.png)
There’s a saying I love: "Truth doesn’t care about your feelings." The same goes for morality—what’s objectively good stays good, no matter what anyone thinks. For example, the abuse of children is always wrong. Even if someone like Hitler claims that wiping out a group of people is morally right, murder remains objectively wrong.
The Moral Argument says that objective moral values (things that are right or wrong no matter what people think) point to the existence of God. If these moral values exist, they must come from something beyond human opinions—specifically, from God.
The argument can be broken down like this:
1. If God doesn’t exist, objective moral values wouldn’t exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God must exist.
Without God, right and wrong would just be personal or cultural opinions. In a purely natural world, where everything happens by chance, there wouldn’t be any foundation for moral values. Morality would just be a product of evolution or society’s preferences and not truly objective.
Objective moral values—things that are true no matter what anyone thinks—need a source beyond humans. That source is God, who is the ultimate source of moral goodness and authority. Just like a watch needs a watchmaker, moral values need a moral law giver, which is God.
Most people recognize certain things as wrong—like murder, rape, or child abuse—not just because they’re unpopular, but because they’re inherently wrong. This suggests there’s a moral order in the world that’s independent of what people think. Even non-religious people tend to act as though these moral standards apply to everyone.
Across different cultures and religions, there are common moral principles, like rules against murder and theft, which points to a shared moral law that goes beyond cultural differences.
Some critics argue that morality is subjective, meaning it’s based on personal or cultural opinions. They say what’s considered right or wrong might depend on societal norms, evolution, or personal preferences, and doesn’t necessarily need God. Others suggest that moral values could exist on their own, like math facts, without needing God. But I would debate we have math facts because of God.
There’s also a debate called the Euthyphro Dilemma, which asks, “Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s good?” If the first is true, morality seems random. If the second is true, it seems like morality exists without God, challenging the idea that we need God for moral values. The claim is faulty though because God doesn't just command good things or name good things, He is the embodiment of good.
The belief in objective moral values suggests these values come from something bigger than human opinions. People who believe in subjective morality think that everyone has their own truth, but that idea makes it hard to have moral debates. If morality were totally subjective, everyone’s opinion would be equally valid, making it hard to say that anything is truly right or wrong. We see that one person can like chocolate ice cream while another person vanilla. Both are opinions and subjected to taste preferences. Both are right in their assessment. However, if two people were in a completely dark room and one person says the lights are off while the other disagrees and says the lights are on clearly there is one right and one wrong answer. In our example above child abuse is either right or wrong. Universally people from all across the world will say it is wrong. Those that disagree are typically the abusers and are labeled as criminals.
Disagreements about morality actually point to the existence of an objective moral standard. If morality were completely subjective, there wouldn’t be any reason to argue about what’s right or wrong because everyone’s views would be equally valid.
For example, if a society decided that genocide was okay, relativism would say it’s morally fine in that culture. But most people believe that some actions, like genocide, are wrong no matter what, which supports the idea of objective moral values.
The idea of moral progress—like the end of slavery or the recognition of women’s rights—also suggests that there are objective moral values. If morality were subjective, changes in society would just be changes, not improvements. But if societies are moving toward higher moral standards, it shows that objective moral values exist.
Ideas of justice and fairness rely on objective moral values. If morality were subjective, there wouldn’t be a solid reason to say someone deserves fair treatment or that their rights should be protected. Justice assumes that certain rights and wrongs exist beyond human opinions.
Moral Realism is the view that moral facts are real, like facts in science or math. It supports the idea of objective moral values. Natural Law Theory, which has roots in Aristotle’s philosophy and was developed by thinkers like Thomas Aquinas, says that moral values are part of the natural world and can be discovered through reason.
Immanuel Kant, a famous philosopher, argued for a universal moral law, called the Categorical Imperative, which says certain actions are always right or wrong, no matter the outcome, i.e. child abuse is always wrong.
Critics of this argument, including moral subjectivists and relativists, say that moral values are shaped by culture, society, and personal experiences and aren’t universal. Some argue that morality evolved as a survival tool, helping humans cooperate, while Moral Anti-Realists deny that objective moral facts even exist. They claim that moral statements are just expressions of personal feelings, not facts.
In short, the argument for objective moral values suggests that certain moral principles are true for everyone, regardless of individual or cultural differences. These values point to the need for objective standards, which many believe come from God.
Comentarios