Do objective moral values exist?

“If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist,” says an apologist. This will soon be followed by the contention that objective moral values do exist, leading to the inevitable conclusion that, well, God exists.

From my discussions with the resident theists in the FF Forum, I have come to understand moral values as the rightness/wrongness of certain human actions, while Collins English Dictionary defines objective as “existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions.”

The famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig defines it even more narrowly:

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

I think the fallacy of Craig’s argument lies in his use of the word objective. Craig says that objective moral values exist whether anyone believes them or not, and by anyone, that should include God, otherwise it would be special pleading. However, moral values themselves do not exist inherently with human actions; moral values exist only when someone judges the actions and establishes moral values on them. If moral values are established by God, they are only objective as far as man is concerned but they are actually subjective from the point of view of God.

And that’s why I don’t think it’s right to call the moral values allegedly established by God as objective moral values since they cannot exist independently of God’s perception or judgment. They should be called divine moral values instead, but I think I know why Craig would refuse to call them as such. That’s because his moral argument would turn into something like this:

1. If God does not exist, divine moral values do not exist

2. Divine moral values exist

3. Therefore, God exists

But the problem with the new Premise 2 is that it’s easier to refute than the original “objective moral values exist” because skeptics would then demand a list of moral values unmistakably coming from God, and I’m sure the Bible would fail miserably. (As for the existence of objective moral values, however, Craig doesn’t seem to offer much support apart from saying that the Holocaust would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and that we intuitively perceive certain acts like rape and torture to be wrong, but instead challenged skeptics that they could not prove that physical reality exists either and that even as one could only rely on his own sense perception to perceive reality, no one in his right mind would deny that objective reality exists, so it should follow that no one in his right mind would also deny that objective moral values exist even if he only had his own moral perception to rely on.)

I posted this objection on the FF Forum along with the Euthyphro dilemma (does God command something because it’s good or is something good because God commands it?) and got very interesting answers from our resident theists who call themselves Miguel and XIII. What they are practically saying is that God does not command the good nor likes the good but that God is the good, and being good, he cannot command something that is not good. I took the liberty of refining their argument to make it more relevant to objective moral values (Miguel and XIII, if you think I did not give justice to your views you may rebuke me at the comments section):

1. Objective moral values are moral values that exist whether anyone – including God – perceives them or not.

2. God is inherently good, so he cannot perceive something evil as good and vice-versa.

3. So even if moral values are directly dependent on God’s perception, such perception is not subjective because it is anchored on God’s goodness, which cannot be separated from him, and therefore the moral values established by God are ultimately grounded on his objective goodness.

While the conclusion seems logical, I’m going to try to refute Premise 2, that God cannot perceive something evil as good. In the Old Testament, God established extremely negative moral values on homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, and losing one’s virginity before marriage – and positive moral values on killing homosexualsSabbath workers and non-virgin brides. And in both the Old and New Testaments, God/Jesus never established a negative moral value on slavery but actually condoned it. So in order to honestly say that “God is the good,” one would have to agree with the above moral values established by God.

Otherwise, the moral argument will be gored by the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma (something is good because God commands it, making the good arbitrary), refuting the premise that if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist, because objective moral values are supposed to exist even if everyone – including God – does not agree with them. And that’s why I believe that not only do objective moral values not exist but the term “objective moral values” itself is an oxymoron, because moral values will always be subjective to the mind (whether man’s or God’s) that perceives them.

[Continued on The closest thing to objective moral values]

15 comments

  1. I posted a question on this subject in Reddit (r/atheism). Most of the responses were generally in the mold of, “no, there is no need to have an objective moral standard to base values upon.”

    It’s up to the individual, I agree, but what happens when there is a clash between what someone says is moral and another believing otherwise? Who now is the arbiter of what is and what is not moral.

    I still haven’t read a compelling argument to this day.

  2. The so-called "moral values" our religious institutions hold dear are merely tenets of self-preservation, NOT NECESSARILY EVIDENCE OF A SINGLE-FACED GOD. Without delving into any clouded discussion on moral dogma, the many moral values a society holds reflects its need to be stable and peaceful. To not kill, to not commit adultery, to not steal are all rules that would keep society's individual properties and aspirations unmolested. But to claim that such come from "God" is rash judgment, irrational thinking, or deception. All of these assumptions come from OBSERVATIONS made by certain individuals in society (elders, etc.), and in their experience, there are actions that displease the community as a whole, those pertaining to violations on property and the individual's relationship with other individuals. Through unwritten mental experiments, they come to the conclusion that such acts are collectively wrong. Add some religious elements of "history" (with matching supernatural covenant), and a group of people within a society can actively claim to know and implement "moral values" over an ignorant herd of followers. What results is a working system of order and indoctrination, very much prone to excess, extravagance, corruption, and destruction respectively. These are, for my part, some socio-political factors of separating GOD from DIVINE MORAL VALUES.

