Argument from morality

{{Bronze}}
{{religion}}
{{cquote|One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion.|||[[Arthur C. Clarke]]}}

The '''argument from morality''' is the [[Apologist|apologist]] argument that [[God]] [[Divine command theory|is the source of]] all [[morality]],<ref>See [[argument by assertion]].</ref> and therefore, if [[objective morality]] exists, God ''must'' exist.<ref>See [[begging the question]].</ref>  It's also taken as an opportunity to claim one's own religion is the only true one, and ''better'' than all the others.

A particular form of it is [[Thomas Aquinas]]' argument that [[The Ten Commandments as natural law|the moral part of the Mosaic Law could be deduced from natural law]]. A further extension is that all morality comes from [[scripture]], which in turn is the word of God.

It is one of the seven arguments that [[William Lane Craig]] has built his originality-free public speaking career on&nbsp;— he has rehearsed it to death and uses it in almost literally [[argumentum ad nauseam|every single public appearance]].

Taking the implications of the argument from morality seriously [[Divine command theory|notoriously causes a bluescreen]] in terms of both ethics and logic. [[Pwned|Oops]].

==Criticisms of the argument==
The argument's justification for proving God's existence is often countered by explaining or postulating naturalistic origins for morality. While there are various [[secular]] formulations of morality and ethics, such as [[humanism]], it needs to be explained ''why'' we feel morality. [[Evolution]]ary advantages for certain behaviors that one could consider "moral" provide an alternative explanation that does not require a god. [[Evolutionary psychology]], when it works properly, attempts to do this. For example, killing another person is detrimental to society at large; the tribe has one less person to help or defend it, and possibly a slew of extra strife between friends and family of the victim vs. those of his/her killer. Law enforcement is not perfectly efficient, and morality provides an additional barrier against criminal behavior. There are also several other specific refutations against the idea that morality comes from God and God ''alone'', as well as logical flaws in using it as an argument for the existence of a divine deity:

*The existence of God is assumed in defining something that already exists (morality); therefore it is [[Begging the question|circular reasoning]] by attempting to show the existence of God in this manner.
*The assumption of an [[omnipotent]] God leads to problems communicating a moral code in a clear way to people in an authentic manner.<ref name=auth>See [[Authenticity of divine revelation#Corollaries|the problem of the authenticity of revelations]].</ref>
*The specification that morality is "hard-wired" by God (to circumvent the communication problem) implies that this argument from morality is dependent on [[creationism|direct creation]] actually happening, and that the [[Original sin]] didn't [[falldidit|change/damage it]].
*There are explanations for the origin of morals other than "[[Goddidit]]".
*When multiple religions/denominations each use this argument to justify their own version of [[deity]], the credibility of the whole argument weakens. This is because the "objective" morality used for the premise is not exactly the same for each religion/denomination.
*For [[Abrahamic religion]]s, God's [[Examples of God personally killing people|actions]] [[hell|aren't]] [[Essay:About the evil inherent in the Christian God|exactly]] what most people can justify as "moral" when they are the ones performing such actions. Now, you can say "It was okay then" or, "It's okay for God to do that kind of thing, just not us," but at that point you've already thrown out moral absolutism.
*Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that if all of Divine Morality can be derived from naturalistic morality (i.e., Divine Morality is morally equivalent to "whatever is best for humanity"), religion and the gods themselves ''aren't necessary'' for humans to have Divine Morality.  If Divine Morality contradicts naturalistic morality, Divine Morality and thus the gods themselves are actually ''malevolent''.

===Omnimalevolence vs omnibenevolence===
The proponent of this argument must present logical evidence explaining why their God must be [[omnibenevolent]] rather than omnimalevolent. This is related to the [[Euthyphro dilemma]]: asking if things are good because God says so, or God is good because there is a morality that God follows.

One can choose to have omnibenevolence as part of the definition of God, but this is not necessarily true when considering God as a [[hypothesis]] with ''necessary'' characteristics and inferred, or desirable, characteristics. Godly traits such as omnipotence and omniscience are substantiated because the God hypothesis necessitates them. For example, a God which grants arbitrary [[miracle]]s would necessitate their omnipotence and a God which [[determinism|can determine things that will happen in the future]] would necessitate [[omniscience]] so we can safely assume those properties of that particular God. So ultimately, the [[theist]] must present similar logical evidence that necessitates an omnibenevolent God, rather than an omnimalevolent one, or at least not a morally disinterested one. To put it simply, [[burden of proof|the theist must explain]] why their god is 'good' rather than 'bad'.

A second possible answer proving God to be benevolent may be that [[Ontological argument|it's obviously better]] for something to be all good than for it to be all bad. But this causes a few more problems. Effectively, the theist has created a morality outside of God (invalidating the argument that God ''is'' the source of morality), then assessed God's nature by ''this'' standard of morality to conclude that God is 'all good'. This response is patently incoherent since one can't affirm the objectivity of God by first assessing it with subjective standards. This is why any argument for an omnibenevolent God is fantastically idealistic; there is simply no reason why God must be omnibenevolent rather than omnimalevolent. Unless, of course, someone can think up a way out of this that doesn't contradict the above?

