Mike Reed
50 comments
Image Credit: Midjourney Mike Reed: The statement that because morality exists, God must exist stems from the moral argument. This suggests that a true sense of right and wrong (morality) can only come from God. This sense of morality exists in the world therefore God must exist. Although the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant support this claim, other arguments that morality is merely a result of evolution cancel out the need for a god. It is also questionable whether there is a true sense of right and wrong in the world and alternative sources of morality such as cultural relativity and emotivism further muddy the issue.
The argument that morality comes from God was explored by the philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas in his Fourth Way. In the Fourth Way, he claimed that all the morality we see and experience in the world must have originated from a higher, more moral being. This can only be God otherwise an infinite regress would be necessary, throwing the subject into confusion. Aquinas based this argument on Plato’s idea that what we experience in this world – things such as mountains, love, morality – are only shadows or reflections of reality. So somewhere there must be a world where these realities exist, therefore morality in the world is only a shadow of the reality or idea of Morality, fitting in with the Fourth Way. His argument is also to be a strong argument because it shows that we are all striving to be perfectly moral so the moral being we are idolising must actually exist – it’s God. Aquinas’ argument defends God as a moral standard, not as an intangible creator and integrates well with common perceptions of what God is – he is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and totally benign. However, his argument has been criticised as it doesn’t prove the existence of God conclusively, merely makes his existence a probability. There is also no conclusive proof that a sense of morality comes from God and Aquinas’ higher being may not be God. It could be anything; an angel, a demon, a different god entirely.
Another philosopher called Immanuel Kant argued that God’s existence was necessary for morality to reach its goal. His theory claims that we have a duty to achieve the highest good (summum bonum) through morality which means we must obey an objective moral law. However we can sometimes misread this law, resulting in pain and suffering. So we need help. This help must come from God so God must exist, otherwise we cannot achieve the summum bonum. If God doesn’t exist, there is no reason for morality as we would be unable to attain its ultimate goal. This argument was supported by the philosopher H.P Owen who wrote that ‘it is impossible to think of a command without thinking of a commander’ and Kant’s argument also agreed with Aquinas’ theory that God wrote the moral code into the design of the world. It also has the strength that if we are ought to achieve the summum bonum, that implies that we can. We would not be asked to achieve something we couldn’t actually achieve and as we have been asked to achieve this, God must exist to give us help. But despite these strengths, Kant’s argument has been subjected to many criticisms, most notably from Freud who indicated that Kant’s theory collapses if there is no moral obligation and that we don’t need God if there is no need for us to attain what is beyond our human grasp. Freud argued that our perceptible obligation comes from our super ego and the conflict between our subconscious desires and the morals our parents and society teaches us. Another objector to Kant’s argument, Brian Davies, pointed out that aiming for a goal we cannot achieve is illogical and that God may not even be the highest moral good if the rest of the argument is true.
Other philosophers have argued the case for the existence of God through forms of the moral argument. Rashdall said that there must be an objective moral code because people are conscious of such a code and are aware of this law’s demands on them, even when this law is broken. A finite mind – a limited mind, such as the mind of man, Rashdall assumes – cannot fully grasp this law’s entirety. If a finite mind cannot grasp this, then a finite mind could not have conceived it. So this objective moral code must have been conceived within an infinite mind; the mind of God. This argument was echoed by the writer C. S. Lewis who argued that there must be an absolute moral law because if there wasn’t, we would not make excuses for breaking it and promise or treaty keeping would be pointless. He claimed that this code was not due to herd instinct, convention, nature or imagination but that it must reside in a mind of absolute good, that of God. These two arguments acknowledge that the moral code doesn’t contain morality as it happens, but morality as it should happen. This is a strength as many philosophers argue that there is no moral law based on the evil in the world, a viewpoint I intend to look at closer in this essay. They also fit in well, as Aquinas’ argument did, with general perceptions of God as being entirely benevolent. One failing of these arguments, however, is that they assume the definite existence of a highly debatable object – an absolute moral code. If such a code does exist, that is not to mean their argument is right. The law Rashdall and Lewis claim to have come from God could be another reflection of Plato’s reality, the same idea mentioned alongside Aquinas’ argument. To summarise, if there is an absolute moral law there are two possible origins – the mind of God or Plato’s reality.
