William Lane Craig: Objective Moral Values Do Exist

[razredge]

It may very well be true that absolute morality cannot exist under an atheist worldview, but it cannot exist under a theist worldview either, so we are both equally deluded, except that I have never claimed that objective morality exists.

How can it not exist under a theist worldview?

The theist worldview is the only worldview under which morality can exist.

But glad to see that you accept absolute morality doesn’t exist under an atheist worldview.

 

[Luke_K]

Perhaps our sense of objective morality is a by-product of our inability to separate ourselves from ourselves. What I mean by this is that when we get the sense of “objective morality”, we are necessarily judging an action by our personal values regardless of the hypothetical situation we come up with. For example, you imagine that even if everyone in the world thought that rape was okay, it would still be wrong. But the issue is that you still think it’s wrong and you’re still just judging that imaginary world from the perspective of your personal values!

It’s impossible to separate your personal value judgments from your perspective on things, and therefore it simply seems like wrongs are wrongs even if “nobody” believes they are.

 

[belorg]

The God of the OT is not identical with the God of the NT.

So Christians believ in two Gods now, interesting.

If you tell people you don’t know whether raping a child is objectively morally wrong no one would trust you with a child!

I can tell people why I think rape is wrong, and people can decide for themselves whether they trust me with a child or not.

 

[belorg]

How can it not exist under a theist worldview?

The theist worldview is the only worldview under which morality can exist.

But glad to see that you accept absolute morality doesn’t exist under an atheist worldview.

I do not ‘accept’ that. It is possible that absolute morality cannot exist. But if that’s the case, it’s equally true under atheism and theism.The fcat that some powerful wizzard set up some rules in order to play His favourit game does not constitute objective morality. That would only be the case if these rules also apply to the wizzard himself, but then it would transcend even God.

 

[belorg]

The nature of your replies suggest to me that such a demonstration is not really what you want, and you will simply deny the conclusion regardless of how reasonable or logically neccesary it is. I am not going to waste my time. If you are trully dedicated to knowing the true source of objective moral law, then you will work it out for yourself, just as i did.

IOW you have no argument. Just as I thought. Because if you really had a rock-solid argument, I would not be able to deny it.

 

[tonyrey]

The God of the OT is not identical with the God of the NT.

•                            So Christians believ in two Gods now, interesting.

False deduction! Check the meaning of “identical”. :

If you tell people you don’t know

whether raping a child is objectively morally wrong no one would trust you with a child! I can tell people why I think rape is wrong, and people can decide for themselves whether they trust me with a child or not.

“think” is hardly enough to give people enough confidence to trust you. You don’t sound convincing at all…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

IOW you have no argument. Just as I thought. Because if you really had a rock-solid argument, I would not be able to deny it.

What ever floats your boat kid. Good luck & and God bless.

 

[belorg]

False deduction! Check the meaning of “identical”. :

‘identical’ AFAIK know means ‘completely the same’. If OT God is not compLetely the same as NT God, they are different Gods.

“think” is hardly enough to give people enough confidence to trust you. You don’t sound convincing at all…

Well, suppose they trust a theist with their kids and that theist suddenly starts thinking God reveals to him that rhe should rape the kid, then, to be consistent, he must rape the kid. So I wil never trust a theist who believes morality is based on God’s commands (as WL Craig does) anywhere near my kids.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Well, suppose they trust a theist with their kids and that theist suddenly starts thinking God reveals to him that rhe should rape the kid, then, to be consistent, he must rape the kid. So I wil never trust a theist who believes morality is based on God’s commands (as WL Craig does) anywhere near my kids.

You seem to think that Catholics and Christians simply and blindly follow the commands of a being that merely claims to be God without evidence; and carries out those commands without question. While there might be some catholics who think like this, this would not change the fact that you have a strawman point of view of what God is and what theism is on a theological and philosophical level. Catholic Christianity isn’t just divine revelation; it is also a philosophy and a theology.

