Objective Morality Necessitates a Higher Being

Just to come clean, I believe there are objective morals, and I also believe that a "higher being" is necessary for the existence of objective morals. I'm going to play devil's advocate in this debate. I am going to argue that objective morals cannot be grounded in a higher being.I. The meaning of objective and subjective moralityAn objective statement is a statement about the object. For example, "My dog barks" is about my dog, and what makes it true is whether it corresponds to my dog or not. Whether the statement is true is grounded in the actions of the dog. It is not grounded in anybody's beliefs about the dog. Nor is it grounded by anybody's feelings, biases, or preferences toward the dog.Objective statements can be true or false, and whether they are true or false does not depend on anybody's beliefs or preferences.A subjetive statement is a statement about the person making the claim. For example, "Sausage tastes bad" is about the tastes of the person making the claim. What makes it true or false is whether the person actually likes teh way sausage tastes. The statement can be true for one person but false for another person, depending on whether each of them likes sausage or not.Subjective statements are neither true or nor false independently of anybody's preferences. If sausage existed, but there was nobody to taste it, it would taste neither good nor bad.With those two understandings in mind, it should be clear that objective morals cannot be grounded in any sort of personal being, whether higher or lower. If the truth of a statement of morality depended on the thoughts or preferences of an individual, then it would be subjective by definition. If it were objective, then by definition, it could not depend on any person's beliefs. So a higher being is an insufficient ground for objective morality.II. The source of authority.What differentiates the higher being from everybody else such that whatever the higher being thinks is binding on everybody else? What is meant by "higher being"?The being, presumably, is like us in the fact that it values certain things, has certain preferences, etc. Suppose that I think killing cats is wrong because I put a great deal of value in cats, but the higher being thinks killing cats is right, and he puts a low value in cats. Why is his opinion objectively true, and my is only subjective? What gives the higher being authority such that his opinions are binding on everybody else?It seems like there are only two things that possibly could. Either it's his "otherness," or it's his power. His "otherness" doesn't seem to work, because each individual is "other" than every other individual in all of reality. Or perhaps by "other," you mean something like radically different. After all, the higher being is presumably not just another human. But what "other" property does the being have that makes the difference? It's hard to imagine what it could possibly be.Maybe it's his intelligence. But since when does greater intelligence give one person authority over another?Maybe it's his power. But might does not make right.Perhaps the higher being receives its authority from the consent of the governed the way government recieves its authority. But that would assume there's some sort of social contract between the being and humans. It obviously wouldn't apply to atheists who have agreed to no such contract.There just doesn't seem to be any conceivable attribute the higher being could have that would give the higher being authority over everybody else such that other people are actually obligated to obey the higher being.III. Euthyphro's dilemmaI'll bet you saw this one coming!Is something good because the higher being prefers it, or does the higher being prefer it because it's good already?If something is good logically prior to the higher being prefering it or imposing it on somebody else, then morality does not come from the higher being. It exists independently of the higher being, and the higher being just recognizes it.So the only hope is that morality comes from the preference and will of the higher being. But if there is nothing but the will or preference of the higher being to ground morality, then morality is artibrary. For anything we might say is right or wrong, things could've been otherwise because the being could've prefererred or demanded otherwise. Even for things we consider moral today, the higher being could change his mind tomorrow. And how would we know that he had?Some try to say that morality is neither the product of the higher being, nor logically prior to the higher being, but is identified with the higher being himself. Goodness is just a necessary part of the being's nature. But if that is the case, then it makes it meaningless to say that the being is "good." Good by what standard? For everything else we judge to be good or bad, we do so based on some outside standard. But if there is no standard outside of the higher being, then it's meaningless to say that the higher being is "good." At best, saying the higher being is good would be equivalent to say, "He is what he is," which is a tautology. "Good" is just an arbitrary word. We could've just as easily used the word "bad."IV. Moral epistemologyWe come to our moral beliefs in a variety of ways. The primary way we come to our moral beliefs is through instruction from other people, usually our parents, but often society. But where do they get their moral knowledge? Presumably, they got theres the same way. So it turns out this whole thing is a house of cards. Nobody gets their moral knowledge from a reliable source.If morality is grounded in a higher being, then the only way we could know about it is if the higher being communicated it to us somehow. But how does he do it?Perhaps he told some prophet long ago. The prophet then told his children and society. And that society passed it on to their children, all the way up to us. But that is an unreliable way of getting information because after many generations, surely the knowledge would've become distorted.Perhaps the higher being writes it on our hearts. But how could we know that our own conscience or sense of morality comes from the higher being rather than having been shaped by our society or evolutionary pressures? Or perhaps it's just the natural result of our sense of empathy for our fellow man.If morality were grounded in a higher being, there should be some reliable communication from that being to us. Otherwise, it's superflous. The fact that people differ so widely amongst each other on morality shows that the higher being is not communicating clearly. That raises doubts about whether there's any objective morality at all because if there were, then we should expect the higher being to communicate it clearly to us. After all, why impose moral obligations on people without telling them clearly what they're supposed to do?ConclusionSo that's four arguments against the idea that objecive morality comes from a higher being. If there is objective morality at all, then it must be grounded some other way. If there is no other way, then there probably is no objective morality. But this isn't a debate over whether there are any objective morals. It's just a debate over whether objective morals require a higher being. It seems obvious to me that if objective morals cannot be grounded in a higher being, then a higher being is not necessary for objective morals.