The idea of cultural relativity disagrees with Kant’s theory and provides an explanation for the origin of morality without the need for a god. Cultural relativity states that every society has their own view of what is right and what is wrong. The children in that society are raised with the knowledge of what their culture feels is right and wrong, therefore morality is a product of society, not God. This theory shows that right and wrong are not simply black and white nor are they contained in an objective moral law as different cultures believe different things. It also explains why the death penalty is considered to be wrong in some countries, but right in others. The argument provides respect for different society’s beliefs as well. But if cultural relativity were true, there are a number of unsettling statements we must solve. A major inconsistency of this argument is that it contradicts itself by putting forward the suggestion that there is no absolute moral law as an absolute moral! In history, I was taught that a source containing contradictions was an unreliable one and I think the same applies here. It would mean that societies could not condemn one another for their customs and values so if two societies went to war, we would have no power to interfere as this would be considered inappropriate. Secondly, social reform would be impossible as challenging a society’s customs would have no standard to compare it to. Martin Luther King could not have challenged apartheid as he could not say it was wrong because cultural relativity leaves no room for an objective moral law. But as King and others have challenged their society’s ideas, this questions the validity of cultural relativity. It would, if taken to extremes, encourage anarchy as nobody would be able to tell a society murdering innocent people that they were wrong. The theory of cultural relativity also makes social reform obsolete, so this argument is not as convincing as it first seems.
One argument claims that morality is simply a matter of personal opinion and that when somebody says something is right or wrong, they are just expressing their opinion. This argument is called emotivism and is more concerned with what moral statements are for as opposed to what they mean in themselves. Moral statements are simply made to influence the behaviour of the listeners.; So, for example, if Person A says that ‘Racism is wrong’, he is not stating a fact, but his personal opinion to influence he behaviour of Person B. This theory is a strong theory because it makes logical sense but its criticisms are damaging. It has been argued against emotivism that moral arguments are not just a question of personal feelings as they can be discussed in a logical way. The theory also suggests total reliance on our feelings in moral situations. Whether we think something is right or wrong would then depend on our state of mind at any given time. As that is bound to vary, then so would our sense of right and wrong. This argument does no justice to the thousands of moral debates we have witnessed over the centuries, nor does it leave room for independent truths outside our personal judgement that are right or wrong no matter what we believe.
Before we return to sources of morality, one facet of the moral argument beckons debate. The moral argument states that because there is a true sense of right and wrong in the world, God must exist. But is there a true sense of right and wrong in the world? Is there an objective binding moral code we must all stick to? We have already covered the origins and arguments in favour of an absolute moral code, but from looking at the world today I can see very little evidence of one. If there was a moral code, how did the Nazis murder thousands and thousands of Jews and other innocent people without breaking the code? Is there some loophole in this universally absolute moral policy that says it’s alright to kill? When I read about terrorists, when I read about how national minorities were persecuted both in Russia and Germany in history, when I think how many innocent soldiers are killed by the skeletal hand of war…if there was this moral code, these things shouldn’t happen. Or if these events break none of God’s moral laws, what else is on that objective and absolute code? Are all our negative perceptions of murder, genocide and torture just wrong? What kind of god is up there? These are questions which I feel seriously weaken the moral argument.
So far, the arguments over the origins of morality can be organised into two areas. The first states that morality comes from God, as argued by St Thomas Aquinas. The second argues that there is evidence of a moral code in the world and that God is a requirement for this moral code to exist. The third argument explains morality without the need for an objective moral law or a god: the theory of evolution. Writer Richard Dawkins argues in favour of a ‘survival of the fittest’ approach, by which he suggests that men with morality inherent in their genetic makeup survived longer than others, therefore having more time to breed, passing down the moral gene. Other supporters of the evolution theory point out that as the brain and mind developed, moral and social awareness grew alongside. They also consider conscience to be a safety device which prevents unnecessary tension between people which could lead to a life threatening situation. If the evolution theory is true, then we can explain why we live in a fair and just society by stating that an unjust society would threaten the individuals within it. Therefore, just society is another safety mechanism to protect us. Probably the strongest asset of this argument is that it explains why cruel and evil people exist; it is because they lack the moral gene.
A criticism of the evolution theory is that if people simply follow their instincts to make moral decisions, how can we distinguish between good and bad instincts? It has also been suggested that if we hold this theory to be true, it undermines morality to its lowest level – that of plain self interest. For example, ‘I’ choose to live in a just society because an unjust society would be a danger to ‘me’. ‘I’ don’t kill somebody I don’t like because that would put ‘me’ at risk. My response to that is to ask is it really wrong to admit that we are just out for ourselves? Sure it’s not nice, but does that make it wrong? Personally, I feel that the theory of evolution is the strongest argument for the origin of morality.
