Do Moral Obligations really follow from God’s Existence?
Very generally speaking, there are two families of moral theory: secular and theist. Secular moral theories discuss morality without referring to God-morality exists whether or not God does. Theist theories, on the other hand, derive their moral rules from God’s existence, and usually directly from God’s rules.
Theist theorists have often claimed that without God, morality would not exist. In common language, they ask “without God, why should we act morally?”
In logical terms, this theist stance is effectively: with God, we have moral obligations. Without God, we would not have moral obligations. To refute the theist, ask: what exactly does God’s existence entail that creates moral obligations, that cannot exist without God?
To understand this question, you have to understand what it means to be “obligated” to do something. So, when a moral theorist claims “you are obligated not to kill people”, what does that obligation mean?
There are two possible options for obligations:
1. You absolutely have to do or refrain from doing an action. You literally cannot choose not to.
2. There is a good enough reason for you to either preform an action or refrain from an action. The good enough reason obligates you to do so, even though you could choose not to.
#1 is not possible with either secular or theist moral theories. No matter what a secular theorist says or claims, I can always just say “I am going to do whats in my best interest” (the egoist’s position). I can then act on this, I am not impeded from acting immorally. Similarly, a theist cannot claim that I am obligated in this way. Even if God himself said “you must do X”, I could still choose not to do X. Eliminating this possibility eliminates free will altogether.
This necessitates #2 as the definition of obligation. I think this is fairly straightforward-no one wants to say that having an obligation means you literally cannot do otherwise. Instead, we think of it often in a dilemma situation-you can freely choose to do one of two different things, and one of them is morally superior enough to warrant a moral obligation.
So what, exactly, can warrant a moral obligation? Most attempts at this have been misguided- “you’re better off acting morally”, “you’re better off living in a moral society” still appeal to egoism. If you are only acting morally to benefit yourself, then you are not acting morally-you are acting to benefit yourself. As I have argued before, acting morally necessitates the ability or willingness to act in a way that benefits others, for the sake of others. To establish an obligation to others, moral theorists cannot cite egoist motivations.
To keep track of where we are, there are three possible situations I’m focusing on for the existence of moral obligations- 1. Moral obligations do not exist (nihilism or skepticism), 2. Moral obligations exist with God but not without God (the stance I’m refuting), and 3. Moral obligations exist with or without God (my stance).
I’m focusing my attack on stance 2, claiming that 1 and 3 are the only real options (I have and will continue to argue against #1 in favor of #3, but not in this post). In order for 2 to be true, using the “good enough reason for moral obligations” definition, there must be some trait God has or entails that necessitates moral obligations that cannot exist without God.
So what, exactly, does God have that could necessitate moral obligations that doesn’t exist without God? Possible candidates- the existence of the afterlife, his omnipotence (power), the existence of the afterlife, and his authority as a creator. I’ll refute each one individually.
1. Afterlife-The claim here is that the existence of some form of heaven or hell obligates us to follow God’s moral commands. But if we are to act morally simply due to benefiting our souls in the afterlife, then we are back at egoism-the only obligations you really have are to yourself. If you are only trying to get into heaven and/or avoid hell, then just act in a way that gets you that much, and do what you can get away with (like being Hitler for your entire life, then repenting before death). No matter how stingy the requirements are for salvation, the desire for the afterlife cannot be the source of moral obligations, as it is still an egoist motive.
2. Omnipotence-This idea basically claims that we are somehow obligated to God due to God’s omnipotent power. In simple terms, he is so far above us that we are obligated to obey him. But does obligation really follow from subservient power? Consider a much smaller scale-the difference in power between a poor grandma and a famous millionaire football linebacker. The linebacker has much more physical, economic, and social power than the grandma. Should the grandma accept that she is somehow obligated to the linebacker, as she is a “lesser” being of power? Obviously not.
An objection to this is that the difference in power between the two is much smaller, and on some scale the metaphysical “power” of humans is considered equal. God, on the other hand, has more metaphysical as well as literal power as he is a higher being. But still, the same objection holds. The scale of literal power is not directly linked to obligation-if there is zero moral obligation created by a small difference in power, then multiplying the difference of power is still multiplying zero. In terms of metaphysical power, the same holds true. Imagine that God existed but was evil in some way-he was the highest being in the universe, but enjoyed ordering people to hurt themselves. Would we be morally obligated to do so, solely because of the being’s higher status? Again, obviously not. The only obligation power can create is to yourselves-if the power threatens force (like hell), then you act for your own benefit in obeying. Without that threat, there is no obligation created from power or metaphysical status.
