Greg Koukl: Grounding Morality
Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason answers the question, “Why can’t an atheist worldview support belief in objective universal morality?”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
Our systems of morality are derived from the collective intuitions of subjects. Through our historical experience and the exercise of empathy, diverse human cultures have generally developed overlapping moral intuitions. These general intuitions are the baseline requirements of social survival and flourishing and they are refined to fit the shape of each culture's values.
There need not be an external standard of 'good' to ground a moral system. There need only be a sense of a collective vision. The moral system will be adapted to protect that goal as long as the collective continues to value that vision. Whatever moral practice protects the vision and allows for the flourishing of the collective is 'good'. Whatever erodes or undermines the vision is 'evil'.
Whenever a believer pretends that subjective morality is useless because it can't authoritatively tell us if something is objectively wrong, I ask them if they use money to buy things.
Our entire economic system is built on the subjective valuation of currency. The value of this money is not an emergent property of the universe or a divine being. It exists entirely in the collective unconscious and yet its social utility is reified every time you go buy groceries.
We have set up regulations to protect the utility of money because it is useful. If someone violates those regulations and threatens the utility of money, we do not need a foreign realm of divine value to justify punishing them.
We do not need a foreign realm of value to affirm that what they have done is wrong.
We decide.
The same holds true for subjective moral values.
No god is needed.
"How can there be an objective moral wrong"……….
In antecedence, a demonstrably legitimate objection to any given act resolves into a proportionate self-defense against either the inflicting of personal adversity or the inflicting of a proxy adversity (defending a loved one against a trespass)
Example: A Christian's fear of hell may somewhat justify the launch of a self-defense in the submitting to the mandated cure but for the problem of "proportionality".
Any sane being would bend over backwards to escape eternal agony but that same sanity would also inform us that in summery, we are being forced into a type of slavery of choice… There is no choice.
We can demonstrate the legitimacy of our moral objection in the following way:
Dear god, you tore me from the peace and quiet of eternal nothingness without my permission, replacing it with the option of eternal torture or eternal subservience while giving me the ability to see the immorality of such a choice… Where is the option to regain that which you stole from me?
You stole something of higher value from me, you stole my eternal nothingness and replaced it with eternal horror… I played no part in that, my hands are clean.
Either empty hell back into the nothingness from where "you" tore those poor souls or leave me no option but to witness your quality and be corrupted by it.
Where is my error?
It's cheaper posting here as I live in the UK. I assumed he posted this and would occasionally look at the comments,
How about you explain why
1) suffering and inflictiong damage isn't wrong?
2) why safeguarding communities isn't good?
That way I'll be able to distinguish your position between a serious discussion or a morally neutral devil's advocate.
If we value sentient life and freedom, then suffering and 'inflicting damage' are 'wrong'. If a community is fostering the welfare of its members, then it is 'good' to safeguard it.
It's barbaric by modern standards. We're being asked by christians to consider these bronze-age morals as a guide for modern life. So they should be judged by modern standards; value for all human welfare and freedom.
Why don't you pose this response to Greg himself? He takes calls every Tuesday from 4-7 pacific time at 855-243-9975.
If morality changes then how is biblical morality "barbaric"? If morality changes then biblical morality is just as "good" as the moral code of today.
1) Why is "suffering" and "inflicting damage" wrong?
2) Why is it "good" to safeguard communities?
Wrong on several counts
1)Rape is wrong due to the suffering and damage it inflicts, this varies between victims but is universally negative and therefore always a wrong act and we can judge it as so.
2)The victim makes it known suffering and has been inflicted due to rape, this places responsibility on us to act to safeguard communities, unpunished rape is a destabilising effect.
3)to control individual and social stress we evolved morals and laws which modify behaviour – god is unecessary
The problem with asking could God have made the law differently lies in the fact that the law is just man's observation of how things are and not really a law that cannot be broken. It just seems that it is an unbreakable law, and that is subject to change in light of new findings. And even if it were unbreakable it wouldn't (necessarily) apply to God.
Two difficulties arise in your position: 1. These observations aren't necessarily true. 2. Even if they are true, they are not binding on any thing that is outside of their scope or domain.
Then there is the possibility of maximal omnipotence which means that even if God cannot do certain things logically, he could break the laws of logic and do them anyways.
–Continued–
What you call the "law of non-contradiction " is really no law at all, at least not to a supernatural being. Every single law requires a lawgiver or it is not a law. A law is a boundary, set in place, that nothing in its domain can cross. But that isn't even the kind of law that the law of non-contradiction is.
There are things that we call "laws" that seem to be fundamental principals of the natural realm. These are just observations.
–Continued–
Morality has changed so much since the barbaric morality of the Bible. So clearly there's no such thing as objective morality.
Mr. Koukl, what support can you give to the idea that a law requires a lawgiver? Consider the laws of logic, do they require a lawgiver? Would the law of non-contradiction require a God to set that law into motion? If so, could God have created the law differently? Could God have seen to it to make it so that an internal conflict in an argument would make it more logical? Of course not. This law transcends even God. Is there a special hell reserved for those who break that law? No, that's silly.
I believe I could argue that there have been societies where rape was condoned and not seen as "bad". I feel like it is irrelevant however. Even if we allow the premise of objective morality, there is a long way to go to get to god. Why could morality not be a natural law? That is as intrinsic to the universe as thermodynamics? Further, if we allow that morality is beyond the nartural realm, why couldn't morality be the thing that has always existed?
(Continued) without the use of religion. He is using his own mind to formulate a reason, and essentially, second-guessing his creator. Religion doesn’t answer moral questions, men do.