Other philosophers have disagreed with the religious origin of morality, including Bertrand Russell and Albert Camus. Russell used the Euthyphro Dilemma to disprove God’s existence. The Euthyphro Dilemma asks whether something is good because it is good in itself or only because God wants it to be. Russell argued that if the first case is true then God is subject to a higher standard of goodness, meaning he is not supreme. If the second option is true then God is the sole dictator of morality and morality is simply based on the whim of God. Therefore God is either subject to a higher standard meaning he is not the ultimate power or he is not essentially good as he has no knowledge of morality as it is simply subject to his whims. Either of these would not be worthy of worship so God cannot exist. One of the argument’s strong points is that it takes the two sides of the Euthyphro Dilemma and continues its line of thought to a logical conclusion. But he assumes that a less than supreme or an arbitrary god would not be worshipped, or be worthy of worship. Although his argument does not reflect the general view of God as God is considered to be omnipotent and benign, that is not to say gods from other cultures are not so. For example, the gods and goddesses of Ancient Greece were not totally good – while they were above humans, they had human characteristics, good and bad. So Russell’s theory may disprove the existence of the god of classical theism but it doesn’t disprove the existence of any type of god. For all we know, there could be a god in existence opposite to our perceptions and to the characteristics of the god Russell’s argument was attempting to disprove. Albert Camus also argued against the existence of God using a moral argument. In his novel The Plague, he theorises that theism is opposed to humanitarianism therefore God cannot exist. The example he used in this novel was that of a priest and a doctor’s reaction to a plague. Camus argues that if you join the priest you cannot fight the plague as it is God’s will you would be fighting. If you join the doctor, you must fight the plague and therefore fight God. You cannot fight the plague (humanitarianism) without fighting God (theism). One contradicts the other so if humanitarianism is right, theism is wrong. This argument does make good sense at first, a fact in its favour, but many theologians disagree with Camus’ opinion that disease is God’s will. They also argue that disease is part of God’s system, a good system, and that it is not wrong for us to fight it off using medicine.
In conclusion, the statement that because morality exists, God must exist is simply too limited and simplistic to prove the existence of God. I feel that despite the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and Kant, the theory of evolution put forward by Richard Dawkins and others are much more plausible and probably nearer the truth than the standard ‘God did it’.
Comments (50)
‘Morality exists, therefore God exists’
November 30, 2008 | 50 comments
Image Credit: Midjourney Mike Reed: The statement that because morality exists, God must exist stems from the moral argument. This suggests that a true sense of right and wrong (morality) can only come from God. This sense of morality exists in the world therefore God must exist. Although the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant support this claim, other arguments that morality is merely a result of evolution cancel out the need for a god. It is also questionable whether there is a true sense of right and wrong in the world and alternative sources of morality such as cultural relativity and emotivism further muddy the issue.
The argument that morality comes from God was explored by the philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas in his Fourth Way. In the Fourth Way, he claimed that all the morality we see and experience in the world must have originated from a higher, more moral being. This can only be God otherwise an infinite regress would be necessary, throwing the subject into confusion. Aquinas based this argument on Plato’s idea that what we experience in this world – things such as mountains, love, morality – are only shadows or reflections of reality. So somewhere there must be a world where these realities exist, therefore morality in the world is only a shadow of the reality or idea of Morality, fitting in with the Fourth Way. His argument is also to be a strong argument because it shows that we are all striving to be perfectly moral so the moral being we are idolising must actually exist – it’s God. Aquinas’ argument defends God as a moral standard, not as an intangible creator and integrates well with common perceptions of what God is – he is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient and totally benign. However, his argument has been criticised as it doesn’t prove the existence of God conclusively, merely makes his existence a probability. There is also no conclusive proof that a sense of morality comes from God and Aquinas’ higher being may not be God. It could be anything; an angel, a demon, a different god entirely.
Another philosopher called Immanuel Kant argued that God’s existence was necessary for morality to reach its goal. His theory claims that we have a duty to achieve the highest good (summum bonum) through morality which means we must obey an objective moral law. However we can sometimes misread this law, resulting in pain and suffering. So we need help. This help must come from God so God must exist, otherwise we cannot achieve the summum bonum. If God doesn’t exist, there is no reason for morality as we would be unable to attain its ultimate goal. This argument was supported by the philosopher H.P Owen who wrote that ‘it is impossible to think of a command without thinking of a commander’ and Kant’s argument also agreed with Aquinas’ theory that God wrote the moral code into the design of the world. It also has the strength that if we are ought to achieve the summum bonum, that implies that we can. We would not be asked to achieve something we couldn’t actually achieve and as we have been asked to achieve this, God must exist to give us help. But despite these strengths, Kant’s argument has been subjected to many criticisms, most notably from Freud who indicated that Kant’s theory collapses if there is no moral obligation and that we don’t need God if there is no need for us to attain what is beyond our human grasp. Freud argued that our perceptible obligation comes from our super ego and the conflict between our subconscious desires and the morals our parents and society teaches us. Another objector to Kant’s argument, Brian Davies, pointed out that aiming for a goal we cannot achieve is illogical and that God may not even be the highest moral good if the rest of the argument is true.
