The Moral Argument
Summary
TLDRThe video script explores the existence of objective moral facts and duties, positing that if they exist, they must be grounded in something beyond human nature. It argues that morality, being a rational enterprise, cannot be sourced from imperfect humans. The argument leads to the conclusion that moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational, and sentient source, which is identified as God. The script also addresses common objections, such as the Euthyphro Dilemma, clarifying that God is not an arbitrary moral legislator but the embodiment of the good itself.
Takeaways
- đ The script discusses the existence of objective moral facts and duties and their grounding in reality, suggesting they must be based on something beyond mere human convention.
- đ€ It acknowledges the difficulty modern philosophers face in finding a natural explanation for these moral facts and duties, recognizing it as a crisis in contemporary Western ethical debate.
- đ§ Theists propose grounding moral facts in the existence of God, but the script points out that this often lacks a clear explanation of how God's existence relates to morality.
- đ The script outlines a structured argument for the existence of God based on moral realism, starting with the premise that morality is a rational enterprise.
- đ It argues that moral realism, the belief that moral facts and duties exist objectively, is true and that these cannot be grounded in human rationality due to our imperfections and contingency.
- đ§ The argument posits that moral facts and duties must be grounded in a necessary, unchanging, and rational source, which is sentient and provides moral guidance.
- đ This necessary rational source is identified as God, not as an arbitrary choice but as a logical conclusion from the premises of moral realism and rationality.
- đ ââïž The script refutes the idea that the moral argument implies morality needs policing by a deity, clarifying that it addresses the foundation of moral duties and facts, not their understanding or learning.
- đ€ It acknowledges the possibility of good atheists, arguing that their existence does not negate the need for a rational foundation for objective moral values.
- đ The Euthyphro Dilemma is addressed, which questions whether something is good because God says it is, or if God says it because it is good, with the script arguing that the dilemma misunderstands the argument's basis.
- đ The conclusion emphasizes that if moral realism is true, it points to the existence of a conscious, necessary being that is the source of moral guidance, worthy of praise and worship.
Q & A
What is the central argument presented in the script regarding moral facts and duties?
-The script presents an argument that if objective moral facts and duties exist, they must be grounded in something beyond human contingency. It suggests that morality is a rational enterprise and that moral realism implies these facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, unchanging, and rational source, which is identified as God.
Why do modern philosophers struggle with grounding moral facts and duties?
-Modern philosophers struggle because they find it difficult to find a natural explanation or grounding for moral facts and duties. The script mentions a crisis in contemporary Western debate about ethical foundations, indicating that there isn't a sufficient natural explanation for where to ground these moral facts.
What is the first premise of the argument presented in the script?
-The first premise is that morality is a rational enterprise, meaning that moral facts and duties are understood through rationality and reasoning, similar to mathematics or philosophical positions, rather than through empirical investigations.
What is moral realism, and why is it a controversial premise?
-Moral realism is the belief that moral facts and duties exist objectively. It is controversial because skeptics often deny the existence of objective moral truths, arguing that morality is subjective or relative.
Why can't humans be the source of moral facts and duties according to the script?
-Humans cannot be the source of moral facts and duties because they are not perfect moral beings and do not have perfect knowledge of the facts. Additionally, humans are contingent beings, meaning they are subject to change and are not a stable foundation for objective moral truths.
What does the script suggest as the necessary unchanging foundation for moral facts and duties?
-The script suggests that moral facts and duties must be grounded in something necessary and unchanging, which is also rational and sentient. This foundation is identified as a conscious, rational entity that provides moral guidance, which is referred to as God.
What is the Euthyphro Dilemma, and how does the script address it?
-The Euthyphro Dilemma challenges the moral argument by asking whether something is good because God says it is, or if God says it is good because it is good. The script addresses this by explaining that the term 'God' is not being used arbitrarily but refers to the necessary rational source of morality, which does not change moral values arbitrarily.
How does the script differentiate between moral ontology and moral epistemology?
