Objective Morality VS David Pallmann

Challenge

For those who like the moral argument, here are my five challenges (framed as questions) for you. 1. Why think that moral realism is true? 2. Why think that moral facts/obligations need an explanation? 3. Why think that God would be able to explain the existence of moral facts/obligations? 4. What about non-theistic accounts of morality? 5. Can you show that theism surpasses all non-theistic accounts of morality as an explanation for morality? I expect that you can answer some of these questions. However, I don't think that you will be able to answer all of them, at least not in a satisfactory way. This is because, I think that satisfactory answers to some of these questions will make it impossible for you to offer a satisfactory answer to one or more of the others. - David Pallmann

Dr. Tim's Response

Not only do I like the moral argument, after arguments from reason (which include the Free-Thinking Argument), I believe this is the most powerful argument for the existence of God. After answering your five questions, you ought to reach the same conclusion. Let's examine your questions one by one:

1. Why think that moral realism is true?

Because it seems that moral realism is more real than the physical universe! As I mentioned in New and Improved Deductive Moral Arguments:

It seems to me that objective moral obligations are more intuitive than the existence of the physical universe. After all, I can conceive of possible worlds in which the physical universe is an illusion – one that’s 

like The Matrix

 – but even if I were in a Matrix, it would still be objectively wrong to side with the Nazis.

Ultimately, this is like asking a person why they believe the physical universe exists. If a person is justified in thinking the universe exists, then one is justified in believing that some thoughts and actions are objectively right and wrong. One would need a powerful defeater against overwhelming intuitions. Moreover, one would need to object against the second premise of the following argument and find themselves standing with the Nazis:

1- If the Nazis were properly convicted at Nuremberg, then an objective Law above human subjective law exists.

2- The Nazis were properly convicted at Nuremberg.

3- Therefore, an objective Law above human subjective law exists.

Proper convictions are based upon truth. If Chief Justice Jackson’s case – which was sufficient to convict the Nazis at Nuremberg – was based upon false premises, then the Nazis were

improperly

convicted. However, anyone who rejects premise (2) is probably not fit to live with other human beings. It seems obviously true. To reject it is to side with the Nazis. Indeed, one is not irrational for affirming this premise. Thus, if both premises are true, then it is rational to affirm the conclusion and affirm moral realism. Do you disagree? If so, then you are tacitly affirming that the Nazis were improperly and 

wrongly

convicted

 at Nuremberg. That’s a heavy burden to bear. That’s an extremely expensive price tag. Are you willing to pay it? I am not, and to most people it seems true that one should not. Thus, we have good reason to affirm moral realism.

2. Why think that moral facts/obligations need an explanation?

For the same reason I believe the existence of the universe needs an explanation, the fine-tuning of the universe needs an explanation, the resurrection of Jesus needs an explanation, and the same reason that the human ability to infer truth about ultimate reality demands an explanation. Nothing out of the ordinary. No special pleading.

3. Why think that God would be able to explain the existence of moral facts/obligations?

Let’s look at an expanded version of the updated moral argument I like to offer:

1. If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.

2. If humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature, then objective moral purpose and obligations do not exist.

3. Objective moral purpose and obligations exist.

4. Therefore, humanity is not an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.

5. Therefore, God exists.

Here’s the deal, if the premises of this valid deductive argument are true, then the conclusion 

must

 be true. So, the question is raised, why think the premises are true? Let’s begin with a defense of the first premise: 

“If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and determined by nature.”

This seems true to most theists and atheists: 

If God does not exist, then humanity was not created on purpose or for a specific purpose.

 If that’s the case, and humans are a mere accident of nature, then there’s no objective standard – or goal – toward which we were created to attain (no target we were created to hit). That is to say, if atheism is true, then there would be no objective standard – 

true apart from human opinion

 – which humans 

ought

 to approximate (when thinking or moving our bodies). If that’s the case, and there is no objective purpose to human existence, then it seems that you are entitled to your subjective opinion about what goals humans ought to have in mind, and Hitler is equally entitled to his subjective opinions on the matter. This is the case because if Hitler was not created for the purpose of loving Jews (and everyone else), then killing Jews (or anyone else) does not seem to violate any objective fact or teleological goal about his existence. This is a big problem for any atheist attempting to provide an account of objective morality. But there’s more problems for the atheist. Let’s discuss objective obligations. It seems that if God does not exist, then it’s likely true that humans do not possess the power and ability to think freely in a libertarian sense. That is to say, if God does not exist, then it seems that humanity would probably be completely determined by antecedent (prior) conditions such as the laws and past events of nature. J.P. Moreland and I discuss this in our academic journal article entitled An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument. Moreover, these antecedent conditions would be (i) non-rational, (ii) non-moral, and – as Dr. Joshua Rasmussen has pointed out – (iii) “mindless stuff.” Thus, if non-rational, non-moral, and mindless stuff determines Hitler to think (and how to think) about the Holocaust, want to undertake the Holocaust, and to actually follow through and kill six million Jews, then it is literally

