Argument from Morality
Have you ever wondered why certain actions feel innately wrong—like hurting an innocent person or breaking a promise—even when no one is watching? Many people sense that moral values, such as fairness or kindness, aren’t just personal preferences; they carry a sense of universal “oughtness.” The Moral Argument for God takes this intuition and runs with it, claiming that if there are indeed objective moral facts, then God (or something like a divine source) must be behind them. Whether you find this idea compelling or controversial, it’s a line of thought worth exploring if you’re curious about how ethics and belief in a higher power intersect.
The moral argument for God was one of the main arguments that actually pushed me to Theism. Unlike the Fine-Tuning or Ontological arguments, the argument from morality tugged at something within me because it was an experience that I lived everyday. Why do I think murder is wrong? Why do I belive that theft is wrong? This feeling for myself and many can’t be answered for in a world without God as I believed in objective morality and the only way to have that is through the existence of God.
Core Argument
Objective Moral Values and Duties Exist
The Moral Argument begins with the notion that certain things are truly right or wrong, no matter our personal opinions or cultural norms. For example, many people believe that torturing innocents for fun is objectively wrong, not just a preference or cultural taboo. If these moral truths hold independently of human opinion, the argument says, they must come from a source that stands outside of human societies and individual minds.
Subjective vs. Objective Morality
We often talk about moral preferences—like whether you think it’s okay to lie in small situations—but the Moral Argument focuses on moral obligations that seem binding for everyone. The claim is that such obligations hint at a standard above human invention, in much the same way that logical or mathematical truths aren’t dependent on our personal choices. Proponents ask: Where else could these absolute truths come from, if not a transcendent reality like God?
God as the Foundation
Many conclude that the best explanation for these objective moral laws is a divine lawgiver—an all-good, personal being who grounds morality in His very nature. Instead of being a mere social construct or evolutionary accident, morality is woven into the fabric of reality by a moral creator. This creator, by definition, stands above human power or consensus, providing the ultimate reference point for what is right and wrong.
Common Rebuttals
Euthyphro Dilemma:
This classic challenge dates back to Plato: Does God command what’s good because it’s already good, or is it good because God commands it? If it’s good because God commands it, morality seems arbitrary—God could have willed something else to be “good.” If God commands it because it’s already good, then goodness seems to exist independently of God, weakening the argument that God is the source of moral truths.
Moral Realism Without God:
Some philosophers are “moral realists” who believe objective moral facts exist but see no need to invoke a deity. They argue that moral truths could be as fundamental to the universe as mathematical truths. For them, moral principles are just part of reality without requiring a divine mind to author them.Cultural and Evolutionary Explanations:
Others note that moral values may be explained by social evolution and cultural development. Cooperation and altruism could be byproducts of our survival instincts, honed through natural selection. Over time, societies that valued fairness and empathy thrived, so these norms solidified into universal “oughts.” Hence, the feeling that some things are universally right or wrong may simply be the result of our species’ biological and social conditioning.Subjectivism and Relativism:
A more radical rebuttal is that morality isn’t actually objective— it’s shaped by individual preferences or cultural consensus. When we say something is “wrong,” we might really just be saying, “I (or my society) dislike this strongly.” If morality is relative, the Moral Argument loses its foundation because it hinges on there being universal, binding moral truths.
Responses to the Rebuttals
Resolving the Euthyphro Dilemma:
Supporters of the Moral Argument often resolve this by saying goodness is grounded in God’s nature, not just in arbitrary commands or independent moral laws. Because God is perfectly good, His commands flow from that nature. This way, morality isn’t arbitrary (it can’t be willed to be something else), nor is it outside God (it’s part of who God is).
Why a “Moral Law” Points to a “Moral Lawgiver”:
Proponents challenge the idea that moral truths could exist “on their own” like numbers. They argue that moral truths are fundamentally prescriptive—they tell us what we should or shouldn’t do—so it makes sense they’d come from a mind or person rather than an abstract “Platonic realm.” If morality carries the weight of command, it suggests a commander.Limits of Evolutionary and Cultural Explanations:
Evolution and culture can explain why we hold certain moral norms, but they might not justify them as truly binding. Just because we evolved to think murder is wrong doesn’t explain why someone should obey that norm if it clashes with personal desires. Moral realists who are theists argue that God provides the ultimate “ought,” beyond mere survival benefit or group consensus.Objective vs. Relative Morality:
The moral absolutist side says that while cultural expressions differ, certain core principles—like fairness or the wrongness of needless harm—show up in nearly all societies. These universal underpinnings hint at a shared moral reality bigger than individual feelings or social constructs. From this perspective, the widespread consistency of key moral standards suggests a deeper moral order rather than a random patchwork of personal or cultural tastes.
The Moral Argument for God invites us to think deeply about the nature of right and wrong. Are our moral intuitions merely products of cultural norms and evolutionary drives, or do they point to a universal moral law that transcends human opinion? While the argument isn’t a conclusive proof—skeptics highlight evolutionary, cultural, and philosophical alternatives—it remains a compelling framework for believers who see morality as woven into the cosmos by a divine lawgiver.
At its heart, the Moral Argument underscores the significance of our ethical convictions. If morality is truly objective, it may require something greater than humanity to ground it. If it’s not, then morality might rest on collective agreements and personal sentiments. Either way, wrestling with these questions can bring us closer to understanding why we care about goodness in the first place—and whether that concern has roots in something far beyond ourselves.
