The moral argument – a modern approach

From all arguments that prove the existence of God, the moral argument is the easiest, the strongest, the most direct and the most incontestable one.

But its presentation and usage — or, it’s better to say, how believers do not use it makes me despondent. The most up-to-date and perhaps the most successful presentation of the moral argument we meet in the book of the famous apologet of modern Сhristianity Clive Staples Lewis “Mere Christianity”. That is where I firstly learned and understood it. After that I began to use it in the discussions with atheists. The experience of these discussions, challenges of modern science and society make me to create new, clear for understanding and readable formula of this argument with having a single meaning and direct indication to the fact of God’s existence.

That’s why I introduce the new variant of formulating the moral argument.

As a real fact, there are moral and ethical laws of behaviour among people.

These are good: decency, honesty, faithfullness, love, charity, kindness, unselfishness, incorruptibility etc. Evil is violation of all these laws: meanness, injustice, lie, betrayal, hatred, cruelty, gloating delight, bribery etc. It’s important to refine that evil is not an independent law of behaviour, it is a violation of good laws.

Firstly these laws are absolute and objective.

Thanks to conscience all people know them, moreover with the basement, with foundation of these laws everybody agrees, despite the variety in subordinate questions. For example: everybody knows that you should be faithful to your wife (husband) and that treason to your wife (husband), especially when she (he) is in a hard position, is condemned everywhere and in all times. Though in different historic periods and in different cultures polygamy or having concubines or cohabitation (living together) without formal marriage is allowed.

And secondly: these laws are laws of behaviour which show us (people) how to behave, so these are laws of behaviour for rational creatures.

It means these are the laws which address directly to our mind. It’s like similar laws that were made by people. For example: road rules are laws of behaviour on the road. As all laws that were created by people these laws can be broken, and we meet such cases everywhere. But thanks to conscience, the breaker of moral laws knows that he does wrong and that breaking of the law is evil.

The fact that these laws are rules of behaviour for rational creatures and that they address to our mind means that they are established by a rational Creature, Individual.

And they couldn’t appear occasionally, because only the other rational mind can explain our mind how to behave. These are not instincts and not subconscious impulses.

The fact that these laws are objective and absolute for all people means that these are laws of nature, laws of universe arrangement.

And it means that these laws couldn’t be invented by people. Because imagine the situation if for example these laws were invented by people, then other people could invent other moral laws, and in such a situation who is right? Neither of these laws couldn’t pretend on objectivity and absoluteness. For example road rules, in different countries people can invent different rules to their own taste and colour. For instance in the most part of the world there is a right-hand drive, but there are countries with left-hand drive, so here everything is comparatively. But with the moral laws everything is otherwise: try to tell that faithfullness is bad and betrayal is good and you will understand immediately that it’s wrong. We know exactly that objectively and absolutely everywhere faithfullness is good and betryal is bad. And we can’t change it.

But then who could invent such laws of behaviour that are objective and absolute and that are the part of universe arrangement? – Only the Highest Rational Being, a certain All-powerful Creature who invented the whole world, the Universe and all people.

To say in other words – the God Creator!

P.S. in this article only the formulating of moral argument is represented. In my next articles I will show my convictions more fundamental and detalied. I promise nice surprises for believers and full ruin for atheists.

2 thoughts on “The moral argument – a modern approach
  1. Caleb Smith

    I think you make one mistake. You discount the possibility that we could simply pass off all morality as simply a psychological product of evolutionary processes which were naturally selected because they contribute to the overall success of the human species. I think, of course, that this solution would be hogwash and utterly abhorrent, since it would mean there is no real sense in which morality is “binding.” Yet even C. S. Lewis admits that this position, the total dismissal of morality as something real objectively rather than purely subjectively, cannot be disproved, although it can be dismissed. Nothing in your argument really refutes the claim that *all* moral beliefs and feelings are illusions. There are just few people willing to take such a ridiculous and radical step.

    1. eugenelester Post author

      Because it was in this article that I did not give evidence of the objectivity of morality. Proof of the objectivity of morality is a separate big topic, which is difficult to invest in one article. To prove the objectivity of morality, I came up with a moral thought experiment that everyone can put on themselves to make sure of the reality and the objective nature of the moral sense. Here link to moral experiment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>