William Lane Craig: Objective Moral Values Do Exist

[razredge]

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

What are your reasons for opposing same sex marriage? Would be interesting to see how an atheist approaches the topic.

 

[shoe]

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.

Whether a person is considered a child abuser by the legal system in one country and not in another is not quite the point. Child abuse is not wrong because the legal system of a particular country declares it to be wrong; rather, child abuse is wrong because it goes against the moral character of God: “Behold the inheritance of the Lord are children: the reward, the fruit of the womb” (Psalm 127:3). “And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead: “And immediately the damsel rose up, and walked: and she was twelve years old: and they were astonished with a great astonishment” (5:42).

In order for individuals, cultures, and societies to pass moral laws without God, they first must have a standard by which they can establish morals. And this standard of morals cannot be established by the government, based on public opinion, or the handiwork of evolution, since all these things are constantly changing. And I believe that since individuals, cultures, and societies without God do not have a standard by which they can establish the difference between good and bad, they cannot logically say what is moral and what is not.

 

[tonyrey]

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

The basic concept of God held by the primitive Jews as “He Who Is” is correct but it was distorted by subsequent generations into bloodthirsty Yahweh. Even so the prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah and condemned the moral decadence of the people. Hosea in particular declared on behalf of God:“For I desire mercy and not sacrifice”.

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.

God’s commands stem from His nature, the paramount attribute of which is love for everyone, especially children. Jesus said “It is better for anyone who offends these little ones to have a millstone hung around his neck and drowned in the sea.”

 

[tdgesq]

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

This is a little bit difficult to answer because of the imprecision in the use of the terms “objective” and “subjective” when applied to ethics. Most of the time it is a way of distinguishing between two different schools of philosophy: moral relativists and moral objectivists. It even gets more confusing when trying to distinguish the category of morality that is being discussed. There are descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics.

Most of the time it is either normative ethics or metaethics that is being discussed. Here, it looks like Dr. Craig is claiming that normative ethical laws (what we should do or should not do) actually exist (moral realism) and exist universally - that is- they apply to everybody. On the other hand, moral relativists usually claim that there is no such thing as an ethical law that applies to everybody.

So, the claim here is that universal laws exist that direct what people should do and what they should not do. That is what is meant by the statement that something is objectively morally right or wrong.

 

[John21652]

This is a little bit difficult to answer because of the imprecision in the use of the terms “objective” and “subjective” when applied to ethics. Most of the time it is a way of distinguishing between two different schools of philosophy: moral relativists and moral objectivists. It even gets more confusing when trying to distinguish the category of morality that is being discussed. There are descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics.

Most of the time it is either normative ethics or metaethics that is being discussed. Here, it looks like Dr. Craig is claiming that normative ethical laws (what we should do or should not do) actually exist (moral realism) and exist universally - that is- they apply to everybody. On the other hand, moral relativists usually claim that there is no such thing as an ethical law that applies to everybody.

So, the claim here is that universal laws exist that direct what people should do and what they should not do. That is what is meant by the statement that something is objectively morally right or wrong.

In the midst of some pretty petty argument about what is right and wrong, tdgesq has finally tried to be objective about the issue and to state some distinctions between subjective and objective morality and what constitutes both.

Earlier, MindOverMatter stated that objective morality is teleological. That’s true, but objective moral reasoning is also very much ontological. By its very nature it has to be, because the only truly objective moral system ever invented by humans, or given to man by God, according to what you wish to beleive, is Natural Law morality. Natural Law reasoning depends upon the ontological classification of the world we live in and the things in it, mankind included. Natural Law reasoning depends upon discerning and understanding the natures of things and of mankind itself. It is also decidedly epistemological in that the strength of Natural Law knowledge is always to be reinforced and understood through rational discourse. Some hold that, metaphysically, Natural Law morality is incompatible with atheism. I, for one, do not ascribe to that belief. Theologians have also stated this. The gap between the two can be filled in later, but, surely, the common ground of obejctive moral discourse can be arrived at first?

The objectivity of Natural Law morality is to be discerned through a rational enquiry which arives at universal truths pertaining to the nature of man and his place in the world. These universal truths must hold despite societal differences, personal predjudices and social customs. The resultant “morality” is that normative set of behaviours which are universal. Natural Law reasoning begins with the ontology of the world and then to the nature of man himself. This enquiry can be traced all the way back through Aristotle, Plato and to the Stoics. Roman Law was Natural Law and the legal and moral systems of our western societies are Natural Law systems. There is no doubt that they exist, because much of the development of the western hemisphere has been driven by them. Unfortunately, there has been a drift away from the objective rational enquiry and away from an ontological basis of discerning normative behaviour and it has been supplanted by teleological systems like Utilitarianism and Marxism.

How is moral objectivity arrived at? The same way any objective scientific principles are arrived at. Natural Law reasoning is a science, just as physics and chemistry are sciences. Verifiable results are arrived at and the objectivity of those results is because they exist independently of any one individual’s personal experience. Just like gravity does! We may not fully understand it, but we cannot deny that it exists. By recognising, knowing and understanding human nature, Natural Law morality can arrive at normative principles that universally shape and govern human behaviour. The truths arrived at must be justifiable, immutable and universal. If they are not, it does not dissprove their existence, but merely reflects on our understanding. Certain well known “inalieable rights” are said to be immutable, universal and justifiable. They are objective.

As MindOverMatter pointed out, “…*If there is no moral law, then your judgments are qualitatively the same as a judgment of taste.” *. According to Natural Law morality what constitutes ‘the good’ is what allows man to flourish according to his discerned nature. It is in virtue of our common human nature that the good for us is what it is. It seems de riguer amongst atheists, or amongst moral relativists that a denial of what constitutes human nature is a line of attack they take against objective moral law. Unfortunately, what constitutes normative human behaviour has been documented for so long, in so many contexts, that they are simply denying the rationality of humanity itself. That is the very antithesis of scientific objectivity.