If God exists, then morality is objective
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Resolution: If God exists, then morality is objective.
Definitions:
God - the omniscient, omnipotent, sentient creator of the universe who gives moral commandments to his followers and/or humankind in general
Morality - a system that prescribes what is right, wrong, good, and evil
Objective - derived from facts and valid logical deductions; provable. | Antonym of subjective
Pro will have the primary burden of proof in this debate. As such, I, as Con, will waive the first round. In turn, Pro must waive the last round. Violation of this rule ought to result in a conduct point penalty. Forfeiting a round also ought to result in a conduct penalty.
Thank you, and may the better debater win!
“Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it soundsfunny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but how-ever it sounds, I believe we can learn something very impor-tant from listening to the kind of things they say. They saythings like this: ‘How’d you like it if anyone did the same toyou?’—‘That’s my seat, I was there first’—‘Leave him alone,he isn’t doing you any harm’—‘Why should you shove infirst?’—‘Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit ofmine’—‘Come on, you promised.’ People say things like thatevery day, educated people as well as uneducated, and childrenas well as grown-ups.Now what interests me about all these remarks is that theman who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’sbehaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing tosome kind of standard of behavior which he expects theother man to know about. And the other man very seldomreplies: ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly always he tries tomake out that what he has been doing does not really goagainst the standard, or that if it does there is some specialexcuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this partic-ular case why the person who took the seat first should notkeep it, or that things were quite different when he was giventhe bit of orange, or that something has turned up which letshim off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as ifboth parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair playor decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.”What we see here is that people behave as if there is some sort of agreement about what Right and Wrong really are, and when there are disagreements they appeal to something like a Law of Human Nature, and they use their moral intuitions, the common law and the Church (when relevant) to decide who is more congruent with the Law of Human Nature.
- There are vast symmetries between the neurological states of humans. Our wiring as homo sapiens is such that the release of certain neurotransmitters in the brain creates the phenomenological experience of joy or suffering, and this does not change from human to human. The rise of Serotonin levels roughly corresponds with emotions like joy, and the rise of hormones like cortisol corresponds with emotions like stress. Due to these symmetries of brain chemistry, the US constitutional right for “the pursuit of happiness” also depends on symmetrical circumstances that give rise to the neurotransmitters of happiness. For one, consistent serotonin levels require that Maslow's needs are met, like food, water, and shelter, and the basic physical hierarchy there also other psychological needs, like purpose, community, meaning that need to be met to obtain a happy life over the course of one’s life. Because these needs do not vary to a high degree from person to person, so metaethical values need to be held to protect the rights, liberties, and autonomy of humans. For example, if property rights were deprived of people, this would thwart their ability to garner resources and would lead to a loss of food, water, and shelter, which would end in human suffering. In summary, since humans are largely built the same, they require largely symmetrical treatment, and to say that metaethical values are subjective is to say that there are no universal guiding principles we can use to predict human behavior or to maximize human happiness. Morality is consistent from culture to culture and from person to person because the laws of nature that dictate the structure of the human psyche are universal. To say that morality is subjective is to deny the objectivity of the laws of nature.
