Argument from morality

Part of a series on the

Philosophy of religion

Religious concepts Afterlife Apophatism Cataphatism Eschatology Enlightenment Intelligent design Liberation Miracle Mysticism Religious belief Reincarnation Religious faith Scripture (religious text) Soul Spirit Theological veto

God Conceptions * Anthropopathism Brahman Demiurge Divinely simple Form of the Good Holy Spirit Maltheist Occasionalism Pandeist Personal Process-theological Summum bonum Supreme Being Unmoved mover Existence Arguments for * Beauty Christological Trilemma Resurrection Consciousness Cosmological kalām contingency metaphysical Degree Desire Experience Existential choice Fine-tuned universe Love Mathematics Miracles Morality Mystical idealism Natural law Necessary existent Seddiqin Nyayakusumanjali Occam's Razor Ontological Gödel Modal Anselm Meinongian Mulla Sadra Spinoza Pascal's wager Proper basis / Reformed epistemology Reason Responses to evil Teleological Intelligent design Watchmaker Junkyard Trademark Transcendental Arguments against * 747 gambit Atheist's wager Creator of God Evil Evil God Fate of the unlearned Free will God of the gaps Hell Hitchens's razor Incompatible properties Inconsistency No limits fallacy Nonbelief Noncognitivism Omnipotence paradox Poor design Russell's teapot By religion * Abrahamic Baháʼí Christianity Islam Judaism Mormonism Mandaeism Buddhism Hinduism Jainism Sikhism Wicca

Theories of religion Acosmism Agnosticism Animism Antireligion Atheism Creationism Dharmism Deism Divine command theory Dualism Esotericism Exclusivism Existentialism atheist Christian Feminist Fundamentalism Gnosticism Henotheism Humanism Christian religious secular Inclusivism Monism Monotheism Mysticism Naturalism humanistic metaphysical religious New Age Nondualism Nontheism Pandeism Panentheism Pantheism Perennialism Polytheism Process Secular Shrine Theory Shendao shejiao Spiritualism Shamanism Taoic Theism Transcendentalism

Philosophers of religion Ancient and medieval * Anselm of Canterbury Augustine of Hippo Avicenna Averroes Boethius Gaudapada Al-Ghazali Gaunilo of Marmoutiers Pico della Mirandola Heraclitus King James VI and I Marcion of Sinope Maimonides Adi Shankara Thomas Aquinas William of Ockham Early modern * Augustin Calmet René Descartes Blaise Pascal Desiderius Erasmus Baruch Spinoza Nicolas Malebranche Gottfried W Leibniz William Wollaston Thomas Chubb David Hume Baron d'Holbach Immanuel Kant Johann G Herder 19th-century * Friedrich Schleiermacher Karl C F Krause Georg W F Hegel Thomas Carlyle William Whewell Ludwig Feuerbach Søren Kierkegaard Karl Marx Albrecht Ritschl Afrikan Spir Usman dan Fodio Ernst Haeckel W K Clifford Friedrich Nietzsche Harald Høffding William James Vladimir Solovyov Ernst Troeltsch Rudolf Otto Lev Shestov Ernst Cassirer Joseph Maréchal Contemporary * George Santayana Bertrand Russell Martin Buber Sergei Bulgakov René Guénon Paul Tillich Karl Barth Pavel Florensky Emil Brunner Rudolf Bultmann Gabriel Marcel Reinhold Niebuhr Charles Hartshorne Mircea Eliade Frithjof Schuon J. L. Mackie Walter Kaufmann Martin Lings Peter Geach George I Mavrodes William Alston Antony Flew Kurt Godel Graham Oppy J. L. Schellenberg Paul Draper William L Rowe Dewi Z Phillips Alvin Plantinga Anthony Kenny Nicholas Wolterstorff Richard Swinburne Robert Merrihew Adams Ravi Zacharias Peter van Inwagen Cornel West Loyal Rue Herman Philipse Kai Nielsen Jean-Luc Marion William Lane Craig Ali Akbar Rashad Yujin Nagasawa Alexander Pruss

Related topics Criticism of religion Ethics in religion Exegesis Faith and rationality History of religions Natural theology Religion and science Religious philosophy Theology

The argument from morality is an argument for the existence of God. Arguments from morality tend to be based on moral normativity or moral order. Arguments from moral normativity observe some aspect of morality and argue that God is the best or only explanation for it, concluding that God must therefore exist. Arguments from moral order are based on the assertion that moral order needs to exist in the universe. The argument from morality is noteworthy in that one cannot evaluate the soundness of the argument without attending to almost every important philosophical issue in meta-ethics.

