:

Actually it does because morality of anything is basically down to the individual to decide, they will generally follow the morality of the society that they are in but is is inherently subjective because each person (ie subject) views it according to their own beliefs. If it were objective it would be the same for everyone.

Click to expand...

Moral duty: Do not steal. Now, if someone were attempting to beat you with a baseball bat, and you stole it away from him, it would be okay to steal under that circumstance (self defense). If someone was away from their home and you stole from them for the fun of it, it would not be okay to steal under that circumstance. But, like I said, that's not to say that there is no objective moral duty to fulfill (don't steal).

Quag said:

Modern western society.
Whether you live in the USA/England/Germany the morals will be similar, there will also be differences. Same within the USA, The societal morals of New York are not the same as say Los Angeles or Wichita or Salt lake city. They are subjective because they are different to different people. If they were objective they would be the same.

Click to expand...

Okay, that's what I thought you meant, but it's still a conglomeration of many different "societies". I get your point, and think that it would be closer to being true as you keep getting to a more "localized" society, such as "city" or "rural", as opposed to the USA as a whole. But like I said before, I don't think it's necessarily the morals themselves which differ between societies, but rather the epistemology of the morals. Take oppressive slavery for example. People historically found it to be morally acceptable to oppressively enslave "sub-human" people, but morally objectionable to oppressively enslave "human people". In other words, they all had the same morality that "oppressive slavery of other humans is wrong", but the epistemological change came as a result of no longer recognizing the classification of particular people as "sub-humans". I think this is where you are seeing a "difference between societies" when there really isn't a core difference when it comes to the moral duty itself (don't oppressively enslave other people). It seems like you are recognizing an epistemological change, not an ontological change.

Quag said:

There are general rules needed for a society to operate, without which the society will break down and cease to exist. Lord of the flies is fictional but a good book to read how morality can be fluid (ie subjective) You can also look to what happened to the Moriori in the Chatham islands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_Islands#Māori_Settlement
Is that moral according to you? It was according to the Maori.

Many societies have considered it morally correct to enslave/rape/kill/torture/eat others, usually those taken from other societies in battle or slaves born to such an existence but occasionally those from the society were treated this way as well. Again unless morality is always the same for all societies in all places at all times it IS subjective and we know morality of all societies is NOT the same.

Click to expand...

I think that falls under the psycho(socio)path category... And your further examples here get back to my above discussion where the epistemology is affected, but not the ontology. The moral ontology is the same (don't do these things) but the epistemology changes (don't do these things to "equals" [vs] don't do these things to "anyone"). Either way, the ontological "don't" is still there, telling people how they objectively ought to behave.

Quag said:

The ontological argument fails because morality has already been shown to be subjective. You have taken one example and claimed no society, that you know of condoned the torture of babies. But you need to show that all cultures had the same morals for them to have a chance of being objective (note if all societies all had the same moral values at all times it still wouldn't necessarily mean that morality is objective)

There is no way you can claim objective morals when you live in a society that once considered slavery moral.

Click to expand...

You need to apply the reverse of the bolded part to your "already been shown to be subjective" claim.

And once again, an epistemological viewpoint change is irrelevant to moral ontology.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Skeptic Bob said:

Also, even if there is a god why would that mean objective morality exists? If God says “tofu tastes better than bacon” does that make it objectively so? No, it is just God’s subjective opinion.

Click to expand...

William Lane Craig has already answered this objection...

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, the critic will often say that morals are subjective and even if they are somehow grounded in God they are still subjective because they are subject to him and what he thinks is moral. How does what you just said escape that subjectivity of moral values within God?

Dr. Craig: Great question. If moral values were simply rooted in the divine will, if God just made up what is right and wrong arbitrarily, then I would agree with you. That would be the ultimate in subjectivity. Moral values would just be arbitrary declarations of God. That position has a name – it is called voluntarism. Voluntarism would be the view that moral values are rooted in the will of God, and the will of God just decides what is good and evil, right and wrong. The view that I’ve laid out is quite different than that.

Kevin Harris: People would say God has his opinion and I have mine.

Dr. Craig: Yeah, right. The view I’ve laid out is quite different from that because it says that moral values are not rooted in the divine will. His commands to us are expressions of his will, but these are rooted in the divine nature – in his essential moral properties like justice, kindness, compassion, truthfulness, and so forth. [1]Those aren’t arbitrary. Those can’t be changed. Those are logically necessary and therefore exist in all possible worlds. There is no possible world in which God lacks these properties and does not exist.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...t/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god/

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

My reason would be because God is the definition of moral goodness; he gives meaning and grounding to what 'good' is. Humans can decide a moral point, but they are imperfect; God is perfect.


I think that's the problem at hand... there would be no objective standard... it would be an amoral action.

Click to expand...

That is not a correct statement. If there is no objective standard, there is no absolute morality. however, there still is subjective morality. It is not amoral, but merely subjective. You are incorrectly equating amorality with subjective morality. That is a false statement.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Greenbeard said:

It's subjective, but nearly always referred to in absolute terms to give it legitimacy. Moral standards vary across time and place despite their claim to be rooted in absolute truth.

Click to expand...

Is it the moral duty itself that is varying or is it the epistemology of that moral duty that is varying?

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

William Lane Craig has already answered this objection...

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, the critic will often say that morals are subjective and even if they are somehow grounded in God they are still subjective because they are subject to him and what he thinks is moral. How does what you just said escape that subjectivity of moral values within God?