- If you know anything about mathematics, you know that the majority of mathematicians at the research level are something akin to Neo-platonists. Whether or not the Platonic realm is true in actuality, the way that the theory of Platonism explains the ways that math is discovered, appears to be independent of human minds, and yet is unreasonable effective at solving real problems makes Platonism a highly attractive philosophical explanation of mathematics. For instance, the statement "2+2=4" seems true regardless of cultural background, time period, or individual belief. However, no one has ever seen the number “4,” or can prove that any numbers exist objectively. Numbers are instrumentally highly useful at solving problems, but they are not discovered empirically. I say all this to suggest that morals as treated with the same kind of ontological status as Platonic ideas prove to be highly explanative as a philosophical theory. The kind of moral world that humans find themselves in tends to be one where we have real claims to moral rights and can suggest when moral wrongs have transgressed. So for example, children at the early ages of three and four years old have been shown in studies to act as “intuitive lawyers.” These children are capable of judging the intent of the actors and are even able to draw a distinction between what is referenced in the law and the difference between a mistake of fact vs. a mistake of law (Levine, Leslie, & Mikhail, 2018). This is a highly developed sense of moral judgment that has been built into nearly every legal system. If morality was simply a social construct that was conditioned by society or by parents, then it would be nearly impossible for children at these ages to be able to make such intuitive moral judgments. This implies that there is something of a universal moral grammar, which is the basic idea that there might be an innate basis for our moral judgments. Chomsky thought that we all had an innate linguistic grammar and that all languages had the same deep grammatical structure. If morals are innate, but we are able to contest about which morals are more or less preferable, then the moral world turns out to be discovered by the human mind, but is recapitulated through language, and ultimately by the laws we adopt as a society. In conclusion, the pervasive and objective nature of morality is best described as mathematics and like that of the platonic forms.
- In many religious traditions, God is seen as the ultimate standard of goodness. For instance, in Christianity, God's nature and will define what is morally right and wrong. This concept aligns with the idea of the "summum bonum," where God embodies the highest form of good that all other values and actions are measured against.
Imagine who absurd it would be if someone said, “In my opinion, I just don’t like the Nazi party.” If we accepted subjective morality, then we would have no way of condemning the Nazis beyond our own opinion. Instead, we want to be able to say that the Nazis were really wrong and that they transgressed a law of the universe, which says that there is something wrong about putting Jews in ovens.
[M]orality must exist independently of any individual’s reason, otherwise, it wouldn’t be able to stand apart as a standard capable of settling disagreements. If morality were subjective all the way through, one person’s claim of justice would be just as true as another person’s, and if those two people got into a quarrel there would be no way of telling who was in the right and who was in the wrong.
[T]o say that metaethical values are subjective is to say that there are no universal guiding principles we can use to predict human behavior or to maximize human happiness.
- Any moral statement either is, or has an equivalent, ought statement. For instance, to say that 'Theft is wrong' is equivalent to saying that 'One ought not commit theft.'
- No ought statement can be validly derived merely from descriptive statements ('is statements'). This is widely accepted to be true among philosophers.
- Cultural Differences Don’t Negate Objective Morality: The fact that different cultures may have varying interpretations of what constitutes a moral wrong, such as rape, does not necessarily invalidate the existence of objective moral principles. Objective morality suggests that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of how societies interpret or enforce these standards. Cultural practices and legal definitions may deviate from moral truths, but these variations reflect differences in perception rather than a lack of moral universals. For example, societies that once tolerated slavery or marital rape do not undermine the claim that these practices were always objectively wrong; rather, they illustrate how moral understanding can evolve and better align with objective truths over time.
- Innate Moral Awareness: The innateness of human morality, which many cultures share despite differences in legal frameworks or practices, points to underlying moral constants. For instance, even in societies where marital rape was legally permitted, this doesn’t necessarily mean it was morally accepted by all individuals. Laws often reflect power structures or social norms that may not correspond to deeper, universal moral instincts. The widespread recognition of concepts like harm, fairness, and bodily autonomy across cultures suggests that objective moral values exist, even if the specific application of these principles varies.
- Cultural Evolution and Moral Progress: The evolution of legal and moral attitudes toward issues like marital rape can actually support objective morality by showing that societies move closer to recognizing moral truths over time. For example, the global shift toward criminalizing marital rape reflects a growing consensus that bodily autonomy is a fundamental moral principle that transcends cultural and temporal differences. This progression suggests that humanity, through reason and empathy, can better grasp objective moral truths as they develop a more consistent understanding of what it means to respect human dignity.
