Menu Close

The Moral Argument for God and the Evidential Problem of Objective Morals11 min read

Listen to this article

KEY POINTS

  1. The Moral Argument for God asserts that objective moral values require a transcendent source (God), as these values exist independently of human opinion.
  2. The Evidential Problem of Objective Morals challenges subjectivists to explain the compelling intuition that certain moral truths are objective.
  3. The subjectivity in interpreting divine commands complicates claims of purely objective morality.
  4. Both theists and subjectivists face challenges regarding epistemic access, but an appeal to the dire consequences of moral subjectivism, as well as to our experience and practice of identifying objective good and evil, make a compelling case for the existence of God and the objectivity of moral truths.

The moral argument for God is one of the classical arguments in theistic philosophy, positing that the existence of objective moral values and duties necessitates the existence of a transcendent source, often identified as God. The argument begins with the premise that objective moral truths exist—that is, certain actions are right or wrong independently of human opinion. The best explanation for the existence of such objective moral truths, according to this argument, is the existence of an external, authoritative moral lawgiver—namely God. Without God, moral values would not have the necessary ontological foundation to be truly objective.

In its basic form, the argument can be summarized as follows:

  1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
  2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

This argument seeks to establish that moral ontology (the metaphysical grounding of moral values) is found in the divine nature of God. Without God, the moral realist would struggle to explain why moral truths are objective rather than merely subjective preferences or social constructs. However, when discussing moral epistemology (how we come to know moral truths), both moral subjectivists and moral objectivists often appeal to similar methods of knowledge acquisition—particularly intuition and consequentialism.

1. Moral Epistemology: Subjectivism vs. Objectivism

While the moral argument for God focuses on moral realism (the belief in objective moral truths grounded in God), moral subjectivism offers a contrasting perspective. Moral subjectivists deny the existence of objective moral truths and instead argue that moral values are determined by individual or cultural preferences. According to subjectivists, moral judgments reflect personal or societal beliefs about what is right or wrong rather than an external, binding truth.

In practice, moral subjectivists often appeal to a combination of majority intuition and consequentialism to navigate moral decisions. Here, intuition refers to the immediate, subjective emotional responses and opinions people have to moral situations—an inner sense of approval or disapproval. These intuitive reactions, when shared by the majority of a society or culture, inform the prevailing moral norms but are not objective. At the same time, moral subjectivists also rely on consequentialism, the ethical theory that judges the morality of an action based on its outcomes or consequences. For subjectivists, an action is morally right if it leads to good or desirable consequences for the majority, as determined by societal or individual standards. And of course, this begs the question of what is good. So this may be circular or self-referential in its entirety, especially if both our subjective moral intuitions or preferences are now being combined with consequences defined by the same subjective opinions.

On the other hand, objective moralists—particularly those grounded in theism— also combine intuition with consequentialism. But in this case, their use of intuition is not viewed as subjective, but as an epistemological evidence of objective truth, buttressed by the authority of scripture, i.e. divine command. They hold that objective moral values are dictated by God’s nature or will, and these commands serve as the ultimate foundation for morality. So this takes the experience of intuition out of the realm of the subjective by pairing it with the divine authority and nature of God. Like subjectivists, objectivists combine this intuition/authority inputs with the consequences of actions. For example, they might reason that an action is commanded by God because it leads to the flourishing of individuals or societies. Thus, while divine command provides the ontological grounding for objective morality, consequentialism often plays a role in the moral reasoning process of both views, but with objectivists, this is done by assessing the practical implications of adhering to or applying those commands.

This view that the strong intuitions we have with regard to good and evil should and often reflect the divine commands of God is interpreted to mean that this experience is significant enough to be considered a strong proof, and this view may be called the evidential problem of objective morals.

2. The Evidential Problem of Objective Morals

The evidential problem of objective morals primarily challenges subjectivists, who must reconcile their belief that morality is subjective with the powerful intuitive conviction that certain moral truths are objective—that actions can be genuinely good or evil, independent of opinion. Subjectivists face a tension: while moral truths are not empirically verifiable, our moral intuitions often seem to point to something real and universally binding. This raises the question: if moral values are merely subjective, why do they appear so compelling and consistent across different cultures and individuals?

For theists and objective moralists, this tension is less problematic. They argue that these moral intuitions are consistent with moral truths being grounded in God’s nature, accessible through reason, conscience, and divine revelation, even though they are not empirically observable. Not only are these epistemic sources sufficient to affirm objective truth, empiricism is included, at least less directly, in adding in consequentialism.