3. Being the creator-this is perhaps the most promising difference between God and not God that could create moral obligations. In a simplistic sense, we are obligated to obey God because he created us-we would not exist without him. Even then, are we really obligated to follow our creators demands? Think about the way we treat our parents. Are people obligated throughout life to their parents, because their parents created them and they would not exist without them? A theist could object and claim “but there is still some obligation to your parents”. But this obligation is not a result of the creation aspect. Possible candidates include “your parents know whats best for you”, “they have good intentions for you”, etc. But these are still egoist reasons for being obligated to your parents-they are not genuine moral obligations.
Think of an extreme case-parents make a child, and then make rules for that child. However, these rules are arbitrary and have no separate justification other than simply being the parents’ rules. These rules even hurt the quality of life of the child, and do not help anyone else. Is the child morally obligated to obey the parents? I argue that no, the child holds no obligation to their parents. If parents want to raise their children in a locked cellar, the children are not obligated to comply. The authority of parents to create obligations, therefore, must lie in something other than the simple “we created you” card. Therefore, creation is not sufficient for moral obligations.
The question of “what exactly creates moral obligations?” is still up in the air. In the terms used in this post, the question is what is a “good enough reason” to create moral obligations? I have recently been focusing on it, and am pretty interested in the work of Christine Korsgaard in “Sources of Normativity”. I think her account is pretty incomplete, but its a good start. The ideas I am currently working on is how humans evolved to have morality in the first place-is it an inherently human trait, and if moral obligations exist because of our human traits. I’ll write more on this later.
The main point of this post is pretty controversial, if not blasphemous. I am claiming, in no subtle way, that we have no obligations to God whether or not God exists. Even if an omnipotent, omniscient, creator being exists-we do not have obligations to advance its cause. We may (and I believe we do), have obligations to our own human species, but these obligations have objective standards that they adhere to-the benefit of humanity for instance. However, humanity is not and cannot be obligated to a set of arbitrary rules (rules that are not created to an objectively just standard) simply because of God’s omnipotence or creator status.
Regarding, “Moral obligations exist with God but not without God (the stance I’m refuting)”
This stance deviates slightly from the actual Christian theistic view.
A secular person can claim to have moral standards. Therefore morality can exist independently of appeals to God. But then another secular person can come along and claim to have morality that differs from the morality of the first person. What this demonstrates is that in a secular context, morality is a subjective, relative, matter of opinion. Which person’s morality is correct is based entirely on personal opinion. If something can be redefined to suite our unique, individual opinions, then it has no real, intrinsic definition of it’s own.
What Christian theism offers is an absolute, and consistent foundation of morality that is independent of human opinion; morality that is true in it’s own right.
Regarding the Definition of Morality.
Morality is simply defined as a set of standards or principles used to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. You have adjusted this definition to arbitrarily dismiss selfish motivations from the definition of morality. But that in itself is your opinion. A secular person could legitimately live by a set of moral standards where their own self-interests are the highest priority. Such a moral standard could be based on a sense of biological obligation to survive, thrive, and pass on their family genes. Or maybe based on the fact that life is short, so one feels obligated to experience their own life to the fullest.
You’ve also slightly misunderstood the Christian theist motivation for morality.
According to Christian theism, justice is real, and God is perfectly righteous. Therefore God does what is right because it is right. And that is subsequently the goal of Christian morality; that Christians do what is right because it is right. It ideally has nothing to do with fear of eternal punishment, or because it is commanded by our omnipotent Creator.
I think that I agree that morality (standards for right and wrong) in the general, subjective sense, can exist without appealing to God. I suspect that what most Christians object to, is the personal, relative nature of a secular morality which lacks any independent, objective foundation.
Tristen-
” But then another secular person can come along and claim to have morality that differs from the morality of the first person. What this demonstrates is that in a secular context, morality is a subjective, relative, matter of opinion.”
Absolutely not. There are several things that need to be true for you to make that statement: there has to be no universal standard of morality (no goal), no objective way of evaluating morality, and you need to value all moral judgments, regardless of weight, the same. None of these are true-morality can and does have a goal (promoting human welfare), and individual opinion that deviates from this is not morality.
“What Christian theism offers is an absolute, and consistent foundation of morality that is independent of human opinion; morality that is true in it’s own right.”
No it does not, as was the point of this post.
“Morality is simply defined as a set of standards or principles used to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong. You have adjusted this definition to arbitrarily dismiss selfish motivations from the definition of morality.”