===Demonstrating the existence of objective morality===
The proponent of this argument must demonstrate the essentiality of an objective morality, and thus demonstrate the existence of an objective morality.

An obvious rebuttal would be 'we must have an objective morality to tell right from wrong' — an ostensibly reasonable statement, but sadly it holds no basis in reality. Arguing this line has one major shortcoming: it does not explain ''why'' we ''must'' distinguish right from wrong; there is no mechanism of [[Essentialism|essentiality]] outlined definitively requiring humans to be able to discern right from wrong. Of course, here the theist will object that 'this proves [[atheists]] are amoral', but again this holds no basis in [[reality]]. Just because something is not essential does not mean we don't still subscribe to it. In the case of murder, for example, an objective morality dictates that such an act is forbidden. However, humans have long come to know that such an act is reprehensible for purely subjective reasons. So to recap, the theist must show that an objective morality is essential, and then establish the existence of an objective morality, ''and'' prove the existence of a objective-morality-generating entity, and finally link their version of God as the only possible objective morality generating entity.

Not so much an objection as it is an open question, but to the theist: is it merely a [[coincidence]] that the well-being of sentient creatures, [[secular]] subjective morality, and the supposed objective morality of God (outside of His own actions in the [[Old Testament]]) correlate so strongly? 

Using the stages of moral development proposed by Lawrence Kohlberg,<ref>{{wpa|Lawrence_Kohlberg}}</ref> it could be suggested that [[fundamentalists]] claiming that morality comes from the [[Bible]] passes no more than the first, pre-conventional, level. This level cites self-interest and fear of punishment as the driving force for morality, and is most common in children. However, given that fundamentalists respect the authority of the Bible, it could be argued that they are in the second, conventional, level&nbsp;— in which morality is driven by a respect of authority and the social norms it provides.

An objective morality could not depend in any way on the identity of the actor. As an ironic consequence of this, since [[Christian]] morality invariably refuses to hold God to the same standard as humans, it clearly isn't objective.

==The inverse argument==
The inverse argument states that since God is the ''only'' source of morality, ''not'' believing in God implies lack of morality. It suffers from the following problems similarly to the argument above:

*The argument [[presuppositionalism|presupposes]] God without first [[absence of evidence|establishing God's existence]].
*Even if God were the only source of morality, a lack of belief in God still doesn't automatically imply a lack of morality.
*What morality: the assumption of an omnipotent God leads to problems communicating a moral code in a clear way to people in an authentic manner.<ref name=auth/>
**The argument that morality is "hard-wired" by God (to circumvent the communication problem) implies that [[argumentum ex culo|there must be some sort of good reason]] why it manifests unreliably.
*There are explanations for the origin of morals other than "[[Goddidit]]".
*For [[Abrahamic religion]]s, God's [[Examples of God personally killing people|actions]] [[hell|aren't]] [[Essay:About the evil inherent in the Christian God|exactly]] what most people would classify as leading by example.

===Examples===
{{cquote|It has huge consequences for society and it's where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives? Or are we just simply, you know, the result of chance. If we're [[strawman|the result of chance]], if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, [[PIDOOMA|it doesn't put a moral demand on us]] that if, in fact, we are a creation of a being that has moral demands.|||[[Rick Santorum]]<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905 Rick Santorum, 'It Takes a Family'] by Steve Inskeep (August 4, 200512:00 AM ET)'' ''NPR''.</ref>}}
{{cquote|You have to start asking questions: Well, if evolution is true, and it’s just all about the male propagating their [[DNA]], we had to ask hard questions, like, well, [[Projection|is rape wrong]]?|||Darek Issacs<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/creationist-asks-if-evolution-is-true-is-rape-wrong-9535300.html Creationist asks: If evolution is true, is rape wrong?] by Christopher Hooton (3 June 2014 14:21 BST) ''Independent''.</ref>}}
{{cquote|Immoral atheists (which is a redundant phrase IMO)…|||Michael Smit<ref>[https://archive.ph/XiUz2 Illegalize atheism and fund science, not pseudoscientific atheism, so that Charleston will return to his Facebook group.] by M. S. (Jun 06, 2014) ''We the People: Your Voice in Our Government'' (archived from 17 Jun 2014 22:31:22 UTC).</ref>}}
{{cquote|You are talking to a person, who don’t{{sic}} believe in God, what’s his moral barometer? Where’s it at? [[Psychological projection|It’s nowhere]].|||{{wpl|Steve Harvey}}<ref>[https://archive.ph/m7gvy Steve Harvey Says Quotes] ''Lybio.net'' (archived from 18 Mar 2016 19:49:18 UTC).</ref>}}

==See also==
{{fun|Argument from molarity}}
*[[Divine command theory]]
*[[Morality]]
*[[Ethics]]
*[[Veganism]]
*[[Is the Bible an Immoral Book?]]

==External links==
*{{wpa|Kohlberg's stages of moral development}}
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/ Moral argument for God] at the SEP
*{{wpa|Argument from morality}}

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{logfal}}
{{apolbox}}

[[Category:Apologetics and counter-apologetics]]
[[Category:Existence of gods]]
[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Apologetics and counter-apologetics, Existence of gods, Fallacious arguments, Informal fallacies