However, all of this is besides the point. What God is reported to have done or what a person would do if God said this or that, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not the objectivity of moral values exists; that is what this thread is about. Whether or not there are theists that would rape a child if God told them to is irrelevant to this thread. You assume that divine command is entirely divorced from what we can know as morally true by the natural light of human reason. Being finite, it is true we cannot necessarily know all that is good nor all the justification that might arise given a particular context, especially if we do not recognize the nature of that objective standard; that is to say, why a thing is objectively good and what is the nature the thing that causes an action to be objectively good. But we do have a general knowledge of what is good, and no true Catholic would follow a being claiming to be God that would say he must rape a child, because that would not be God. And neither would you because you know that it is objectively wrong to rape a child. We are just waiting for you to be honest with yourself and us and admit that there is an objective moral law.

Or perhaps you don’t think that its objectively wrong to rape a child. If so we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[gentle_atheist]

What does it mean to say that something is objectively morally wrong as opposed to simply saying that something is morally wrong?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

What does it mean to say that something is objectively morally wrong as opposed to simply saying that something is morally wrong?

The latter is like saying i don’t like cheese and pickle sandwiches and therefore i don’t want it, and neither do i want other people to eat it. Its a matter of taste. Its purely a subjective manifestation that you wish to project on other people. It has no objective universal value. It has no true moral relevance. In fact to speak of “moral truth” is deceptive if all we are speaking about is our individual likes and dislikes. That one kind of desire is prevalent over another has no relevance to whether likes and dislikes are moral, and our labeling it as such is purely subjective and deceptive.

“Moral realism” is like saying 2+2 = 4. So long as we understand what 2+2 means, we cannot rationally disagree that the answer is 4; And the answer will remain 4 regardless of who knows it. Similarly, once we fully grasp and understand what raping a child actually means, we cannot honestly disagree that its truly wrong. In other-words its an objective truth, which is not dependent on human opinion in-order to be true; which means we discover that truth as opposed to inventing it. Moral realism means that personal actions have various objective meanings and values which transcends the subjective opinions of the people who are acting. To say my nature as a person has intrinsic moral value is to say that my life has objective value regardless of who knows it; and just like any other objective truth this is due to the ultimate nature of the reality in which i happen to participate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mind

To say my nature as a person has intrinsic moral value is to say that my life has objective value regardless of who knows it; and just like any other objective truth this is due to the ultimate nature of the reality in which i happen to participate.

If you and the entire world should say your life had no objective value, you and the entire world would be subjectively wrong because God values you.

The skeptic’s fundamental error is that he makes man the measure of all things. But without God there would be no man, and therefore no truth or value … objective, subjective, or otherwise if there is any otherwise.

 

[nordskoven]

Objective Moral Values do not exist apart from a measurable effect. Objective Moral Benefits exist. One study in the 1980’s of two nearby pre-Columbian cultures in the Southwest United States showed one village that chose “death and cursing” as seen in artifacts of violence. The other chose “life and blessing.” Cooperation was non-existent in the “death and cursing” village and the crops were blighted. The “life and blessing” village seemed to be blessed from above with abundant crops and amity. OMV may be said to subsist in the injunction to embrace “life and blessing” and reject “death and cursing.”
As for me and my house, we chose life. There is natural law; the choice of “life and blessing.”

 

[gentle_atheist]

The latter is like saying i don’t like cheese and pickle sandwiches and therefore i don’t want it, and neither do i want other people to eat it. Its a matter of taste…

Yes and no. Yes, it is a “matter of taste” as you put it. But no, it is not something that I regard as flippantly as I do a sandwich.

“Moral realism” is like saying 2+2 = 4.

You can prove that 2+2=4. But how do you prove that something is morally good or morally bad? I suspect that whatever proof you might come up with would only confirm the moral values that you already hold. For example, suppose you came up with a method to prove that child rape is morally bad but that same method proved that adultery is morally good. Would you accept the results of that method or would you conclude that the method is flawed and search for another?

Moral values involve making a judgment that is personally subject to the judge whether that judge is you or I or God. What is good or evil – just as what is beautiful or ugly – is all in the eye of the beholder.

But let’s be clear. Just because I believe that moral values are subjective does not mean that I am any less committed to them than one who believes that moral values are objective. It is my personal, subjective moral belief that child rape is wrong and I have no reluctance in imposing that belief on the rest of the world as best I can. I do not need to go casting about for some sort of authoritative confirmation of that belief before acting on it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

gentle

It is my personal, subjective moral belief that child rape is wrong and I have no reluctance in imposing that belief on the rest of the world as best I can.