You are therefore defining morality as things that are moral (right vs. wrong). You can’t define a word with itself, therefore you need something else (which I provided). I dismiss selfish motivations because egoism is incompatible with morality (I have written about this before). I do not obey a moral obligations when I refrain from killing someone simply because I don’t want to get caught.
” A secular person could legitimately live by a set of moral standards where their own self-interests are the highest priority”
That’s egoism, and defeating egoism isn’t the purpose of this post.
“Therefore God does what is right because it is right.”
That’s the second tail of the Euthyphro dilemma, and it means that God does not decide what is right-he merely acknowledges what is. What sets the standard for “right”?
Morality
You said, “there has to be no universal standard of morality (no goal), no objective way of evaluating morality, and you need to value all moral judgments, regardless of weight, the same. None of these are true-morality can and does have a goal (promoting human welfare), and individual opinion that deviates from this is not morality. ”
It’s only “not morality” if they accept the way you have defined morality. But what makes the your “universal standard of morality” indisputable (objective)? Upon what basis do you deride someone who bases their actions on a different standard? You could call them immoral according to your chosen standard, and they could call you immoral according to their chosen standard.
You responded to my suggestion that Christianity offers an independent foundation of morality saying, “No it does not, as was the point of this post.”
My understanding of the “point of this post” was to suggest that someone can claim morality without necessarily appealing to God – with which I am in general agreement; because the general definition of morality doesn’t extend to the existence of God. If I was to add to the general definition of morality the dependence on God, I would have to add the adjective label of “Christian”; as in “Christian morality” (or maybe theistic morality).
The whole point of the Christian faith is that we are morally accountable to a higher power Who upholds eternal, moral standards which are themselves, independent of human opinion.
You said, “You are therefore defining morality as things that are moral (right vs. wrong). You can’t define a word with itself”
Actually, definitions are supposed to be redundant to the words they are defining. A definition is supposed to mean the same thing as the term in question. That’s the point of a definition. You’ve twisted my words to make them appear more redundant then I presented – but it’s technically still correct; morality is a standard defining what is moral; a term which itself means right and wrong.
You said, “you need something else (which I provided)”
That’s right, you are making personal adjustments to the definition of morality.
You said, “I dismiss selfish motivations because egoism is incompatible with morality”
It’s only necessarily incompatible with your adjusted definition of morality.
You said, “defeating egoism isn’t the purpose of this post”
I understand this, however your argument is dependent upon acceptance of your manipulated definition of morality. Morality has a definition which is more general then your usage. If you want to add to the definition, then you need an adjective qualifier; call it Fensel Morality (if it’s your idea). It’s a specific subset of the general definition of morality.
You said, “That’s the second tail of the Euthyphro dilemma”
I have addressed this in other posts (e.g. Abortion & the Violinist: comment #27).
Tristen-
This is somewhat related to the other post on morality, so there might be some repetition. Anyway, “promote human welfare” is the only possible source of morality. If that doesn’t work, nothing will (that’s what I’m claiming)
There’s obviously a lot I need to do to prove that, but here’s where we are currently at:
There is no objective, sufficient basis for morality. Your proposed solution does not work (argument in reply to other post). My proposed solution might work, but it is not complete.
Here’s why mine might work, and why my assumptions might be valid:
Morality is incompatible with egoism. If you always act egoistically, you are not acting morally simply because you happen to be in line with morality. I’m surprised you object to this actually, but maybe I’m misinterpreting you.
Therefore, if morality is to exist at all, it must be based in people valuing others for their own sake. Meaning, other people are an end in themselves that matter in making a decision. If other people don’t matter (egoism), then I will never act morally.
The question then becomes: should we value others? If yes, I can deduce my morality from it and prove an objective, universal standard of morality. If no, then morality does not exist.
I cannot yet prove that we should value others, it is what I am currently working on. But, if I am eventually successful, then morality will be justified. That is why my view “might” work.
In this post I’ve tried to break down my understanding of the argument.
In order for morality to exist in any real sense, there has to be three supporting levels of reason;
Level 1) The Faith Premise
- Basically, every logical system has to make some foundational assumptions regarding ultimate reality (including the validity and existence of logic itself).
Level 2) The Independent Foundation
- The foundation must have an authority which is independent of human opinion. There has to be some absolute, autonomous, autocratic standard against which disputes can be settled. This is where morality is differentiated from mere opinion.
Level 3) The Moral System Itself
- Defining the specific priorities and standards governing right form wrong. Actions and intentions are compared against this level of morality.
