Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[bluskool]

I just finished watching this debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan on the topic "Is God Necessary for Morality?" I have seen a lot of debates with Craig and I think this is probably the only debate where his opponent outperformed him.

Kagan does this by arguing that objective morality can exist without God. This is a position that I am back and forth on, but as a debate tactic, it really seemed to work out well. The problem with denying the existence of objective morality is that every time a moral statement is made (for example, pointing out the horrors committed in the name of Christianity or immoral commandments in the bible), Craig responds by saying that the person has no basis for saying that something is right or wrong because it's just a social convention and not "really" right or wrong. Saying that objective morality exists and being able to provide a decent defense for it, on the other hand, seems to open up a lot of arguments against God that would have an emotional appeal to an audience (For example, if God exists he seems indifferent to a great deal of needless suffering).

A third possibility would be to say that objective morality cannot be based on God even if it does exist (Euthyphro dilemma).

So, I am curious, if you were in a debate with a theist, which tactic do you think would be most effective and why?

Also, if anyone has seen the debate, I would like to know what you thought in general.

 

[Piscivore]

Kagan does this by arguing that objective morality can exist without God.

Did he give any specific examples?

The problem with denying the existence of objective morality is that every time a moral statement is made (for example, pointing out the horrors committed in the name of Christianity or immoral commandments in the bible), Craig responds by saying that the person has no basis for saying that something is right or wrong because it's just a social convention and not "really" right or wrong.

Are you sure you phrased that right? That all moral statements can be shown to be "social convention" seems to be a problem of postulating an objective morality, not denying one.

Saying that objective morality exists and being able to provide a decent defense for it,

I'd just be happy with a decent, unequivocal example of one.

So, I am curious, if you were in a debate with a theist, which tactic do you think would be most effective and why?

Effective to what end?

 

[Psi Baba]

I don't have a problem with saying that "objective" morality is a social convention, in that it is a humanistic morality, and therefore still does not require god. In the rest of the natural world, morality does not apply. Animals do not act based on a moral code. So morality requires sentience, but not a divine being (arguments about the origin of our sentience notwithstanding). It requires empathy; an ability to recognize or perceive how others would respond to circumstances, not just oneself. The notion of do unto others as you would have them do unto you was not divinely inspired. It's a trait that has evolved in humans which allowed civilization to happen. If you think about it, the statement is rather ironic coming from theistic people, since they were really putting down in writing (we don't even know if Jesus ever said it, but it was useful to ascribe it to him) the very basic kernel of absolute morality. That statement alone, used as moral code, eliminates the need for god.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

//The problem with denying the existence of objective morality is that every time a moral statement is made (for example, pointing out the horrors committed in the name of Christianity or immoral commandments in the bible), Craig responds by saying that the person has no basis for saying that something is right or wrong because it's just a social convention and not "really" right or wrong. //

Which also proves Craig wrong. The guy basically debunks his own claim using his own argument which is why he never wins any debates.

He claims morality is objective, but when presented with immoral behavior on the part of his magical deity, he claims it's not objective. Completely contradicting himself.

 

[I Ratant]

Ya gotta define your terms.
There is no "moral" behavior in nature.
The weasel that killed my 12 chickens and only snacked off a couple was being a weasel, and not concerned at all about what it was doing.
Do animals routinely mate with nest siblings?
The Pharoahs that married their sisters wouldn't do it any way!
Sometime between the weasel and the Pharoah most folks decided that marrying one's sister led to problems.

 

[bluskool]

Did he give any specific examples?

I'll do my best to paraphrase. He basically defines right action as not hurting people and helping people, and he defines wrong action as hurting people and not helping. He acknowledges that this is a limited definition and there are exceptions, but it will due as a working definition for an argument since going over the nuances would be impossible in the time it takes to debate. He then asks, are actions "really" right or "really" wrong on atheism (basically, are they factual). He says yes they are because there are "reasons" to act in such a way that helps and doesn't harm others. He then asks if the reasons have a foundation outside of opinion and says yes. Here is where the meat of the argument comes in.
He lays out the contractarian view. He says moral rules are the rules we would give to each other if we were all reasoning perfectly behind the veil of ignorance and they we ought to agree to this social contract because it is the most reasonable thing to do.
Actually, now that I look at it, the last paragraph is basically it and I could have skipped writing the first one, but I'll go ahead and leave it since it is the general way he laid it out.

Are you sure you phrased that right? That all moral statements can be shown to be "social convention" seems to be a problem of postulating an objective morality, not denying one.

Yeah, that's what I mean. Craig would say that they have no objective basis for making a moral statement because, on their view, morality is just an evolved social convention. That's the argument a person denying objective morality faces (that's what I meant by problem).