(Continued) Homosexuality is bad, getting a haircut is bad, eating seafood is bad, or am I just supposed to take it on faith that it’s wrong? If your answer was the latter, then you can perhaps understand why religion doesn’t answer moral questions.
Even an apologetic pastor who tries to provide an explanation for why a religion makes the moral assertions it does – in areas where the religious texts themselves do not specifically explain or elaborate – he is answering a moral questions….
Religion can not explain why rape is bad – it can only scare you out of doing it. Why shouldn't I rape? Because I will burn in hell if I do. Okay. But why is that a good thing? Why would it be a bad thing if I were not to burn in hell because I raped someone? Might does not make right. What is “good”? Is there a reason why I should listen to Leviticus when he tells me
An apologetic pastor may perhaps provide a possible explanation for why a religious text has it's moral code a certain way, but if he can't, you are still obliged to take what the religious text has to say on faith. Religion depends on the primacy on faith – it doesn't answer moral questions, it only makes moral imperatives.
Why is rape wrong? Because forcing your bits into someone without their consent is wrong. Because statistics have shown that psychological trauma occurs as a consequence of rape.
Not sure how religion could have answered that better. Religion doesn't answer moral questions. The very nature of religion is that it doesn't answer questions – you're supposed to take everything they say on faith. Sure, you may get an answer from a pastor, but you must ultimately take everything on faith.
@veritaslogos There are no valid responses to the euthyphro dilema.
rape is wrong because our society says it is wrong, look at history. now a days we believe that slavery is wrong but when this country was founded we didnt. "universal morals" are just a conglomerate of singular peoples beliefs.
each person makes there own unique distinctions between what is good and bad, right and wrong.
then we as a society create a set of morals for all peoples within that society, based on those personal beliefs.
Grounding morality on belief in God does not produce objective moral values. They just beccome God's subjective moral values. Read up on the Euthyphro dilemma.
Rape isn't wrong BECAUSE rape is wrong. Rape is wrong because it hurts someone. If we don't rape someone because it somehow contains a quantifiable amount of 'wrongness' or because thems the rules we miss the point entirely. Our experiences as humans and a predisposition for learning to understand and develope feelings about those experiences is at the heart of what makes for true morality.
This is ignorance of systems of absolute morality that don't rely upon divine edict from X diety.
Secondly, christian morality is no legitimate form of absolute morality. It is simply a 'might makes right' system upon the whims of their god – foregoing the lacking reason to acknowledge it's existence to begin with.
Christian morality extends to the point that people accept or agree with christian morality. Score a point for relativism.
There are moral systems that advocate moral absolutes without appealing to god.
Additionally, christian morality is not a legitimate form of absolutism. It is simply a 'might makes right' form of arbitrary authority behind their own beliefs.
Mostly an argument from ignorance. He doesn't understand morality outside of his god, so he doesn't acknowledge it. Pretty typical.
Easy we humans decide what morals are we are the authors we make the choice as a group what is wright or wrong.
And as a group we punish behavior we deem in- moral.
Its not a god who tels us to punish who but humans make the choices whether someone did something moral or in-moral.
For instance the crusaders where following the bible morals and where deemed heroes.
But today the would stand on trial for war-crimes when did it became in-moral to do so or did we humans decide that
How about this, give any action that is deemed 'good' or 'bad' that you might think is incapable of being explained through clear tangible reason and I will show how it is derived from emotion, physical action, and perceived results that can rather cleanly encapsulate any condition or moral and ethical standards without ever having to appeal to any source other than the natural scientific principles.
If, however, the love is based on a logical ground of compatible personalities that can reinforce each others strengths, run in tandem interests, compensate for shortcomings, etc this will spawn a much more loyal relationship regardless to the status of marriage.
Which in this case, yes in fact that faithfulness will last beyond whether or not one is married, because they have a true respectful relationship.
No magic here, just traceable and understandable logic.
Love as it is idealized is frequently derived out of the emotion of lust, which is an issue, because we are appealing to things that are not strong logical foundations. We love them because of what they give us. That is bad love that will never last, in which case, no loyalty or faithfulness is not possible regardless of the status of marriage, because as the feelings or receiving wanes, so will the love.
As for the faithfulness in marriage. That parses out the issue of lust, love, compatibility, and the resulting relationship.
Faithfulness in a relationship built on lust never exists.
Faithfulness in a relationship based on love sometimes works, but that's due to…
Faithfulness based on compatibility works considerably better than other potentials.
Why does one love another must be answered before one can answer if one can be faithful.
It's not like it's hocus pocus on the atheists part.
A properly reasoning individual should be perfectly capable of dissecting any given action and understanding 'why' something is wrong, by understanding the implications and results that such an action carries with it.
On top of that, the psychological trauma caused by such a thing will easily cause psychosis in the victim that can extend into usual life and cause debilitating issues for them, thereby lowering potential productivity and personal capacity.
Any possible benefit from a purely logical point of view, is outweighed by the negatives also shown through a purely logical point of view.
It is by deductive reasoning and full understanding that we can tell if something is moral.
Like your rape example. Now, a morally corrupt individual might take pleasure in it, which would be an emotional bonus for them, but it is known to have an easily more devastating emotional and physical impact on the victim. As an action that is not consenting, it is also an unplanned action that likely can not be properly accounted for, resulting in a socioeconomic impact for the victim and and those willing to aid…
Or to explain, how one feels is in direct reinforcement or contention to how one behaves. The emotions of others also sways such conditions, sad and happy expressions are hard to misunderstand unless very intentionally disguised.
What this does for morals, is it weighs heavily on the benefit of emotional impact on one or both parties involved in any potential act.