  3. sooo if i understood the flow of reasoning correctly…. "killing homosexuals, Sabbath workers and non-virgin brides" is actually objectively good even though everyone today thinks its not?

    • Unless the "god" of the Old Testament resigned and a new one took its place then the "objective" rules then should still apply now:

      The book of Leviticus is such a funny read 🙂

      Actions prohibited by the Bible
      * Homosexuality, only applies to men- women aren't prohibited. Makes you think, doesn't it? (Leviticus 18:22)
      * Consuming blood, blood in meat is not exempt. (Genesis 9:4)
      * Performing any work on the sabbath.(Exodus 20:10)
      * Cooking a goat in its mother's milk.(Exodus 23:19)
      * Eating fat.(Leviticus 3:17)
      * The consumption of pork.(Leviticus 11:7-8)
      * Eating a fellowship offering more than three days old.(Leviticus 19:5-8)
      * Bestiality.(Leviticus 19:19)
      * Planting more than one kind of seed in a field.(Leviticus 19:19)
      * Wearing clothing woven of more than one kind of cloth.(Leviticus 19:19)
      * Cutting the hair on the sides of your head or clipping of the edges of your beard.(Leviticus 19:27)
      * Tattoos.(Leviticus 19:28)
      * Consulting a psychic or spiritualist.(Leviticus 19:31)
      * Being a psychic or spiritualist, punishable by death.(Leviticus 20:27)
      * Touching the dead carcass of a pig.(Deuteronomy 14:8)
      * Eating aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales.(Deuteronomy 14:9-10)
      * Transvestism.(Deuteronomy 22:5)
      * Consuming the meat of strangled animals.(Acts 15:28-29)
      * For women, speaking in church.(1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
      * If you are a slave, disobedience.(Ephesians 6:5)

      source: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_actions_proh

      • "Homosexuality, only applies to men- women aren't prohibited. Makes you think, doesn't it? "

        "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Rom.1:26-28

        Most like to go fishing and merely copy/paste walls of text yet at the same time showcasing no understanding for any Biblical content whatsoever

          • Jay has a legtimate point Wes, What is your understanding of the said verses. It would be interesting to hea,. Simply quoting scriptures is easy for anyone to do. Detail is the spice of any debate. Go for it.

            Solo Scriptura

  4. The problem with the "argument" above, e.g., "God is inherently good…", regardless of whether the conclusion follows from the premises (which I don't have an opinion about) is that the statement that "God is inherently good" is based on fantasy. Nobody can assert that to be true so the argument as a whole is of no practical value.

  5. Napanood ko yung debate nila Craig at Hitchens. Kapwa sila magaling. Sana mangyari sa ating bansa ang ganitong pangyayari. Maimbita sila para dito gawin ang dating maselang usapin na dapat isapubliko. Kung sakaling mangayari ito, handa na kaya ang utak ng ibang tao? Hindi kaya magkagulo? Simpleng paghahanda sa pakikipagtalik ay hindi nga maipasa ang pagusapan pa kaya ang katotohan ng kanilang pinaniniwalaan. Sana mangyari ito. Gusto kong marinig ng mga kapwa ko kababayan ang simpleng sagot ni Hitchens sa kahirapan, "Empower your women".

  6. The whole premise discussed about moral values are based on the idea of God. It implies that moral values are outside of man, no relationships to man; no connections to living organism or life; the knowledge of what is good or bad has no relationship to human life. In other words, moral values according to the discussion is based on supernatural, therefore they argued that if supernatural does not exist no moral knowledge. They deny that only natural things exist. They deny that no moral values can be derived from the knowledge of the natural things. The living organisms are natural things that we can observe and discover, identify the moral values.

    • [The living organisms are natural things that we can observe and discover, identify the moral values.]

      I think there is an is-ought problem with that contention.

  7. Whether we like it or not, as a species, we evolved, we are evolving & we will continue to evolve & understanding how serves a key for me to sources for objective, definitive & even measurable criteria for morality & ethics. I propose it begins in providing a universal & operational definition of what a human being is.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here