An Argument Of Objective Morality

The physical world is all that exists. In their book, Making Sense of Your World: A Biblical Worldview, Phillips, Brown, and Stonestreet (2008), state that atheists believe the world is “governed by purely natural causes and processes, without any supernatural intervention or oversight” (p. 151). To the atheist, when something bad happens, it is merely bad luck. The problem atheists are confronted with is defining what qualifies as “good” in order to distinguish what is “evil.” With no objective standard for what is good, there is no objective standard for evil. Good and evil become subjective opinion. What is good for one person may not be for another. In Germany, the Brown Shirts held the belief that ethnic cleansing was a “good” thing, thus justifying the extermination of those the Reich deemed inferior. But can mere belief or group-think constitute what is good or evil, or is there an objective, transcendent definition that stands independent of the individual? The atheist must reply negatively to the transcendent definition, as the implication would be that there is a transcendent power or authority which issues this definition.

Therefore, the only reason one has to behave ‘morally’ is because god, the bible or Jesus says you should. Moreover, the consequences of behaving in contradiction to Christian values or behaving ‘immorally’ involve punishment by god whether it be in this life or the after-life. This philosophy sheds some light on why atheism is feared, despised and misunderstood as well as why atheists are persecuted in America. If there is no god to answer to or no consequences for ‘bad behavior’, why then, would anyone behave in a good moral fashion? What is to prevent deviant behavior, if there is no god? These questions are the main basis for the Christian argument which maintains that atheists are untrustworthy, immoral or amoral, social deviants and therefore lesser human beings. Some have gone as far to say that atheists are unpatriotic, un-American and do not even have the right to be acknowledged as citizens of the United States.

I believe that morality is just being obedient to God and his requests. The Bible teaches us to be moral because the obedience to God glorifies him who created us and obedience is accepted by God as worship (Romans 12:1). As humans and as Christians, we must strive to meet God’s standards or mortality in all that we do in our everyday lives to ensure we please him.

All moral arguments for the existence of God work on the principle that we all have a shared sense of morality. Despite cultural differences, broadly speaking, humans worldwide have a vague idea of what is right and what is wrong; a moral argument for the existence of God would say that this mutual understanding is proof of God's existence.

James Rachels' article, "Morality is Not Relative," is incorrect, he provides arguments that cannot logically be applied or have no bearing on the statement of contention. His argument, seems to favor some of the ideas set forth in cultural relativism, but he has issues with other parts that make cultural relativism what it is.

The final argument for normative ethical subjectivism is the atheism argument. The atheism argument's premise states if ethics are objective, then God must exist. Followed by the premise that God does not exist. Structuring the conclusion ethics is not objective. Since it cannot be proven through science and nature that God does exist, it validates the atheist argument. But lets suppose God does exist and he does issue commands on that is morally right and wrong. This brings up the euthyphro question, which asks are actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because

As aforementioned, God is the foundation of values in Christian theism, but for naturalists, values are created by human beings. The problem is, without any transcendent standard of good or bad, how does one derive what “ought” to be from what “is”? Naturalists believe that all people have a sense of moral values acquired by intuition and authority or picked up from their environment. For them, good action is the action that promotes harmony and survival within the community. This is the view held by postmodernists as well, where society determines what social good ought to be. Ethics thus becomes autonomous and situational rejecting the need for any theological sanction.

The Rachels and Vuletic all conclude that morality is independent of religion. From the Vuletic article it stated, “The only reason I can fathom for why believers might think transcendental moral facts are better explained by theism than by atheism is because--speaking from personal experience as a former Christian--believers have been psychologically conditioned to feel that a complete explanation has been offered for anything and everything whenever someone says the word "God.” I agree with this statement. I do not believe that morality is dependent on religion. I believe that the only reason why people believe this is because believing in God allows them to follow what he stands for. I do not believe that God or even “God’s laws” can be followed by everyone and demonstrate what is right from wrong. Even though I am not a religious person, I can see why this would make life easier. Your views are justified by God, because you are follows the beliefs of God.

Morality must be objectively derived because (1) the concepts of good and morality exist; (2) cultures differ regarding certain moral actions, thus there is the need to discover which is right but cultures are similar regarding the existence of and need for morality; (3) relativism is not logical and does not work, (4) for moral principles to be legitimate and consistent, they must be derived external to human societies. Otherwise morality is merely one person's choice or feeling, not an understanding of truth; and (5) the existence of religion. People recognize a moral aspect to the worship of deity; even if the deity does not exist, we still perceive a need for morality to be decreed by Someone

Recently, a commentor recommended a book. I looked at the book on amazon, and the book's premise was that even atheists use Christian morals. I have heard this argument before. The premise is usually a variant on the idea that people, here anyways, grow up in a largely Christian society, and this is where atheists get their morals. Thus, an atheist's moral values originate from Christianity.

We have demonstrated that our morality does not come from a physical place, by breaking down each argument as to the basis of good and evil. Yet, Atheists will exclaim our actions are purposelessly based, in other words “people do things just because” (Henderson, 2013). This does not sound like a thorough explanation as to where morality comes into the actions of someone. There must be a standard that creates a vision for someone to want to do something. The will and desire for one to act must come from some place. In order for you to want to help or do something good for someone, do you not need a basis for what good is? Without understanding good and evil, morality cannot exist because one cannot comprehend the heart of moral law. Meaning there must be a moral law foundation of which to compare all acts and that these actions are purposeful and have an ending. Incidentally, “it is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of objective moral principles somehow floating around on their own, apart from any persons.” (Kreeft, 1994, p. 22). The weakest argument is convincing someone of something they cannot see. The moral argument alone does not cover all aspects of proving God’s

Also, most theists would admit that it would be hard to accept this kind of moral foundation, as it gives things like murder and charity no moral value. If these values have no reasonable basis, why should we follow them in the first place? It seems quite fair to not follow these morals, and seems unfair to punish people for not following them, especially in a world where rape and murder were promoted. The next problem is the difficulty in knowing God’s commands.

For a theist, it is altogether natural to suppose that in some way the human moral sensitivity derives from God. The Bible starts off with the story of Adam and Eve eating of the fruit of ``the tree of

Dr. Craig’s syllogism, upon initial inspection, does appear cogent. If the major premise of his argument — if there is no god there exists no moral object values, is accepted — then it would be only logical to accept the attached conclusion. But should objective morality be grounded in biblical tenements and heavenly decrees? In Plato’s dialogue, The Euthyphro, a question arises. Is an action considered moral because God decrees it or does

I agree with Audi because the beauty of moral knowledge is that it is different for everyone yet somehow for many it is quite similar even if they’re generations apart or worlds apart. Moral knowledge may come from an idea, like the idea of hitting an innocent dog is absolutely horrible and no one should ever hurt a dog no matter what by simply just thinking about it or through previous ideas with empirical evidence, such as past observations, basically like rationalism.