impossible

 for Hitler to refrain from thinking about, desiring to, and actually undertaking the killing of six million Jews. Hitler could not do otherwise – he could not even think about doing otherwise! The entirety of his thoughts and actions were all determined and necessitated by prior states of affairs (all mindless stuff). It’s absurd to hold persons responsible for the impossible. Thus, if God does not exist, it doesn’t seem as if Hitler should be held responsible — or blamed — for the Holocaust. He was nothing but a passive cog or a caused cause. If anything, Hitler was a victim if atheism is true. Hitler was victimized by the mindless laws and events of nature. Indeed, if this is the case, just like tornadoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis, the Holocaust was merely a natural disaster. That doesn’t seem right, does it? However, if God exists, everything changes. This is because 

If God created humanity 

on purpose

 and 

for a specific purpose

, then there would be objective facts 

about

 humanity irrespective of the subjective opinions 

from

 humanity. 

These objective facts would include moral facts regarding how we 

ought

 to live and treat each other. Moreover, if Christianity is true, then God not only creates humanity with specific purposes and teleological ends in mind, but He also endows humanity with libertarian freedom — the power to choose to approximate to the objective purpose of life (or not). For more, see my video, New and Improved Deductive Moral Arguments.

4. What about non-theistic accounts of morality?

See above.

Moreover, if Wielenberg’s view, for example, were true — even if it could account for abstract objective moral values — why should anyone care? So what if some things are objectively wrong to do according to abstract objects? We are all just going to die anyway. And who cares about legacy either? Eventually the entire universe is going to suffer a cosmic heat death (there will be no heat, no light, and no life anywhere in the entire universe) and ultimately “no one will remember your name” or any of the so-called moral actions you performed. In the end, this atheistic attempt to account for objective morality is fairly useless. After all, what good is a moral theory if it (i) cannot account for objective moral purpose, (ii) does not provide an ability to attain a specific moral standard, or (iii) provides no reason for a person to act morally?  It’s an utterly bankrupt account of morality. With all of the above data in mind, consider the Ultimate Moral Argument. The Ultimate Moral Argument (UMA)1- If God does not exist, then humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.2- If humanity is an accident of nature and completely determined by nature, then there is (i) no objective purpose to human existence, (ii) humans have no control over their behavior, and (iii) there are no ultimate consequences for human behavior.3- If there is (i) no objective purpose to human existence, (ii) humans have no control over their behavior, and (iii) there are no ultimate consequences for human behavior, then objective moral obligations are illusory.4- Objective moral obligations are not illusory. (Chief Justice Jackson was right; there is a Law above the law in which Hitler and the Nazis were supposed to adhere and had the power to adhere, but they failed.) 5- Therefore, there is (i) an objective purpose to human life, (ii) humans have control over their behavior, and (iii) there are ultimate consequences for human behavior.6- Therefore, humanity is not an accident of nature and completely determined by nature.7- Therefore, God exists.

5. Can you show that theism surpasses all non-theistic accounts of morality as an explanation for morality?

Yes! See above (also see New and Improved Deductive MoralArguments). You said:

I expect that you can answer some of these questions. However, I don't think that you will be able to answer all of them, at least not in a satisfactory way. This is because, I think that satisfactory answers to some of these questions will make it impossible for you to offer a satisfactory answer to one or more of the others.

It seems to me that all of your questions have been sufficiently answered.

Conclusion

If Christian theism is true, then there is (i) an objective target we are really supposed to hit – that we were created to hit (Jesus taught that the objective purpose of human life was all about love and taught us how to love), (ii) we possess the libertarian freedom — the power — to hit the bull’s eye of that target, iff we are careful and choose to learn from our mistakes, and (iii) there is an eternal reward for those who choose to hit the target of love and “resemble the Trinity” and there’s eternal consequences (punishment) for those who choose not to “resemble the Trinity” (for more about

resembling the Trinity

, see Adam Johnson’s book, Divine Love Theory).

Bottom line:

atheists cannot offer a robust moral theory that accounts for these three essential ingredients, but Christians can. Indeed, arguments for the existence of God based upon the reality of objective morality are forceful and sound. Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18), Dr. Tim Stratton