-The script differentiates by stating that moral ontology deals with the reality of moral values, while moral epistemology deals with how we come to know these values. The argument is about the foundation of objective moral duties and facts (ontology), not about how we learn or come to understand what morality is (epistemology).
What is the response to the objection that good atheists exist, implying that morality doesn't need to be grounded in God?
-The script responds by clarifying that the existence of good atheists does not refute the moral argument. The argument is about the foundation of objective moral duties and facts, not about the necessity of God for individuals to be moral. Good atheists can exist because they grasp moral truths that are grounded in a necessary rational source.
How does the script relate the discovery of the nature of good to the discovery of water being H2O?
-The script uses the analogy of chemists discovering that water is H2O to explain that when the nature of the good is investigated and found to share properties with what theists refer to as God, it is not a matter of stipulation but a discovery of identity. The good and God are found to be the same necessary rational source.
What conclusion does the script draw about the existence of God based on moral realism?
-The script concludes that if moral realism is true, then moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source, which is beyond time and is the good itself. This source is what we call God, leading to the conclusion that God exists.
Outlines
đ The Search for Moral Foundations
This paragraph delves into the philosophical inquiry of moral facts and duties. It questions the existence of objective moral truths and their grounding in reality. The script discusses the difficulty modern philosophers face in finding a natural explanation for these moral facts, leading some theists to suggest that they are grounded in the existence of God. However, this is criticized for lacking a clear explanation. The paragraph then introduces a more structured argument for the existence of moral facts and duties, starting with the premise that morality is a rational enterprise, akin to mathematics, and is not derived from empirical investigations. It argues that since humans are not the perfect source of moral knowledge, moral facts and duties must be grounded in something beyond human contingency, leading to the conclusion that they are grounded in a necessary, rational, and sentient source, which is identified as God.
đ€ The Objections to the Moral Argument
The second paragraph addresses common objections to the moral argument for the existence of God. It counters the claim that morality requires a deity to enforce it, pointing out that good atheists exist and that the argument is not about the enforcement of morality but its foundation. The paragraph clarifies that the moral argument is concerned with the ontological basis of moral values, not the epistemology of how we come to know them. It also tackles the Euthyphro Dilemma, which challenges the idea that morality is grounded in God's commands. The response explains that the argument is not about God's arbitrary commands but about the necessary, rational source of morality that God represents. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing that if moral realism is true, it points to a conscious, necessary being as the source of moral guidance, which is identified as God.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄMoral Facts
đĄMoral Duties
đĄObjective Morality
đĄRational Enterprise
đĄMoral Realism
đĄContingent Beings
đĄNecessary and Unchanging
đĄEuthyphro Dilemma
đĄNon-Cognitivists
đĄGod
đĄMoral Argument
Highlights
If objective moral facts and duties exist, they must be grounded in something.
Modern philosophers struggle to find a natural explanation for the existence of moral facts and duties.
John Riss identifies a crisis in contemporary Western debate about ethical foundations.
Theists claim objective moral facts and duties should be grounded in the existence of God, but often fail to explain how.
Philosophers propose better-structured arguments to demonstrate the implications of the existence of moral facts and duties.
Premise one: Morality is a rational enterprise, deciphered through rationality and reasoning.
Premise two: Moral realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
Premise three: Moral problems and disagreements suggest humans cannot be the source of moral knowledge.
Premise four: Moral facts and duties must be grounded in a necessary, unchanging, rational source.
Premise five: This source, which we call God, is the foundation of moral facts and duties.
The argument does not claim that morality needs policing by a deity or that there cannot be good atheists.
Good atheists can exist if moral realism is true, for reasons explained in a previous video.
Evolutionary accounts of morality explain how we understand moral facts, not what they are or their foundation.
The Euthyphro Dilemma challenges the moral argument by questioning whether something is good because God says it is good or if God says it is good because it is good.
The Euthyphro Dilemma is countered by clarifying that moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source, not arbitrarily commanded by God.
