Here's a quick challenge for all Christian moral realists out there who honestly find the moral argument for God's existence compelling.
- Please name for me a single example of your favorite objective moral value or duty.
- Prove it.
Seriously. Prove it. You people love to spend hours upon hours bragging about your absolute
moral foundations and the objectivity of good and evil, so in theory
this should be trivially easy. For example, perhaps you think that killing babies is objectively wrong. Okay, fine. Prove the truth of that proposition: "It is objectively wrong to kill babies." What axioms and rules of inference do you exercise in order to arrive at that conclusion? What truth assignment functions did you use and why? Because honestly, I don't think any one of you have ever once tried to seriously apply a single instance of your own moral philosophy. So put your money where your mouth is and actually demonstrate moral objectivity in action. Don't just assert that objective morals exist - prove it.
Now before you even think about submitting a response, there are several pitfalls you need to be aware of. Starting with...
Now before you even think about submitting a response, there are several pitfalls you need to be aware of. Starting with...
Number 1:
Personal intuition and personal experiences are subjective. In fact, that is literally the most subjective form of proof you could possibly offer. Just because murdering babies "feels" really wrong to you, that does not make it objectively so. What feels absolutely wrong to you could just as easily feel absolutely right to me, and vice versa. So what exactly can you appeal to that extends beyond our personal, subjective preferences in order to settle any dispute? Again, we're looking for a proof; not your naive gut reaction.
Number 2:
Human consensus is still subjective. I don't care if a billion people around the world all unanimously agree that killing babies is wrong. A billion subjective evaluations does not prove objectivity. Five hundred years ago, societies from around the world all happily assumed that slavery was perfectly okay, even though today we all tend to think it's evil. So for all we know, maybe killing babies is perfectly good, and everyone on Earth is simply mistaken to think it's evil. Who exactly are you to claim otherwise? What is your proof?
Number 3:
Christian moral realism is antithetical to consequentialism. You are therefore not allowed to make any appeal to the positive or negative consequences of our actions with respect to the health, happiness, or well-being of human social groups. That's my moral philosophy, not yours. You rejected that the moment you became a Christian moral realist.
Personal intuition and personal experiences are subjective. In fact, that is literally the most subjective form of proof you could possibly offer. Just because murdering babies "feels" really wrong to you, that does not make it objectively so. What feels absolutely wrong to you could just as easily feel absolutely right to me, and vice versa. So what exactly can you appeal to that extends beyond our personal, subjective preferences in order to settle any dispute? Again, we're looking for a proof; not your naive gut reaction.
Number 2:
Human consensus is still subjective. I don't care if a billion people around the world all unanimously agree that killing babies is wrong. A billion subjective evaluations does not prove objectivity. Five hundred years ago, societies from around the world all happily assumed that slavery was perfectly okay, even though today we all tend to think it's evil. So for all we know, maybe killing babies is perfectly good, and everyone on Earth is simply mistaken to think it's evil. Who exactly are you to claim otherwise? What is your proof?
Number 3:
Christian moral realism is antithetical to consequentialism. You are therefore not allowed to make any appeal to the positive or negative consequences of our actions with respect to the health, happiness, or well-being of human social groups. That's my moral philosophy, not yours. You rejected that the moment you became a Christian moral realist.
Number 4:
Don't even think about mentioning the word "God" in your proof. Ignoring the fact that God is literally a subjective agent, by definition, the whole point of the moral argument is to prove God's existence in the first place. You therefore don't get to use God to prove the objectivity of any moral values because the existence of objective moral values is already supposed to serve as your proof of God. So unless you want to reduce the moral argument to a vapid, circular joke, then this is not a form of argument you get to use.
There you have it, guys. Show us what you got! Prove the objectivity of just one moral value or duty.
Well? I'm waiting...
Well? I'm waiting...
6 comments:
Hi AntiCitizenX.
I quoted your challenge and briefly replied to it on my blog. I tried to reply here in the comments section but crashed into the character limit. I would have liked to have taken more time and responded more fully, but my daughter started vomiting everywhere, so this will have to do =(
A Brief Response to AntiCitizenX's Challenge for Christian Moral Realists
what if we're atheist moral realist? are we not allowed to respond?
Acording to platonism the good is an abstract object. Acording to plato everything in this world is a reflection of platonic forms, and platonic forms are perfect. Everything in this world is imperfect. So something is opjectively moraly good, if it is like the platonic form 'the good'. I don't really know what it means for something like 'the good' to exist, but i don't understand how something can be somewhere and no where at the same time either. I just have to exept that as true because experts in the field of quantum mechanics have discovered that. This is also true for platonism, i might not understand it, but filosophers like plato have somehow proven that platonic forms exist so than it must be true. So to answer your challenge, morality is opjective because there is a platonic form called the good which is an objective standard for morality.
This challenge can't be serious. You must be trolling? I mean you want Christians to respond, but you immediately preclude Christians from mentioning God in their argument for moral realism? "Don't even think about mentioning the word 'God' in your proof." Makes no sense. That's like asking a driver to teach you how to drive without ever using a car. God is fundamental to the Christian's belief system (even if we don't agree with Christians). However, if this is supposed to be trolling, then good job trolling Christians! It's hilarious! :)
Maybe killing you isn't evil. What objective proof do you have, (and why should someone respect it?)
You've made a fairly powerful case that no one should be held accountable for personally harming you. (After all, no moral is objective or absolute.)
But, because this country has laws based on values that are hundreds of years in the making, via the effect of the Gospel in Europe and here, you apparently are content to enjoy the milk, while at the same time determined to destroy the cow.
How long do you think you can keep this up, and what ultimately is your end game?
Nils
This post isn't directed to Christians in general, it's directed to specifically Christian moral realists who think the moral argument is compelling. The moral argument for the existence of God is as follows.
P1: If objective moral values exist, then God exists
P2: Objective moral values exist
C1: Therefore God exists
The point behind excluding God as proof of the existence of an objective moral is to prevent the two arguments from becoming circular. If the person undertaking this challenge can't break the circle with an outside argument, then the moral argument is no longer compelling to anyone who isn't a Christian moral realist, who presumably already believes in God.
Post a Comment