Summary
Without an objective foundation for moral values and duties, everything becomes relative, either based on an individual's opinion and personal tastes or on a community's social conventions. We should, therefore, not force our morality on anyone else, right? Tolerance and inclusiveness should be afforded to all human beings, regardless of their beliefs, correct?But, wait a minute. We do seem to intuitively know that certain things really are wrong and should always be wrong, independent of what anyone thinks about it. In fact, if you believe the statement above was true, that "tolerance and inclusiveness should be afforded to all human beings" is true for everyone at all times, then you would agree that objective morality does exist!
But where does that intuitive knowledge come from? If objective moral values and duties exist, why? The Moral Argument's premises conclude that we ought to do the right thing because it is God that lays down that intuitive foundation of right and wrong.
Class Notes
Suggested Reading
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis - the first several chapters of this C.S. Lewis classic has an excellent discussion on the objectivity of moral values and duties in simple to understand language.Is God A Moral Monster? by Paul Copan. One objection to the Moral Argument that atheists make is their claim that the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is rife with moral evils, many of them at the behest of God himself. The murder of the Canaanites, the wars perpetuated by the early Israelites, the Old Testament laws that punish homosexuals with death, among others. Aside from the fact that the Moral Argument makes absolutely no appeal to any part of the Bible whatsoever (and thus makes this objection irrelevant when deciding if the Moral Argument's conclusion is true or not), Paul Copan's book provides plausible explanations for why we read these things in the Bible. He provides information on how Christian theists defend the Bible and argue against this objection to Biblical truth.