.
.
For example, Christian morality follows the following pattern of reasoning;
Level 1) The Faith Premise
- The universe was created by a supernatural, eternally just God. This is obviously unverifiable through scientific methods so it is a faith assumption regarding the ultimate nature of reality.
Level 2) The Independent Foundation
- This God has directly revealed Himself to humanity, and left us with His written Word. This resource provides His infinite, and perfectly just perspective on all issues relating to life, including issues of morality. What that means in practice is that, if two Christians have a debate over morality, there is an independent Arbiter to which they can defer. Christian opinion has to defer to a higher, omniscient authority.
Level 3) The Moral System Itself
- In another post you posed the question if it was morally acceptable to torture dolphins [see Abortion and the Violinist]. The answer is no. Why; because there is a moral standard that cruelty to animals is morally wrong. But that’s could be just my opinion. Well no – see level 2 (Proverbs 12:10). My opinion is irrelevant. It would still be wrong, even if I disagreed.
.
.
Atheistic morality follows the following pattern of reasoning;
Level 1) The Faith Premise
- The universe has naturalistic origins and there is nothing beyond the naturalistic universe (i.e. nothing supernatural). This is also unverifiable through scientific methods, so it is also a faith assumption regarding the ultimate nature of reality.
Level 2) The Independent Foundation
- Atheism provides no independent foundation against which to consider morality. What this mean in practice is that, if two atheists have a debate over morality, they have nothing but their individual opinions to defer to. There is no ultimate, independent authority to decide the issue.
Level 3) The Moral System Itself
- You have decided that the notion of care for other humans should be the highest standard against which decisions should be judged for morality. But as far as another atheist is concerned, that could be just your opinion. And with no independent level 2 foundation, you ultimately have to agree to disagree.
.
It seems like you may be trying to fit your “care for others” idea into level 2. I’ll be interested to see how that pans out. The only way I can see that working is if you find some way to verify that morality is biological. But if it is biological, it undermines the concept of moral accountability.
- How can someone be held accountable for actions that are biologically driven?
- There would only be individual morality. Each person could only be accountable to their own biological make-up. To be immoral, one would have to contradict their own biology. But in reality, moral systems expect people to control themselves, often in contradiction to their biological urges.
- What makes the biology of one group more valid then the biology of another?
.
.
On a slightly broader topic (with applications in our other debates).
When I was a new Christian, I heard the phrase, “You can’t clean a fish before you catch it” – which is a concise way of saying that it is pointless to morally condemn a person’s actions before you have convinced them of the validity of the faith premise. Admittedly, many Christians don’t seem to have had this particular lesson. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear that Christians should not be surprised when non-Christians don’t behave like Christians. That should, in fact, be expected because we operate on two entirely separate systems; from the ground up.
As such, if a Christian was to tell an atheist that their actions are immoral because it says so in the Bible, that would be a meaningless to the atheist; because the atheist is operating on a faith premise which doesn’t recognize the reality of God, or the authority of the Bible. However, you have made the same logical error (in other posts) when you have attacked the Bible as immoral. In doing so, you are ignoring the fact that Christians, who do fundamentally recognize the existence of an eternally just God, and the authority of the Bible, find such accusations to be equally meaningless.
In order to be able to give objective consideration to opposing views, we have to be able to consider them within the context of their own axioms. An atheist argument is valid (conforms to the rules of logic) if it is consistent with atheist axioms. It is under no logical obligation to be consistent with Christian axioms. Likewise, a Christian argument is valid if it is consistent with Christian axioms. A Christian argument is under no logical obligation to be consistent with atheist axioms. To claim that one is immoral, based on the axioms of the other, is irrational.
.
.
In “Journey verse the Destination” (#41), you said, “you’ve lost entirely any concept of morality. There are simply people who follow God, and people who don’t”
Yes, this is the fork in the road where our moral systems depart from each other. But the same truth applies in both directions. Rejection of the faith premise equates to rejection of the entire moral system. And as each faith premise is unverifiable, the moral system one chooses to adopt is entirely faith dependent.
- If God is real and the Bible is His word, then Bible-based morality is true morality.
- If atheism is a true representation of reality, then you still have to come up with an independent standard. Until then, morality is simply a matter of opinion.
I have some issues with your 3 level system, but I’ll put them aside for now for simplicity.
You are right in that I would put “caring for others” as the independent foundation of morality. The Moral System, with that independent foundation, would be whatever maximizes that independent value the best (and I have my theory of what it would be, but its not really relevant here).