Effective to what end?

Rhetorically I suppose. If your goal was to try to "win" the debate in the eyes of the audience (as much as that is possible, given that most people are already decided), which strategy do you think would work best?

 

[bluskool]

I don't have a problem with saying that "objective" morality is a social convention, in that it is a humanistic morality, and therefore still does not require god. In the rest of the natural world, morality does not apply. Animals do not act based on a moral code. So morality requires sentience, but not a divine being (arguments about the origin of our sentience notwithstanding).

That came up in the debate. You gave the basic answer that Kagan did. Animals aren't subjected to morality because they don't have the capacity to understand right and wrong behavior rationally. But saying it is a social convention is basically saying that there is nothing "really" wrong with torturing and raping a child, it's just something that most people don't like. It's like belching at the dinner table. Socially uncouth, but nothing more. At least, that is how Craig attacks it and that attack is very effective because it has a great deal of emotional appeal to the audience.

 

[bluskool]

//The problem with denying the existence of objective morality is that every time a moral statement is made (for example, pointing out the horrors committed in the name of Christianity or immoral commandments in the bible), Craig responds by saying that the person has no basis for saying that something is right or wrong because it's just a social convention and not "really" right or wrong. //

Which also proves Craig wrong. The guy basically debunks his own claim using his own argument which is why he never wins any debates.

He claims morality is objective, but when presented with immoral behavior on the part of his magical deity, he claims it's not objective. Completely contradicting himself.

No, Craig is saying that on the other person's view it is just a social convention so they have no grounds to say the actions of his god are wrong in any way. But Craig does believe in objective moral values, so technically would have to say that the actions of his god are wrong. His escape is always to say that you don't have to believe in biblical inerrancy and god could have a morally sufficient reason for his actions that we don't understand. Terrible argument I know. But I don't think Craig looses debates, and it's not because he has good arguments. It just seems like he always ends up with debate opponents that aren't prepared to rebut his arguments. They always go off in a different direction like they are the only person on stage or are just poorly organized in their presentation. He's also a walking dictionary of rhetorical one-liners.

 

[bluskool]

Ya gotta define your terms.
There is no "moral" behavior in nature.
The weasel that killed my 12 chickens and only snacked off a couple was being a weasel, and not concerned at all about what it was doing.
Do animals routinely mate with nest siblings?
The Pharoahs that married their sisters wouldn't do it any way!
Sometime between the weasel and the Pharoah most folks decided that marrying one's sister led to problems.

So, would you agree that there is nothing objectively wrong about raping and torturing a small child? It's just not socially advantageous?

Even if its true that objective morality doesn't exist, it does make it a difficult position to agree to when put in those terms.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No, Craig is saying that on the other person's view it is just a social convention so they have no grounds to say the actions of his god are wrong in any way. But Craig does believe in objective moral values, so technically would have to say that the actions of his god are wrong. His escape is always to say that you don't have to believe in biblical inerrancy and god could have a morally sufficient reason for his actions that we don't understand. Terrible argument I know. But I don't think Craig looses debates, and it's not because he has good arguments. It just seems like he always ends up with debate opponents that aren't prepared to rebut his arguments. They always go off in a different direction like they are the only person on stage or are just poorly organized in their presentation. He's also a walking dictionary of rhetorical one-liners.

Again, which DISPROVES his objective morality. I have yet to see Craig make a successful debate. Many people seem to judge by who speaks with the most confidence and it just happens that Kagan spoke with as much confidence as Craig.

He contradicts himself, but because he does so with great confidence people think he somehow made a valid and winning argument. But he doesn't.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Also, how does Craig determine that his god is moral?

 

[plumjam]

So, would you agree that there is nothing objectively wrong about raping and torturing a small child? It's just not socially advantageous?

Even if its true that objective morality doesn't exist, it does make it a difficult position to agree to when put in those terms.

Bluskool, kudos for a good OP (first time I've heard anyone hear say Craig wins most of his debates ) and for following up the responses with good points.

I agree with you.
Let's take the example of an unconscious (vegetative state) terminally ill 2 year old without living family or friends.
Would it be morally ok to allow 1,000 paedophiles to line up and butt**** the baby before it died (while it was thus still warm and more pleasurable for them)?
Or would there be something objectively morally wrong with that?

I don't believe the social contract approach would have much to say on the matter. In the contract approach if you were the baby you'd be terminally unaware of what was being done to you. Yet I think every non sociopathic and/or sick paedophilic human being would rightly believe such activity was wrong regardless of contractual/experiential consequences.

 

[bluskool]

Again, which DISPROVES his objective morality. I have yet to see Craig make a successful debate. Many people seem to judge by who speaks with the most confidence and it just happens that Kagan spoke with as much confidence as Craig.