Then of course you won’t mind if the Catholic Church opposes as best it can same-sex marriage as another “subjective” moral belief that should be imposed on the world?

In other words, you think subjective moral values should just battle it out until one of them wins?

So if NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) wins, that’s o.k. with you because it’s just one subjective view prevailing over an opposing subjective view?

 

[gentle_atheist]

gentle

It is my personal, subjective moral belief that child rape is wrong and I have no reluctance in imposing that belief on the rest of the world as best I can.

Then of course you won’t mind if the Catholic Church opposes as best it can same-sex marriage as another “subjective” moral belief that should be imposed on the world?

Not only don’t I mind, I actually welcome the Catholic Church’s opposition because I agree with it, although for different reasons.

In other words, you think subjective moral values should just battle it out until one of them wins?

No. I believe that subjective moral values should battle it out until the ones that I agree with win.

So if NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association) wins, that’s o.k. with you because it’s just one subjective view prevailing over an opposing subjective view?

No, it’s not OK with me because I don’t agree with it. But yes, it is simply one subjective view vs. another.

Like it or not, that is reality. Once we understand that then we will realize how tenuous are our rights, our freedoms, our culture, our way of life. I’m an American and I’m pretty much satisfied with our society as it is now except for abortion, which I would like to severely restrict. So if we want to preserve what we have then we must be ever vigilant or we will find that it can be changed overnight by whichever group gets the upper hand, just as happened with the right to life.

 

[jimjack]

I believe that objective moral values exist as well. Most cultures around the world, if not all cultures, seem to know and accept the moral truth that **child abuse, **murder, stealing, etc., are wrong. And this universal understanding and realization of these wrong actions as being morally wrong everywhere at all times can therefore be neither part of our biological makeup nor something we learned through the school of trial and error. And because morals are everywhere at all times and are above, beyond, and independent of individuals, societies, and time itself, it would seem that morals are indeed objective to our nature and can only come from the One - in my humble opinion, God - who is above, beyond, and independent of individuals, societies, and time. Thanks for sharing the clip.

Child abuse shouldn’t be in that list. There have been (and still are) societies that practice all sorts of things to children that would get someone arrested in America today.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

My definition of objective good and objective evil is that there are some acts that are always and everywhere intrinsically right or wrong. If you want to call that a subjective impression because it is in the mind, that’s fine with me. But there are objective acts (out there in the real world, not just in my mind) that qualify as ordered (good) or disordered (evil).

God did not espouse the Nazi ideology for mankind, even if the Nazis subjectively would like to think He did. The reason Nazism was opposed, and that it is opposed everywhere in the world when it can be opposed, is that people know it to be intrinsically evil, not just evil from the outside looking in. Cruelty and the suffering that flows from cruelty is evil … no ifs ands or buts about it.

If you can show me where and when there is an exception to this rule, I’d like to see it. Moral relativism thrives on the notion that all values are subjective, none are objective. Moral relativism springs from the notion that there is no God, or that if there is a God, that God permits everything. Neither notion is proved or provable. What is proved is that human kind the world over have believed in the difference between good and evil, and that there is nothing, as Nietzsche claimed, that is beyond good and evil.

When evil sets itself up as good, God gave us our rational faculties to see through the lie.

Satan was rightly described as a murderer and the father of lies. His world is a purely subjective world, having told himself the pre-eminent lie … that it is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. And we all know that misery loves company. That is why the first object of Satan is to make us all atheists … if he can.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes and no. Yes, it is a “matter of taste” as you put it. But no, it is not something that I regard as flippantly as I do a sandwich.

How you consider it is irrelevant. If there is no moral law, then your judgments are qualitatively the same as a judgment of taste. You like this kind of sensory stimulus, but you don’t like some other kind sensory stimulus. That there are different kinds of sensory stimulus is irrelevant; none of them are more objectively meaningful than the other, and there is no objectively rational reason to consider them as being so.

You can prove that 2+2=4. But how do you prove that something is morally good or morally bad?

This has been explained.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

But let’s be clear. Just because I believe that moral values are subjective does not mean that I am any less committed to them than one who believes that moral values are objective.

Nobody said that you are incapable of being committed to what you think is best for you. Whether those commitments are objectively rational is a different question.