Among the best known of this type of argument is that of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, who devised an argument from morality based on practical reason. Kant argued that the goal of humanity is to achieve perfect happiness and virtue (the summum bonum). He believed that an afterlife must be assumed to exist in order for the summum bonum to be possible. The existence of an afterlife must assume God exists. Rather than aiming to prove the existence of God, Kant was simply attempting to demonstrate that all moral thought requires the assumption that God exists. We are therefore entitled to make such an assumption, but only as a regulative principle rather than a constitutive one. (Such a principle can guide our actions, but it does not provide knowledge).

C. S. Lewis argues for the existence of God in a similar way in his book Mere Christianity, but he does not directly refer to it as the argument from morality. He argued that accepting the validity of human reason as a given must include accepting the validity of practical reason, which could not be valid without reference to a higher cosmic moral order which could not exist without a God to create and establish it. A related argument is one from conscience; John Henry Newman argued that the conscience supports the claim that objective moral truths exist because it drives people to act morally even when it is not in their own interest to do so. Newman argued that, because the conscience suggests the existence of objective moral truths, God must exist to give authority to these truths.

Contemporary defenders of the argument from morality are Graham Ward, Alister McGrath, and William Lane Craig.

General form

All variations of the argument from morality begin with an observation about moral thought or experiences and conclude with the existence of God. Some of these arguments propose moral facts which they claim evident through human experience, arguing that God is the best or only explanation. Other versions describe some end which humans should strive to attain which is only possible if God exists.

Many arguments from morality are based on moral normativity, which suggests that objective moral truths exist and require God's existence to give them authority. Often, they consider that morality seems to be binding – obligations are seen to convey more than just a preference, but imply that the obligation will stand, regardless of other factors or interests. For morality to be binding, God must exist. In its most general form, the argument from moral normativity is:

1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Some arguments from moral order suggest that morality is based on rationality and that this can only be the case if there is a moral order in the universe. The arguments propose that only the existence of God as orthodoxly conceived could support the existence of moral order in the universe, so God must exist. Alternative arguments from moral order have proposed that humans have an obligation to attain the perfect good of both happiness and moral virtue. They attest that whatever we are obliged to do must be possible, and achieving the perfect good of both happiness and moral virtue is only possible if a natural moral order exists. A natural moral order requires the existence of God as orthodoxly conceived, so God must exist.

Variations

Kant

Portrait of Immanuel Kant, who proposed an argument for the existence of God from morality

In his Critique of Pure Reason, German philosopher Immanuel Kant stated that no successful argument for God's existence arises from reason alone. For Kant, human reason is limited to knowledge of phenomena, or "things as they appear." It is not capable of knowing noumena, or things as they really are in themselves. Thus, it would not be possible for human reason to apprehend God.

Pure Reason and the Ontological Argument

Kant was a strong critic of the Ontological argument for God's existence. This argument dates back at least to Saint Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work, Proslogion (Discourse on the Existence of God). Anselm defines God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived," and argues that such a being must exist in the mind, even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. From this, he argues that if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality, because if it existed only in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible—one who exists both in mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality. Other variants would follow but the line of argument is that if God has all the most perfect attributes, but lacked being, then a more perfect being would necessarily exist - one that had all the perfect attributes and actually existed. Kant destroyed this argument with his observation that "Being is obviously not a real predicate..."

Practical Reason

While knowledge of the existence of God is barred to pure reason, in his Critique of Practical Reason he argued that, despite the failure of these arguments, practical reason, the type of reason which authorized moral judgments, requires that God's existence is assumed. Rather than proving the existence of God, Kant was attempting to demonstrate that all moral thought requires the assumption that God exists. Kant argued that humans are obliged to bring about the summum bonum, the two central aims of which are moral virtue and happiness, where happiness arises out of virtue.