Other philosophers have argued the case for the existence of God through forms of the moral argument. Rashdall said that there must be an objective moral code because people are conscious of such a code and are aware of this law’s demands on them, even when this law is broken. A finite mind – a limited mind, such as the mind of man, Rashdall assumes – cannot fully grasp this law’s entirety. If a finite mind cannot grasp this, then a finite mind could not have conceived it. So this objective moral code must have been conceived within an infinite mind; the mind of God. This argument was echoed by the writer C. S. Lewis who argued that there must be an absolute moral law because if there wasn’t, we would not make excuses for breaking it and promise or treaty keeping would be pointless. He claimed that this code was not due to herd instinct, convention, nature or imagination but that it must reside in a mind of absolute good, that of God. These two arguments acknowledge that the moral code doesn’t contain morality as it happens, but morality as it should happen. This is a strength as many philosophers argue that there is no moral law based on the evil in the world, a viewpoint I intend to look at closer in this essay. They also fit in well, as Aquinas’ argument did, with general perceptions of God as being entirely benevolent. One failing of these arguments, however, is that they assume the definite existence of a highly debatable object – an absolute moral code. If such a code does exist, that is not to mean their argument is right. The law Rashdall and Lewis claim to have come from God could be another reflection of Plato’s reality, the same idea mentioned alongside Aquinas’ argument. To summarise, if there is an absolute moral law there are two possible origins – the mind of God or Plato’s reality.
The idea of cultural relativity disagrees with Kant’s theory and provides an explanation for the origin of morality without the need for a god. Cultural relativity states that every society has their own view of what is right and what is wrong. The children in that society are raised with the knowledge of what their culture feels is right and wrong, therefore morality is a product of society, not God. This theory shows that right and wrong are not simply black and white nor are they contained in an objective moral law as different cultures believe different things. It also explains why the death penalty is considered to be wrong in some countries, but right in others. The argument provides respect for different society’s beliefs as well. But if cultural relativity were true, there are a number of unsettling statements we must solve. A major inconsistency of this argument is that it contradicts itself by putting forward the suggestion that there is no absolute moral law as an absolute moral! In history, I was taught that a source containing contradictions was an unreliable one and I think the same applies here. It would mean that societies could not condemn one another for their customs and values so if two societies went to war, we would have no power to interfere as this would be considered inappropriate. Secondly, social reform would be impossible as challenging a society’s customs would have no standard to compare it to. Martin Luther King could not have challenged apartheid as he could not say it was wrong because cultural relativity leaves no room for an objective moral law. But as King and others have challenged their society’s ideas, this questions the validity of cultural relativity. It would, if taken to extremes, encourage anarchy as nobody would be able to tell a society murdering innocent people that they were wrong. The theory of cultural relativity also makes social reform obsolete, so this argument is not as convincing as it first seems.
Before we return to sources of morality, one facet of the moral argument beckons debate. The moral argument states that because there is a true sense of right and wrong in the world, God must exist. But is there a true sense of right and wrong in the world? Is there an objective binding moral code we must all stick to? We have already covered the origins and arguments in favour of an absolute moral code, but from looking at the world today I can see very little evidence of one. If there was a moral code, how did the Nazis murder thousands and thousands of Jews and other innocent people without breaking the code? Is there some loophole in this universally absolute moral policy that says it’s alright to kill? When I read about terrorists, when I read about how national minorities were persecuted both in Russia and Germany in history, when I think how many innocent soldiers are killed by the skeletal hand of war…if there was this moral code, these things shouldn’t happen. Or if these events break none of God’s moral laws, what else is on that objective and absolute code? Are all our negative perceptions of murder, genocide and torture just wrong? What kind of god is up there? These are questions which I feel seriously weaken the moral argument.