For subjectivists, however, this evidential problem remains significant: how can one explain the persistent, compelling experience of objective moral truths if they are merely subjective? This discrepancy suggests that moral values may indeed have a more objective foundation than subjectivism can account for, posing a serious challenge to the coherence of moral subjectivism.

3. The Evidential Problem of Evil and Objective Morals: A Parallel

While the logical problems of evil and objective morality seem resolved, their evidential versions remain contentious. For example, the evidential problem of evil posits that, even if God has morally justifiable reasons for allowing evil (the logical problem), the reality and extent of suffering seem to argue against the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God (the experiential or emotional problem). Similarly, the evidential problem of objective morals questions how moral subjectivity can account for our strong intuitive experiences of moral truths. Even if moral subjectivity is logically possible, our deep conviction that good and evil are objective seems to contradict the subjectivist framework.

Historically, self-evident objective morals have played a significant role, especially in the context of the American founding. Influenced by John Locke, the Founding Fathers grounded their political and moral principles in self-evident truths regarding human equality and natural rights, famously declaring these in the Declaration of Independence as being endowed by a Creator. Their arguments for objective moral values and the existence of God relied not on empirical evidence, but on rational intuition and the belief that such truths were accessible to all reasoning individuals. Locke’s ideas on natural law further reinforced the conviction that moral truths are embedded in reality and discernible through reason.

Both the evidential problem of evil and the evidential problem of objective morals share the challenge of epistemic access. While we may experience evil and moral truths through intuition and reason, we cannot directly observe their deeper metaphysical sources. For objective moralists, God provides the foundation for moral facts, while evil is explained by appealing to greater goods, free will, or human epistemic limitations. Similarly, the evidential problem of objective morals might be addressed by recognizing the limits of human knowledge. Our strong moral intuitions could reflect a deeper reality beyond empirical observation, even if moral values are ultimately subjective. This interplay between subjective experience and metaphysical claims adds complexity and leaves room for ongoing debate and evidential challenges.

4. The Subjectivity in Interpreting Divine Commands

While objective moralists argue that divine commands provide an external, authoritative source for morality, it must be acknowledged that hearing and interpreting these divine commands is still a subjective process. Human beings, with their limited perspectives and differing experiences, must interpret what they believe to be God’s will. This subjective element introduces a degree of variability, as interpretations of divine commands can differ across individuals, cultures, and religious traditions.

This recognition gives some weight to the subjective argument: even if objective moral truths grounded in God exist, the human apprehension and application of these truths remain partially subjective. Therefore, while divine command theory aims to provide an objective foundation for morality, the subjective process of interpreting these commands suggests that moral subjectivists might still have a point when they emphasize the importance of individual or cultural perspectives in moral reasoning.

5. Conclusion

The moral argument for God relies on a combination of moral ontology grounded in God’s nature and moral epistemology informed by intuition and consequentialist reasoning. The evidential problem of objective morals, like the evidential problem of evil, raises questions about the primary premise made in each argument. Similar to the fact that the evidence of evil seems to contradict the existence of a good God, no matter how logically possible, the experience of objective good and evil seems to contradict the premise that morals are purely subjective.

The American founders, influenced by Locke, notably appealed to self-evident objective morals and the existence of a Creator apart from empirical evidence, relying on reason and intuition to affirm moral truths. This mirrors the theistic view that objective moral values are accessible through rational intuition rather than empirical observation. It also implies that those who disagree are de-facto supporting the dire consequences of the alternative – defense of majority rule when that position justifies evil. Such a position may be considered ignorant of consequences, if not evil in intent (see Hanlon’s Razor).

While subjectivists combine societal intuitions and consequentialism to guide their moral reasoning, objective moralists appeal to divine command in conjunction with consequentialist evaluations of outcomes. However, even though objective morals are said to be grounded in God, the subjectivity involved in interpreting divine commands lends some weight to the subjective argument, complicating the purely objective claims of divine command theory. This subjectivity reflects the broader challenge of epistemic access that both theists and subjectivists face—whether in interpreting divine revelation or in trusting human intuition about moral values.

In both the evidential problem of evil and the evidential problem of objective morals, the reliance on non-empirical knowledge creates evidential challenges. This demands epistemic humility—acknowledging the limits of human understanding— on both sides. However, an appeal to the dire consequences of moral subjectivism, as well as to our experience and practice of identifying objective good and evil, make a compelling case for the existence of God and the objectivity of moral truths, seems well made.

Tagged , ,