- The Naturalistic Fallacy Can Be Challenged: The is-ought problem is not universally accepted as fatal to moral reasoning. Some moral realists argue that certain facts about human nature, well-being, or social cooperation imply moral obligations. For example, Sam Harris and others have suggested that we can derive "oughts" from facts about human flourishing—just as we derive medical prescriptions from facts about human health. This returns us to my point about the symmetries in human brain chemistry that require symmetrical external environmental conditions for happiness to arise, and this requires symmetrical ethics.
Let’s run with my opponent’s analysis about the treatment of the Nazi party. Let’s grant for the moment that morals are entirely subjective. In this hypothetical world, according to the morals established in 20th-century Germany, it was right to dehumanize Jews, deport them to concentration camps, and mass exterminate them. In fact, People like Bonhoeffer, Corrie Ten Boom, and other decenters against the Nazi law were wrong for disobeying Nazi law!
The statement "The Nazis were evil" is not factual, it only leads to undesirable consequences.
This is percisely because there are certain ways we should treat all human beings regardless of gender, class, race, etc., and this implies that there are also universal rules about how we treat humans that captures this symmetry of fairness.
Human beings share similar biological and neurological structures, which produce consistent experiences of joy and suffering through the release of neurotransmitters like serotonin and cortisol. These experiences rely on the fulfillment of basic needs—food, water, shelter, and psychological well-being—that are largely universal across individuals. Therefore, morality must be objective, grounded in these shared human requirements. To claim morality is subjective is to ignore the natural laws that dictate human well-being. Objective moral principles are necessary to protect the rights and autonomy that enable human flourishing.
Objective morality suggests that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of how societies interpret or enforce these standards. Cultural practices and legal definitions may deviate from moral truths, but these variations reflect differences in perception rather than a lack of moral universals. For example, societies that once tolerated slavery or marital rape do not undermine the claim that these practices were always objectively wrong; rather, they illustrate how moral understanding can evolve and better align with objective truths over time.
The evolution of legal and moral attitudes toward issues like marital rape can actually support objective morality by showing that societies move closer to recognizing moral truths over time. For example, the global shift toward criminalizing marital rape reflects a growing consensus that bodily autonomy is a fundamental moral principle that transcends cultural and temporal differences. This progression suggests that humanity, through reason and empathy, can better grasp objective moral truths as they develop a more consistent understanding of what it means to respect human dignity.
Some moral realists argue that certain facts about human nature, well-being, or social cooperation imply moral obligations. For example, Sam Harris and others have suggested that we can derive "oughts" from facts about human flourishing—just as we derive medical prescriptions from facts about human health. This returns us to my point about the symmetries in human brain chemistry that require symmetrical external environmental conditions for happiness to arise, and this requires symmetrical ethics.
- P1: If assaulting someone causes physical harm, it is detrimental to their health. (P → Q)
- P2: Assaulting someone causes phyisical harm. (P)
- C: One ought not commit assault (∴ R)
Surprisingly, the reversal is also true. An argument for God's existence is often made from the apparent existence of objective morality. In C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity, he makes an argument is known as the Moral Argument or the Argument from the Moral Law, and it proceeds as follows:
1. Existence of a Universal Moral Law: Lewis begins by pointing out that humans across cultures and time periods have a sense of right and wrong, even though specific moral codes may vary. This universal sense of moral obligation, which he calls the "Moral Law" or "Law of Human Nature," leads us to believe that certain things are objectively right or wrong.
2. Moral Law Is Not a Product of Human Instinct or Social Convention: Lewis argues that this sense of morality is not simply an evolutionary instinct or something invented by human society. He reasons that while instincts (like the desire to help others or self-preservation) exist, the Moral Law often directs us to choose one instinct over another. For instance, when we feel both the instinct to help someone and the instinct for self-preservation, the Moral Law tells us which is the "right" action. Thus, it stands above and beyond our instincts and societal conventions.
3. Moral Law Suggests a Moral Lawgiver: If there is a universal Moral Law that transcends human societies and individual preferences, Lewis argues that it must come from a source outside of humanity. Since the Moral Law reflects a standard of good that humans are subject to but did not create, it points to a higher moral authority or lawgiver.