So far, the arguments over the origins of morality can be organised into two areas. The first states that morality comes from God, as argued by St Thomas Aquinas. The second argues that there is evidence of a moral code in the world and that God is a requirement for this moral code to exist. The third argument explains morality without the need for an objective moral law or a god: the theory of evolution. Writer Richard Dawkins argues in favour of a ‘survival of the fittest’ approach, by which he suggests that men with morality inherent in their genetic makeup survived longer than others, therefore having more time to breed, passing down the moral gene. Other supporters of the evolution theory point out that as the brain and mind developed, moral and social awareness grew alongside. They also consider conscience to be a safety device which prevents unnecessary tension between people which could lead to a life threatening situation. If the evolution theory is true, then we can explain why we live in a fair and just society by stating that an unjust society would threaten the individuals within it. Therefore, just society is another safety mechanism to protect us. Probably the strongest asset of this argument is that it explains why cruel and evil people exist; it is because they lack the moral gene.
A criticism of the evolution theory is that if people simply follow their instincts to make moral decisions, how can we distinguish between good and bad instincts? It has also been suggested that if we hold this theory to be true, it undermines morality to its lowest level – that of plain self interest. For example, ‘I’ choose to live in a just society because an unjust society would be a danger to ‘me’. ‘I’ don’t kill somebody I don’t like because that would put ‘me’ at risk. My response to that is to ask is it really wrong to admit that we are just out for ourselves? Sure it’s not nice, but does that make it wrong? Personally, I feel that the theory of evolution is the strongest argument for the origin of morality.
Other philosophers have disagreed with the religious origin of morality, including Bertrand Russell and Albert Camus. Russell used the Euthyphro Dilemma to disprove God’s existence. The Euthyphro Dilemma asks whether something is good because it is good in itself or only because God wants it to be. Russell argued that if the first case is true then God is subject to a higher standard of goodness, meaning he is not supreme. If the second option is true then God is the sole dictator of morality and morality is simply based on the whim of God. Therefore God is either subject to a higher standard meaning he is not the ultimate power or he is not essentially good as he has no knowledge of morality as it is simply subject to his whims. Either of these would not be worthy of worship so God cannot exist. One of the argument’s strong points is that it takes the two sides of the Euthyphro Dilemma and continues its line of thought to a logical conclusion. But he assumes that a less than supreme or an arbitrary god would not be worshipped, or be worthy of worship. Although his argument does not reflect the general view of God as God is considered to be omnipotent and benign, that is not to say gods from other cultures are not so. For example, the gods and goddesses of Ancient Greece were not totally good – while they were above humans, they had human characteristics, good and bad. So Russell’s theory may disprove the existence of the god of classical theism but it doesn’t disprove the existence of any type of god. For all we know, there could be a god in existence opposite to our perceptions and to the characteristics of the god Russell’s argument was attempting to disprove. Albert Camus also argued against the existence of God using a moral argument. In his novel The Plague, he theorises that theism is opposed to humanitarianism therefore God cannot exist. The example he used in this novel was that of a priest and a doctor’s reaction to a plague. Camus argues that if you join the priest you cannot fight the plague as it is God’s will you would be fighting. If you join the doctor, you must fight the plague and therefore fight God. You cannot fight the plague (humanitarianism) without fighting God (theism). One contradicts the other so if humanitarianism is right, theism is wrong. This argument does make good sense at first, a fact in its favour, but many theologians disagree with Camus’ opinion that disease is God’s will. They also argue that disease is part of God’s system, a good system, and that it is not wrong for us to fight it off using medicine.
In conclusion, the statement that because morality exists, God must exist is simply too limited and simplistic to prove the existence of God. I feel that despite the arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas and Kant, the theory of evolution put forward by Richard Dawkins and others are much more plausible and probably nearer the truth than the standard ‘God did it’.
Comments (50)
<< Previous story
Tower of Babel - fact or parable ?
Tower of Babel - fact or parable ?
Next story >>
Spirits of Christmas and Holidays past
Spirits of Christmas and Holidays past
Ghosts, Hauntings and The Paranormal
UK and Europe
Extraterrestrial Life and The UFO Phenomenon
United States and the Americas
Total Posts: 7,573,692 Topics: 329,836 Members: 204,502
Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
1 week
2 weeks
3 weeks
1 month
Top | Home | Forum
News | Columns | Encyclopedia
UM 11.2a Unexplained-Mysteries.com (c) 2001-2026
Terms | Privacy Policy | Cookies | Contact
News | Columns | Encyclopedia
UM 11.2a Unexplained-Mysteries.com (c) 2001-2026
Terms | Privacy Policy | Cookies | Contact
Please Login or Register to post a comment.