The Moral Argument
The Moral Argument, known as well as the Axiological Argument (axia is Greek for “value”) is one of the best out of various deductive arguments for the existence of God. Its common formulation follows the subsequent premises and conclusion:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Before analyzing the premises, let’s first establish what constitutes a good deductive argument. Firstly, a good argument needs to be valid, and for it to be valid, it needs to be logical. That means the conclusion must logically follow the premises. The premises cannot be true and the conclusion false.
Secondly, a good argument must be sound. For it to be sound, it needs to be both valid and true. In other words, the argument must be logical and have true premises. It can of course still be valid if its premises are false, but it cannot be sound.
Finally, a good argument has premises which are more reasonable than its negations. If the premises are more reasonable than its negations, that infers the high likelihood that the premises are true, thus the reasonableness behind the veracity of the premises is significantly increased, which means the argument is plausibly sound (and good).
Premise 1: Moral values and duties, being objective, are based on a standard or origin which infers its objectivity. Objective morality cannot originate from culture or society for instance, since there are distinct and contradictory moral values between different cultures. If there are contradictory values, there is no objectivity. Objectivity is, however, true.
Genetic evolution, also an objection, cannot be considered an explanation behind objective morality for the simple reason that cultures don’t always display the same moral values or denote equal worth to moral values in contrast to one another. If genetic evolution were the correct reasoning, then people from societies which do not often respect transcendent moral laws would be genetically defective.
This argument is particularly strange because instead of explaining moral objectivity, it allows for relativism. In other words, if you subscribe to this view you can no longer condemn nazis for their actions because you would be prejudiced against their genetic, physical and inherent (lack) of a moral code. And of course that makes no sense.
Some argue that because groups display what is considered morally good behavior have an advantage in survival, that justifies the origin of moral objectivity on account of humanity testing what is good and bad as it relates to survivability.
This falls apart once it becomes clear that human “testing” is exactly what it claims to be: testing. It does not explain the origin of moral standards, it explains how humans may have come to understand the existence of moral standards.
Premise 2: I’ve already addressed some common objections to premise 2 in my post: “A Simple Critique to Relativism”. Adding to it, premise 2 is true because moral objectivity is observable. It’s observable, as stated in my explanation for premise 1, through the survivability odds of groups that display altruistic behavior, which is higher than those who do not. This already points to the necessity of a standard for which actions that can all be considered altruistic are derived and that lead to a common good.
Another interesting point is the common good itself. Who can explain (without God) the reason why is it good to survive? Is there a moral standard which would objectively point out why people in all cultures generally prefer to survive and thrive instead of dying?
If you would like to dispute the veracity of either one or both premises, you need to provide evidence contrary to each of them. Otherwise, you cannot claim the premises are false.
Conclusion: God exists. He exists because moral truths exist. He exists because nothing else can offer a reasonable explanation for transcendental moral laws. He exists because humanity cannot generate a standard of morality by itself, rather it either endorses what is evidently morally true or creates subjective values that attempt to downplay it or mascarade it, but do not and cannot eradicate such truths.
God is the most reasonable explanation behind objective morality. Such moral laws are, by nature, logical, good and complex. Humans cannot be the origin of it since humanity is obviously flawed. By quickly alluding to the argument from complexity (teleological), it’s evident that non-intelligent beings or mechanisms cannot be the origin of morality because they don’t display it themselves and have not the mental capacity to generate it. Therefore a being more complex and better than humans has to have created morality. Such a being is God.