For Kant, "ought implies can," which means:

For if the moral law commands that we ought to be better human beings now, it inescapably follows that we must be capable of being better human beings.

Now of course the action must be possible under natural conditions if the ought is directed to it; ...

So if the summum bonum is morally obligated, it must be possible to achievit. He accepted that it is not within the power of humans to bring the summum bonum about by themselves because we cannot ensure that virtue will always lead to happiness, so there must be a higher power who has the power to create an afterlife where virtue can be rewarded by happiness.

Critique

Philosopher G. H. R. Parkinson notes a common objection to Kant's argument: that what ought to be done does not necessarily entail that it is possible. He also argues that alternative conceptions of morality exist which do not rely on the assumptions that Kant makes – he cites utilitarianism as an example which does not require the summum bonum. Nicholas Everitt argues that much moral guidance is unattainable, such as the Biblical command to be Christ-like. He proposes that Kant's first two premises only entail that we must try to achieve the perfect good, not that it is actually attainable.

Argument from objective moral truths

Both theists and non-theists have accepted that the existence of objective moral truths might entail the existence of God. Scottish philosopher W. R. Sorley presented the argument as follows:

1. If morality is objective and absolute, God must exist.
2. Morality is objective and absolute.
3. Therefore, God must exist.

Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie also accepted that if objective moral truths exist they would warrant a supernatural explanation. His most widely known work, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, bluntly begins with the sentence "There are no objective values."

Evolutionary Naturalism

Many critics have challenged the second premise of this argument, by offering a biological and sociological account of the development of human morality which suggests that it is neither objective nor absolute. This account, supported by sociobiologist E. O. Wilson and philosopher Michael Ruse, proposes that the human experience of morality is a by-product of natural selection. Wilson argued that belief in God and the rituals of religion are products of evolution. Philosopher Mark D. Linville refers to this view as evolutionary naturalism. According to the theory, the human experience of moral obligations was the result of evolutionary pressures, which attached a sense of morality to human psychology because it was useful for moral development. This argument assumes that moral values do not exist independently of the human mind. Morality might be better understood as an evolutionary imperative in order to propagate genes and ultimately reproduce. No human society today advocates immorality, such as theft or murder, because it would undoubtedly lead to the end of that particular society and any chance for future survival of offspring. Scottish empiricist David Hume made a similar argument, that belief in objective moral truths is unwarranted and to discuss them is meaningless.

Because evolutionary naturalism proposes an empirical account of morality, it does not require morality to exist objectively. Linville is concerned that this view will lead to moral scepticism or antirealism. In analytic philosophy, anti-realism is the position that the truth of a statement rests on its demonstrability through internal logic mechanisms, such as the context principle or intuitionistic logic, in direct opposition to the realist notion that the truth of a statement rests on its correspondence to an external, independent reality. In anti-realism, this external reality is hypothetical and is not assumed.

Critique of Evolutionary Naturalism

C. S. Lewis argued that, if evolutionary naturalism is accepted, human morality cannot be described as absolute and objective because moral statements cannot be right or wrong. Despite this, Lewis argued, those who accept evolutionary naturalism still act as if objective moral truths exist, leading Lewis to reject naturalism as incoherent. As an alternative ethical theory, Lewis offered a form of divine command theory which equated God with goodness and treated goodness as an essential part of reality, thus asserting God's existence.

C.S. Lewis offered a popularized version of such an argument in a series of talks for the BBC during World War II. Later in his book Mere Christianity, Lewis argued that "conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver." In this highly influential book, Lewis revived the moral argument for the existence of God. By moving from the fact of human quarrels and the moral law that these presuppose, to the reality of God as the moral Lawgiver whose law people break, Lewis set forth a foundation not only for the existence of God, but for the message that "the Christians are talking about.... They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God."