Dr. Craig: Great question. If moral values were simply rooted in the divine will, if God just made up what is right and wrong arbitrarily, then I would agree with you. That would be the ultimate in subjectivity. Moral values would just be arbitrary declarations of God. That position has a name – it is called voluntarism. Voluntarism would be the view that moral values are rooted in the will of God, and the will of God just decides what is good and evil, right and wrong. The view that I’ve laid out is quite different than that.

Kevin Harris: People would say God has his opinion and I have mine.

Dr. Craig: Yeah, right. The view I’ve laid out is quite different from that because it says that moral values are not rooted in the divine will. His commands to us are expressions of his will, but these are rooted in the divine nature – in his essential moral properties like justice, kindness, compassion, truthfulness, and so forth. [1]Those aren’t arbitrary. Those can’t be changed. Those are logically necessary and therefore exist in all possible worlds. There is no possible world in which God lacks these properties and does not exist.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...t/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god/

Click to expand...

I do not find that argument of Craigs to be rational, reasonable or correct. One of the very many logical fallacies lies in the 'argument from personal belief', as well as equivocation and begging the question. I consider that explanation to be false, and does not answer any objections at all.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

I agree.


I completely agree here, and that is not the definition of OMV's.


This would be getting closer to the definition of OMV's, but still not there.


This is pretty much correct for both the definition and explanation... The definition of OMV's is "moral values that are independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinions." The "disagreements ... on the edge of moral reasoning" gets into moral epistemology, which is a whole different topic than moral ontology. Moral ontology is asking if morals objectively exist independently to be discovered by people, or if morals are merely a mental construct of people and therefore inseparable from people. Moral epistemology is about knowledge of, and the understanding of, how one arrives at morals and what those morals are.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as something called morality outside of the context of human societies and human behavior. It is a human invented concept, not a discovery. The earth and sun objectively exist and have certain properties, despite our subjective view of them. There is physical evidence of them that our subjective views don't change. Seeing the sun as a god doesn't make it a god.

There is no evidence of a thing called morality, except in the context of observed human behavior and societies. Man cannot observe and describe morality outside of that context. There is no morality involved in the movement of the planets, the biology of living things, the weather, or any natural phenomenon. As such, it is impossible to observe and describe something called objective morality.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

RAMOSS said:

That is not a correct statement. If there is no objective standard, there is no absolute morality. however, there still is subjective morality. It is not amoral, but merely subjective. You are incorrectly equating amorality with subjective morality. That is a false statement.

Click to expand...

I'm not equating them. If one person subjectively thinks something is moral and another person subjectively thinks the same thing is immoral, one quickly realizes that, if both opposing actions are "acceptable", then there is no grounds to make a right/wrong claim, just grounds to make a "hey, that's different" claim. That means that the action in question, from a top-down philosophical POV, ends up being amoral.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

William Lane Craig has already answered this objection...

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, the critic will often say that morals are subjective and even if they are somehow grounded in God they are still subjective because they are subject to him and what he thinks is moral. How does what you just said escape that subjectivity of moral values within God?

Dr. Craig: Great question. If moral values were simply rooted in the divine will, if God just made up what is right and wrong arbitrarily, then I would agree with you. That would be the ultimate in subjectivity. Moral values would just be arbitrary declarations of God. That position has a name – it is called voluntarism. Voluntarism would be the view that moral values are rooted in the will of God, and the will of God just decides what is good and evil, right and wrong. The view that I’ve laid out is quite different than that.

Kevin Harris: People would say God has his opinion and I have mine.

Dr. Craig: Yeah, right. The view I’ve laid out is quite different from that because it says that moral values are not rooted in the divine will. His commands to us are expressions of his will, but these are rooted in the divine nature – in his essential moral properties like justice, kindness, compassion, truthfulness, and so forth. [1]Those aren’t arbitrary. Those can’t be changed. Those are logically necessary and therefore exist in all possible worlds. There is no possible world in which God lacks these properties and does not exist.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/med...t/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god/

Click to expand...

The argument is that god can't help being the god that Craig thinks god is. Weak.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

RAMOSS said:

I do not find that argument of Craigs to be rational, reasonable or correct. One of the very many logical fallacies lies in the 'argument from personal belief', as well as equivocation and begging the question. I consider that explanation to be false, and does not answer any objections at all.

Click to expand...

This is why I ignore most of your posts nowadays... your "argument from fallacy" tendencies and your false fallacy claims get old and aren't worth my time.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

I'm not equating them. If one person subjectively thinks something is moral and another person subjectively thinks the same thing is immoral, one quickly realizes that, if both opposing actions are "acceptable", then there is no grounds to make a right/wrong claim, just grounds to make a "hey, that's different" claim. That means that the action in question, from a top-down philosophical POV, ends up being amoral.

Click to expand...

This is a load ... because society as a whole will make a judgement. There are things known as 'consequences' that society will put on actions. Your claim appears to suffer from the same lack of reason and though at Craig's did.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

This is why I ignore most of your posts nowadays... your "argument from fallacy" tendencies and your false fallacy claims get old and aren't worth my time.

Click to expand...

Well, it goes to show that you are unable to provide actual logical arguments. If you can't provide logical arguments, you can't be convincing to anybody but people who already agree with you. If you don't want people to show why your arguments are bad, do good arguments to begin with. That is the problem with the whole apologist metaphysical philosophy .. their arguments suck, and are more trying to appeal to someone's emotions than to give reasonable and rational explanations.

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

gfm7175 said:

This is why I ignore most of your posts nowadays... your "argument from fallacy" tendencies and your false fallacy claims get old and aren't worth my time.

Click to expand...

Irony meters explode.