4. This Lawgiver is God: Lewis concludes that the best explanation for this Moral Law is the existence of God. He argues that the Moral Law reveals a moral order in the universe that reflects the nature of a supreme being who is good and just. Without God, Lewis contends, there would be no grounding for objective morality—our sense of right and wrong would be mere preferences or cultural practices.
That's a great question. I think for one, because I wanted to engage in a conversation on morality based on the beliefs we both already share about the universe, not what we might disagree on. If I make an argument for objective morality grounded in theism, than an atheist might just rebuttal, "Well, I don't believe in God," and then we have a non-starter conversation or one in which we start to debate whether or not God exists, which is a whole other can of worms. This is not to say that I don't believe a good argument can be made for objective morality if you already believe God exists. If there is a creator of the universe, then he would know best about the kinds of laws we should abide by that would lead to flourishing communities, optimal functioning of the body, and a fully integrated soul (to barrow the words of Aristotle).
However, I do think that objective morality can be argued for on purely secular grounds. You noticed me appealing to symmetrical design and brain wiring. Some secular moral realists, like Peter Railton, argue that moral facts are natural facts about the world, grounded in human well-being, flourishing, or societal stability. I also believe that the nature we have dealt with moral issues as a human race over time are too congruent to be merely a byproduct of the culture.
I have to say, I found your arguments in this debate to be very surprising in that you hardly mentioned God at all. In your previous debate, you argued that "if God does not exist, then morality is speculative at best", yet here, you made an argument for moral realism while scarcely appealing to God at all. I must ask, why is that?
I understand. I've let things slip away from me before as well.
Sorry for the forfeiture. I meant to respond on time, but things have been crazy at work so I let time slip away. I still want to give a reply and finish the debate though because it's a good one :)
Sorry to keep you waiting! I did intend to have my arguments up earlier, but to be honest with you, I have a really bad habit of procrastinating until the last minute. Looking forward to your responses!
Recidivism? More like, Reci-eve deez nutz.
Great, looking forward to your contribution! :)
I've read your opening arguments and it looks like this is going to be a good debate! I'll try to have my arguments up by the end of the week.
"moral sense theory is more obscure, perhaps I will get into it more when your debate is done, but I think it goes a long way to prove objective morality exists."
Sure, I'd like to hear more about it after this debate is over. Ethical theory is very interesting to me, personally, and I like learning more about it.
"Your opponent doesn't need to prove God exists. He could claim that in fact God is not real, but that if God were real hypothetically speaking than objective morality would have to be real."
Yup, he could do that. I was well aware of that when I created this debate. I'm interested to see what arguments he will use.
moral sense theory is more obscure, perhaps I will get into it more when your debate is done, but I think it goes a long way to prove objective morality exists. Your opponent doesn't need to prove God exists. He could claim that in fact God is not real, but that if God were real hypothetically speaking than objective morality would have to be real.
Sure, technically I don't have to disprove moral realism to win, but if I can successfully do so, then there is no way for my opponent to win. Conversely, my opponent could win by simply proving that morality is objective without bringing God into the equation at all. Given that he believes that objective morality can't exist without God, however, I doubt he'll take that route.
As far as moral theories go, I'll admit I'm not the most well-educated person. I know a bit about philosophy, but I'm no expert. But when it comes to theories like utilitarianism, Kantianism, etc., I find that they all seem to have been formed by starting with the conclusion that moral realism is true and working backwards from there. I don't think that any of them actually manage to prove that morality is objective.
That's not what the debate is about though.
Do you know moral sense theory well enough to disprove it?
It isn't tho, and I intend to prove it in this debate.
You do know that morality is objective right?
Let me know if there's anything you need me to adjust about the debate setup. Please do not reject the challenge; that will delete the entire debate. Just let me know if you need me to change anything and I can do so.