Though I don’t need it to be biological. It might be, but even if it’s not if I can find some way to show how people already do or should care for others, I’m fine. This question is what I’m currently working on so I don’t have an answer yet. If your curious, my work so far is heavily based on Christine Korsgaard’s “Sources of Normativity”.
On the broader topic:
You are falsely claiming that we are working on entirely different axioms. You are working with two axioms, one is the Biblical one and the other is the “care for others” one. You probably derive the “care for others” one from the Biblical one, but I don’t think you’d deny that you should care for others.
Our difference is in the “God exists” axiom, or the Biblical one. I reject it, you accept it. But what I am putting forth, the “care for others” axiom, is something you already have as an empathetic human being. Our only argument is whether or not the “God axiom” is true and/or needed for the “care for others” axiom.
One thing I want to mention: the “care for others” axiom, as I’ve mentioned, is necessary for morality. If other atheists/Christians don’t have it, then they cannot act morally no matter what they do. If they already have it, then I can hold them morally accountable even without God. The question is whether or not we should have the axiom, and whether or not people actually do have the axiom.
“- If God is real and the Bible is His word, then Bible-based morality is true morality.
- If atheism is a true representation of reality, then you still have to come up with an independent standard. Until then, morality is simply a matter of opinion.”
If God is real and the Bible is his word, then morality is simply following God’s commandments.
If atheism is true, then the independent standard must be caring for others. The existence of morality is dependent on that axiom.
You said, “You are right in that I would put “caring for others” as the independent foundation of morality. … Though I don’t need it to be biological…. if I can find some way to show how people already do or should care for others, I’m fine. This question is what I’m currently working on so I don’t have an answer yet.
Fair enough. But I don’t think that the mere observation that many people demonstrate “care for others” is sufficient to make that standard independent.
.
.
You said, “Our difference is in the “God exists” axiom, or the Biblical one. I reject it, you accept it.”
This is what I am referring to when I say that we are operating on different faith axioms. You are correct that my personal care for others has it’s foundation in Bible-based morality; namely based on the value that God attributes to other humans. My status as “an empathetic human being” is founded on the same premise.
It is also my general opinion that much of the care for others demonstrated in western society stems from the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which most western societies are founded. This is based on my observation that nations with an obvious Christian history tend to express this care for others more broadly then societies descended from other traditions.
.
.
You said, “the “care for others” axiom, as I’ve mentioned, is necessary for morality”
I don’t understand how you justify this without changing the general definition of morality to specifically incorporate “care for others”. Without redefining the term, a qualifier is needed to account for the fact of your additional condition; maybe ‘sympathetic morality’.
.
.
You said, “If God is real and the Bible is his word, then morality is simply following God’s commandments.”
Technically not really. God commands what is righteous because it is righteous. Righteousness/justice exists as an eternal standard. Nevertheless, the Christian covenant has very little to do with following a list of commands, but rather doing what is right because it is right (in accordance with the influence of the Holy Spirit). There’s a whole ‘letter verses the spirit’ debate which I suspect you may wish to avoid – but happy to go there if you want.
.
.
You said, “If atheism is true, then the independent standard must be caring for others”
You would not only have to verify the independence of such a condition, but also be able to justify it to an atheists. I don’t see how necessitating such a condition actually stems from the atheistic paradigm.
.
.
You said, “The existence of morality is dependent on that axiom.”
Once again, I think that requires the general term “morality” to be specifically redefined. Such a redefinition would require justification before I could accept it.
Tristen-
“Fair enough. But I don’t think that the mere observation that many people demonstrate “care for others” is sufficient to make that standard independent.”
If I am successful, it can’t be merely a patterned observation. It might be biological, it might be related to higher cognitive function (my best guess), it might be social. I can’t really explain more without getting into a lot of detail, but if you want check out my “The Logical Challenge of Egoism” post I recently put up.
“I don’t understand how you justify this without changing the general definition of morality to specifically incorporate “care for others”. Without redefining the term, a qualifier is needed to account for the fact of your additional condition; maybe ‘sympathetic morality’.”
I justify it this way:
Egoism is incompatible with morality (if E, then not M)
Caring for others is simply defined as not egoism, meaning you aren’t the only one who you care about (C=caring for others, or not E)
1. If E, then not M
Therefore,
2. If M, then not E (Modus Tollens)
3. Not E=C
Therefore,
4. If M, then C (substitution)
The conclusion reads in english: If morality exists, then people must care for others
^this is my response to your last two quotes as well