Critique of Moral Objectivity

J. C. A. Gaskin challenges the first premise of the argument from moral objectivity, arguing that it must be shown why absolute and objective morality entails that morality is commanded by God, rather than simply a human invention. It could be the consent of humanity that gives it moral force, for example. American philosopher Michael Martin argues that it is not necessarily true that objective moral truths must entail the existence of God, suggesting that there could be alternative explanations. He argues that naturalism may be an acceptable explanation and, even if a supernatural explanation is necessary, it does not have to be God (polytheism is a viable alternative). Martin also argues that a non-objective account of ethics might be acceptable and challenges the view that a subjective account of morality would lead to moral anarchy.

William Lane Craig has argued for this form of the moral argument.

Argument from conscience

Portrait of John Henry Newman, who used the conscience as evidence of the existence of God

Affiliated with the argument from morality is the argument from conscience, associated with eighteenth-century bishop Joseph Butler and nineteenth-century cardinal John Henry Newman. Newman proposed that the conscience, as well as giving moral guidance, provides evidence of objective moral truths which must be supported by the divine. He argued that emotivism, the view in Analytic philosophy that claims ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes, is an inadequate explanation of the human experience of morality because people avoid acting immorally, even when it might be in their interests. Newman proposed that, to explain the conscience, God must exist.

Critique

British philosopher John Locke argued that moral rules cannot be established from conscience because the differences in people's consciences would lead to contradictions. Locke also noted that the conscience is influenced by "education, company, and customs of the country," a criticism mounted by J. L. Mackie, who argued that the conscience should be seen as an "introjection" of other people into an agent's mind. Michael Martin challenges the argument from conscience with a naturalistic account of conscience, arguing that naturalism, the belief that only natural laws operate in the universe, provides an adequate explanation for the conscience without the need for God's existence. He uses the example of the internalization by humans of social pressures, which leads to the fear of going against these norms. Even if a supernatural cause is required, he argues, it could be something other than God. This would mean that the phenomenon of the conscience is no more supportive of monotheism than polytheism.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Adams, Robert. The Virtue of Faith and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1987. ISBN 978-0195041460
• Allison, Gregg. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan. ISBN 978-0310230137
• Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed. revised. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN 978-0199541430
• Boniolo, Giovanni, and Gabriele De Anna. Evolutionary Ethics and Contemporary Biology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0521856294
• Boyd, Richard. Essays on Moral Realism. edited by Geoffery Sayre-McCord. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988. ISBN 978-0801495410
• Craig, William Lane, and J.P. Moreland. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. ISBN 978-1444350852
• Dummett, Michael. Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. ISBN 978-0674910768
• Everitt, Nicholas. Non-Existence of God. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2003. ISBN 978-0415301060
• Guyer, Paul. Kant. Milton Park, U.K.: Taylor & Francis, 2006. ISBN 978-0415283359
• Hare, John. The Moral Gap: Kantian Ethics, Human Limits, and God's Assistance. Oxford, U.K. Oxford University Press, 1996. ISBN 978-0198269571
• Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. edited and translated by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ISBN 0521354021
• Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason, 2nd. ed. Part I, Bk. II, Chap. V. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2015. ISBN 978-1107467057
• Kant, Immanuel. Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. London, U.K.: Macat Library, 2017. ISBN 978-1912128624
• Mackie, J.L. The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God. Chap. VI. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1982. ISBN 978-0198246824
• Martin, Michael. Atheism: A Philosophical Justification. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1992. ISBN 978-0877229438
• McSwain, Robert, and Michael Ward. The Cambridge Companion to C.S. Lewis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0521884136
• Oppy, Graham. Arguing About Gods. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0521863865
• Nicholls, C. S. (ed.). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1993. ISBN 0198652119
• Parkinson, G. H. R. An Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Milton Park, U.K.: Taylor & Francis, 1988. ISBN 978-0415003230
• Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Clarendon Press, 2004. ISBN 978-0199271689
• Taliaferro, Charles. A Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion. edited by Elsa J. Marty. London, U.K. and New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010. ISBN 978-1441111975
• Wilson, Edward O. On Human Nature. London, U.K.: Penguin Books, 1995. ISBN 0140245359

External links

All links retrieved February 26, 2025.

• "The Moral Argument," DrCraigVideos, Youtube.com, January 21, 2015.
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Argument from morality  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Argument from morality"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.