The term 'God' is applied to the necessary rational source, which is the foundation of moral facts and duties.
The good is not something different but dependent on God; the good itself is the rational, necessary source, thus God is the good.
Moral realism, if true, leads to the existence of a conscious source for moral guidance, beyond the bounds of time, worthy of praise and worship.
Transcripts
[Music]
if moral facts and duties exist what
should we make of this does this infer a
deeper meaning about reality in
ourselves there is a realization that if
objective moral facts and duties exist
they must be grounded in
something if they exist the question
simply follows to ask where do they come
from but modern philosophers have a hard
time grounding them in something natural
or anywhere for that matter John riss
says it is widely admitted to be a
crisis in contemporary Western debate
about ethical
foundations there just doesn't seem to
be a sufficient natural explanation on
where to ground moral facts and
duties theists then attempt to claim
this means we should ground objective
moral facts and duties in the existence
of a God but never explain how this
actually works simple forms of the moral
argument seem almost like a nonse and
fail to explain how moral facts and
Duties are actually grounded in the
existence of God
[Music]
however beyond the popular arguments
there are better formulated versions
proposed by philosophers which
demonstrate what the existence of moral
facts and duties mean so without further
Ado let's
begin premise one morality is a rational
Enterprise this premise is not too
controversial moral facts and Duties are
deciphered through rationality and
reasoning much like mathematics or
philosophical positions not through
empirical
investigations if we see someone harming
someone else we cannot know how we ought
to act we have to reason that we ought
not act a certain way thus morality is
deciphered through
rationality the only people who deny
this are non-cognitivists and we address
this in another
video premise two moral realism is true
meaning moral facts and duties exist
this is the most controversial premise
and most Skeptics will deny this one
however since we argued for this in our
previous video we will not defend this
here but simply refer people to that
video to show how this premise is
supported premise three the moral
problems and disagreements among humans
are too much for us to assume moral
facts and Duties are grounded in a human
source of
rationality this is true because humans
cannot be the source of moral knowledge
we are not perfect moral beings or have
perfect knowledge of the facts in fact
because we're not morally perfect our
own actions should reveal we are not the
foundation of moral knowledge we
constantly fail to grasp moral facts and
wrongly perform moral duties plus we are
contingent beings so we cannot be the
foundation of moral facts and duties for
the same reason the laws of logic are
not grounded in a human source humans
have only discovered the laws of logic
and Mathematics we did not create them 2
+ 2 = 4 would still be true if no human
existed to write it down if morality is
a rational Enterprise and moral realism
is true then it would simply follow
moral fact facts and duties cannot be
grounded in human rationality because
humans are contingent beings and
constantly fail the moral
laws so what would this logically follow
to from premise two moral facts and
Duties are objectively true so they must
be grounded in something necessary and
unchanging that would be obviously True
by logical deduction but also from
premise one we know morality is a
rational Enterprise so moral facts and
duties must be grounded in a rational
Source nons sentin objects cannot be
rational so it would have to be
something sentient to be rational simply
by logical deduction so moral facts and
duties cannot be grounded in contingent
humans must be grounded in something
unchangeable and necessary and because
morality is a rational Enterprise this
necessary unchangeable Foundation must
also be rational and sentient thus it
logically follows to premise four moral
facts and Duties are grounded in a
necessary rational Source this just
simply follows by deduction
so what exactly would this Source be
well it would not be humanlike like a
big man in the clouds namely a Godlike
version of ourselves who decides moral
facts and duties on a whim or can change
his or her mind but simply a conscious
rational necessary entity who is the
foundation of moral facts and duties and
who we would look to for moral
guidance so this would simply follow to
premise 5 this Source whoever this would
be is what we call God therefore if
moral realism is true we do not need to
arbitrarily ground objective moral facts
and duties in God it logically follows
they would be grounded in a necessary
rational Source who we look to for moral
guidance who we call God it simply
follows logically there so the
conclusion therefore God
exists now despite how easily this flows
from the truth of moral realism some
object this argument doesn't work AC
