1

The Moral argument for God's existence as used by William Lane Craig is:

  1. If God doesn't exist, objective moral values do not exist.
  2. Objective moral values do exist.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

Now, I agree with second premise. But for the first premise, according to me, moral values collectively are an essence.

Now, my question in the first premise, theist argues that we need a grounding for morality, but do we need a grounding for morality? Look, we know strong versions of PSR (principle of sufficient reason) fail because of BCCF. The version of PSR that I generally believe is applicable to thing and clearly an essence is not a thing; thus we need no reason for existence (thus foundation) of moral values.

We can say moral essence exists without any reason.

Please do not consider the problem of moral epistemology with this view, only about moral ontology.

  • 1
    What does BCCF stand for? Do you have a reference for Craig's position? Welcome! – Frank Hubeny May 22 at 12:23
  • 1
    Even if morality requires grounding, God is not the only option, karma can do it, for example, or even utility. And there are many non-theist versions of moral realism. There are also doubts that God can provide the needed grounding due to the Euthyphro dilemma. But it is unclear what sort of answer you are looking for, the title question is clearly controversial and unanswerable. Is there some particular perspective you want it addressed from? – Conifold May 22 at 12:27
  • Frank, BCCF stands for Big Conjuctive Contigent Fact. for more information, read any source which has violations of PSR. – Moti Rattan Gupta May 23 at 6:19
  • Conifold, I understood, you are saying there can be another ground for moral realism other than God. But what I am really trying to ask is, if a foundation is necessary for objective moral values. In crude terms( but not exact, as I treat moral values as essence, not some rules), can't morality be a brute fact with no explanation at all( as the PSR I use is applicable to things, not essence)? – Moti Rattan Gupta May 23 at 6:22
  • You agree with "Objective moral values do exist"? How?How can the objectivity be proven? – tkruse May 30 at 11:24
1

Although Craig's argument is logically valid, it doesn't follow from it that it's true, for he still has to prove his premises. This syllogism alone doesn't add anything relevant in terms of philosophical knowledge.

Anyway, I don't see how you could defend the existence of some objective morality without grounding it.

I here assume "moral" as the set of norms of conduct by which we can solve conflicts. Conflict is here defined as the impossibility of two or more people using the same scarce resource, at the same time, for mutually exclusive ends.

These norms must be such that if we follow them, no conflict would ever arise.

Therefore, if we have a conflict, the way we can peacefully solve it is via argumentation and thus, by recurring to a justification based on this set of norms. In order for us to do that, this set of norms must be grounded and objectively demonstrable.

If morality is not grounded, then there's no way we can argue and justify our actions in terms of it. Morality would be subjective and we would solve our disputes by means of force.

Therefore, morality requires grounding in order to be justified and solve conflicts.

Argumentation ethics by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Frank Van Dun is a good defense of objective moral grounding which doesn't appeal to gods.

  • I was saying that there is an objective moral essence which is not necessarily a code of conduct but simply virtues like helping an innocent by lying to corrupt authorities is good, while in moral law, lying would be definitely bad. I was arguing, why do we need grounding for objective moral essence, in sense can't we say it is just there. – Moti Rattan Gupta May 31 at 6:35
  • I disagree on " if morality is not grounded, then there's no way we can argue and justify our actions" because I am saying some specific moral essence exists but it is just there like if no. 1or 2 exists, they are just there, there is no explanation required( don't think I believe 1,2 exists, its just an example). I agree there will be a practical issue with what is right or wrong( on how to know it), but right now I want you to focus only on moral ontology( whether they exists or not), on that respect, I think it is perfectly feasible for objective moral essence to exist like a brute fact. – Moti Rattan Gupta May 31 at 6:38
  • @MotiRattanGupta My moral arguments are based on a priori descriptive propositions, thus I don't see morality as made up, but rather, as discovered. So, yes, I agree with you that it exists like a brute fact, but I don't see how that would imply morality doesn't need a grounding. In fact, I think this is the conclusion we can take: if morality exists as a brute fact, it is already grounded. We are not required to ground it. By argumentation, we simply recognize and demonstrate its grounding. – Caio Costa May 31 at 6:51
  • "I was saying that there is an objective moral essence which is not necessarily a code of conduct but simply virtues" -> It could be the case. But we can't just say there is such thing without providing evidence for it, can we? I'm not saying this is not the case, I just don't see why you'd say it if you have no intention to go ahead and demonstrate your claim. "like helping an innocent by lying to corrupt authorities is good, while in moral law, lying would be definitely bad" -> Depends on the moral framework you're considering. – Caio Costa May 31 at 6:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.