The Moral Argument

Summary

The 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

• 📚 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.
• 🤔 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.
• 🧐 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.
• 📝 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.
• 🔍 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.
• 🧠 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.
• 🛐 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.
• 🙅‍♂️ 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.
• 🤝 It acknowledges the possibility of good atheists, arguing that their existence does not negate the need for a rational foundation for objective moral values.
• 🔄 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.
• 🌟 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

00:00

🔍 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.

05:02

🤔 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.

Keywords

💡Moral Facts

Moral facts refer to the objective truths about what is right and wrong, good and bad. In the video's context, they are the foundation for moral duties and are considered to exist independently of human opinion. The script discusses the search for a grounding for these moral facts, suggesting they must come from something beyond human subjectivity.

💡Moral Duties

Moral duties are the obligations or responsibilities that arise from moral principles. The video explores the idea that if moral duties are objective, they cannot be grounded in human nature alone, leading to a discussion about their possible divine origin.

💡Objective Morality

Objective morality is the stance that moral values and principles exist independently of personal feelings or opinions. The video argues that if moral realism (the belief in objective moral values) is true, then moral facts and duties must be grounded in something beyond human subjectivity.

💡Rational Enterprise

A rational enterprise is an activity or endeavor that is based on reason and logic. In the script, morality is described as a rational enterprise because moral judgments are made through reasoning rather than empirical observation, akin to mathematical or philosophical reasoning.

💡Moral Realism

Moral realism is the philosophical position that there are objective moral values and facts that exist independently of human beliefs. The video's argument hinges on the premise that moral realism is true, leading to the conclusion that there must be a necessary, rational source for these moral truths.

💡Contingent Beings

Contingent beings are those whose existence is not necessary but depends on certain conditions or circumstances. The script argues that because humans are contingent and imperfect, they cannot be the foundation of moral facts and duties, which must come from something necessary and unchanging.

💡Necessary and Unchanging

This term refers to something that must exist and does not change over time. In the context of the video, moral facts and duties are said to be grounded in a source that is both necessary and unchanging, suggesting a divine or eternal foundation.

💡Euthyphro Dilemma

The Euthyphro Dilemma is a philosophical problem that questions whether something is good because a deity says it is, or if a deity says it is good because it is inherently good. The video addresses this dilemma, arguing that the foundation of morality is not arbitrary but is grounded in a necessary rational source.

💡Non-Cognitivists

Non-cognitivists are philosophers who deny that moral judgments can be true or false, objective or rational. The script mentions non-cognitivists as those who would disagree with the premise that morality is a rational enterprise.

💡God

In the video, 'God' is not just a religious figure but a term used to describe the necessary, rational, and unchanging source of moral facts and duties. The argument is not that morality needs a deity to exist but that if it does, it logically follows from the premises that this source would be what we call 'God'.

💡Moral Argument

The moral argument is a philosophical argument that uses the existence of objective moral values and duties to infer the existence of a grounding source, which is identified as God. The video explains and defends this argument against common objections, emphasizing that it is about the foundation of morality rather than how we come to know it.

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