He contradicts himself, but because he does so with great confidence people think he somehow made a valid and winning argument. But he doesn't.

You're probably right about the confidence thing, but I am having trouble understanding what you mean by "disproves objective morality." How so in that case?

 

[bluskool]

Also, how does Craig determine that his god is moral?

It doesn't matter for his argument. The question is whether or not objective morals exist, not whether or not we know what they are or can know what they are. It's the difference between ontology and epistemology.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You're probably right about the confidence thing, but I am having trouble understanding what you mean by "disproves objective morality." How so in that case?

Well if people have subjective opinions on it, it's not very objective. If it were truly objective then there would be no disagreement over it. Even the notion that people who believe in Craig's invisible friend have objective morals and people who don't are using subjective morals is a subjective claim. I mean after all even the opinion on morals is a bit of a moral issue. Which even Craig would have to admit is subjective.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Maybe a better way to approach Craig would be to ask him for an example of an objective moral. But still, to me if any moral can be subjective then the whole thing falls apart.

 

[bluskool]

Bluskool, kudos for a good OP (first time I've heard anyone hear say Craig wins most of his debates ) and for following up the responses with good points.

I agree with you.
Let's take the example of an unconscious (vegetative state) terminally ill 3 year old without living family or friends.
Would it be morally ok to allow 1,000 paedophiles to line up and butt**** the baby before it died (while it was thus still warm and more pleasurable for them)?
Or would there be something objectively morally wrong with that?

I don't believe the social contract approach would have much to say on the matter. In the contract approach if you were the baby you'd be terminally unaware of what was being done to you. Yet I think every non sociopathic and/or sick paedophilic human being would rightly believe such activity was wrong regardless of contractual/experiential consequences.

Thanks for the kind words.
Kagan does sort of address that (not the example, but the broader point) by saying that the values are arrived at from behind a veil of ignorance. IOW, if you were perfectly rational and unaware of whether or not you are the baby, you would say it is wrong. You might also be able to argue that the baby is harmed because it's dignity is taken away or society is harmed because pedophilia is being encouraged. I am not entirely sure that second objection works. I have to think about that.

 

[I Ratant]

So, would you agree that there is nothing objectively wrong about raping and torturing a small child? It's just not socially advantageous?

Even if its true that objective morality doesn't exist, it does make it a difficult position to agree to when put in those terms.

.
Objectively, with no awareness or intent other than survival, that occurs all the time.
Ravens raid other bird's nests for eggs... as do raccoons.
Young cowbirds hatching from eggs laid in other bird's nests will push the true offspring of the bird out of the nest to their deaths.
There's no sexual intent, just survival.
When one is aware of one's actions, then that behavior is repressed in most of us.
Raping and torturing children is with us today, in the better educated sections of society, by people who teach morality.
Go figure.

 

[bluskool]

Well if people have subjective opinions on it, it's not very objective. If it were truly objective then there would be no disagreement over it. Even the notion that people who believe in Craig's invisible friend have objective morals and people who don't are using subjective morals is a subjective claim. I mean after all even the opinion on morals is a bit of a moral issue. Which even Craig would have to admit is subjective.

Agreement isn't necessary for objectivity. For example, if I said that 2 + 2 = 5 and you said it = 4, we wouldn't conclude that arithmetic is subjective. When two people disagree about morals, it might be the case that one person is just wrong (if morals are objective that is).
Also, the further you break it down, eventually you would indeed have to arrive at some unprovable axioms and you could argue that those are just opinions. That's the case with anything, even math. We aren't looking for certainty when it comes to objectivity, and that's a good thing too because I don't think certainty about anything is ever possible.

 

[plumjam]

Thanks for the kind words.
Kagan does sort of address that (not the example, but the broader point) by saying that the values are arrived at from behind a veil of ignorance. IOW, if you were perfectly rational and unaware of whether or not you are the baby, you would say it is wrong. You might also be able to argue that the baby is harmed because it's dignity is taken away or society is harmed because pedophilia is being encouraged. I am not entirely sure that second objection works. I have to think about that.

Cheers

Though it's not entirely your position, what I don't understand is why there should be, or what is the moral origin (and power) of, a veil of ignorance?

I think Craig would profit from examining this and then attacking it.
I watched the debate, but don't think I saw Kagan say from whence this veil of ignorance would originate. In naturalistic terms it never would.
So the veil is an imaginary argumentational entity based on the prior existence of consciousness, intelligence.... and...get this... objective morality
The latter because to say that one's own self interest is universally of value (i.e. would be for every moral being everywhere) necessarily implies objective value.