gring tries to attack the moral argument
arent by claiming the moral argument
that there can be no morality unless
policed by a deity is refuted by the
existence of good atheists arguably
non-theists count among themselves the
most careful moral thinkers I am shocked
that a professional philosopher such as
gring would confuse the moral argument
so badly no philosopher of religion has
ever presented the moral argument on the
idea morality needs policing or that
there cannot be good moral atheists the
moral argument only addresses the found
ation of objective moral duties and
facts it doesn't remotely claim there
cannot be good atheists as William Lane
Craig said in reply to this objection it
was no part of my argument that God is
necessary to explain our moral sense of
right and wrong good and evil over and
over in the debate I carefully
distinguish between moral ontology
questions about the reality of moral
values and moral epistemology questions
about how we come to know moral values
and I said that my argument is solely
about the objective reality of moral Val
values not how we come to know them I'll
appeal to the same mechanisms that you
appeal to in order to explain how you
know that is true I don't think that we
need to appeal to God at all to know
that objective moral values and duties
exist so you're just barking up the
wrong tree in so far as I'm concerned so
again the moral argument is about what
is the foundation of objective moral
duties and facts not how we know or came
to learn what morality
is just that if moral realism is true
moral facts and duties would be grounded
in a necessary rational source of course
there can be good atheists we would
expect them to exist if moral realism is
true for the very reasons I gave in my
video defending moral realism on top of
this even if someone gave a complete
evolutionary account of how morality
arose in humans that would just explain
how we came to understand moral facts
and duties it would not explain what
they are or their Foundation only how we
came to learn about them again it's the
same as confusing aist epistemology and
ontology how we came to understand
something doesn't mean that is all it is
how we learn about objective moral facts
and duties doesn't say what the
foundation of them is for that we have
to study the ontology of them as we have
done here in this
video the most popular objection is the
euth ofro Dilemma which challenges the
moral argument with a question is
something good because God says it is
good or does God say it's good because
it is good the basic aim of the
objection is to set up a dichotomy for
the theist with both options being
unfavorable if something is good only
because God says it is then God can say
just about anything is good and it would
be so things like torture and rape could
be good just because God commanded it so
we obviously cannot accept that but if
it is the other option God commands
something because it is good this means
God cannot be the foundation and
standard for moral facts and duties and
therefore he must look to something else
as the source of
morality but the problem with this
objection is it fails for the obvious
reasons our argument sets out to avoid
we are not arbitrarily grounding moral
facts and duties into God because we
have no other option we are looking at
the ontology of moral facts and duties
and reasoning they are grounded in a
necessary rational source that we look
to for moral guidance the term God is
just a title applied to this necessary
rational
Source when chemist discovered water was
H2O they did not merely stipulate one
was the other rather they discovered the
terms meant the same thing likewise when
we investigate into the nature of the
good and Discover It shares the
properties of what theists refer to when
they say God we discover that one is
identical to the
other if some deity looked to some other
necessary rational source as the
foundation of morality then that Source
would be the real God in this Source
could not just arbitrarily command
immoral things and make them more moral
as the argument explains objective moral
facts and duties have to be grounded in
something unchangeable and necessary
something that doesn't arbitrarily
change values from time to time if a
deity commanding morality did this then
it would not be the necessary rational
Source but some lower
demigod I think this objection results
from a semantic disorder of the argument
we are not wording it to say God as the
grounding of morality we are saying
moral facts and Duties are grounded in a
rational necessary source and this
source is what we call God the good is
just titled God the good is not
something different yet dependent on him
the good itself has to be the rational
necessary Source thus the good is God
and God is the good therefore as we can
see if moral realism is true it leads us
right back to the existence of a
conscious Source who we look to for
moral guidance and Direction a necessary
being that is beyond the bounds of time
who is the good and therefore worthy of
our praise and
worship
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)