Ravi Zacharias believed that the moral argument is the most powerful case for God, and i happen to agree :-) It can be handy, I'm now chatting with a friend on Mere Christianity. (Please pray for God's light to shine in his heart)
C.S. Lewis observed that humans often argue. When we do, we appeal to some higher law to which the other party is accountable. (“I was here first, mister” or “Give me a piece of yours, I gave you mine”)
Our sense of right and wrong (hereafter, morality) does not only DESCRIBE human behavior, it PRESCRIBES what behavior we should have. Any explanation that does not account for this ‘OUGHTNESS’ is inadequate.
A good explanation for morality needs to offer not only an answer to the question ‘HOW do we behave?’ It must also answer, ‘Why SHOULD we behave?”
You pointed out a good observation, “What about conflicting moral values? What about disagreements on the morality of capital punishment or affirmative action?”
I agree with you that many ethical issues are complex and not easy to decide. In America, beef is food. In India, cows roam free.
But does that the fact that people disagree about morality mean that no moral laws exist? IMHO, tats a non sequitur; the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.
Isn’t it possible that people might be mistaken in their moral judgments? Kids get their sums wrong; it doesn’t mean algebra doesn’t exist.
Actually, both Americans and Indians think eating other human beings is wrong. In America, when grandma dies they bury her; they don’t eat her. In India, Hindus don’t eat cows because they believe cows may be grandma reincarnated!
The apparent moral difference actually represents different perception of facts in this situation, not a conflict in the values themselves.
On a closer reflection, we also notice that there is really quite a stable consensus on moral values among even people who argue. Rarely in public discourse would advocates of affirmative action or capital punishment say, “To hell with your standards!”
Instead, both sides would AGREE that the poor ought to be helped, that economic equity ought to exist for political stability, crimes ought to be punished, justice ought to prevail and so on.
The argument was always over whether affirmative action would, in fact, serve these ethical ideals or otherwise. By appealing to such ‘moral laws’, these debates assume (rather than deny) the existence of a transcendent law, which the others must be beholden to.
At the heart of C.S. Lewis' case for God is the existence of some moral laws. All he needs to show is that some universal, objective, moral laws exist.
IMHO, it’s unnecessary for his case to pinpoint exactly what is the moral thing to do in every debatable issue.
Lastly, it’s very interesting that you observed ”how society has progressed in its views about equality (think slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination), about the rights of the individual etc”
Indeed, the very idea of “progress” only makes sense if there is some objective yardstick to measure ‘improvement’.
If morality is simply ‘what society does’ or ‘what society says’ or ‘what I prefer’, who is to say that such ‘progress’ is not really a moral ‘regress’?
(Thanks to Greg Koukl/Beckwith for the "cow/grandma" analogy)
C.S. Lewis observed that humans often argue. When we do, we appeal to some higher law to which the other party is accountable. (“I was here first, mister” or “Give me a piece of yours, I gave you mine”)
Our sense of right and wrong (hereafter, morality) does not only DESCRIBE human behavior, it PRESCRIBES what behavior we should have. Any explanation that does not account for this ‘OUGHTNESS’ is inadequate.
A good explanation for morality needs to offer not only an answer to the question ‘HOW do we behave?’ It must also answer, ‘Why SHOULD we behave?”
You pointed out a good observation, “What about conflicting moral values? What about disagreements on the morality of capital punishment or affirmative action?”
I agree with you that many ethical issues are complex and not easy to decide. In America, beef is food. In India, cows roam free.
But does that the fact that people disagree about morality mean that no moral laws exist? IMHO, tats a non sequitur; the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.
Isn’t it possible that people might be mistaken in their moral judgments? Kids get their sums wrong; it doesn’t mean algebra doesn’t exist.
Actually, both Americans and Indians think eating other human beings is wrong. In America, when grandma dies they bury her; they don’t eat her. In India, Hindus don’t eat cows because they believe cows may be grandma reincarnated!
The apparent moral difference actually represents different perception of facts in this situation, not a conflict in the values themselves.
On a closer reflection, we also notice that there is really quite a stable consensus on moral values among even people who argue. Rarely in public discourse would advocates of affirmative action or capital punishment say, “To hell with your standards!”
Instead, both sides would AGREE that the poor ought to be helped, that economic equity ought to exist for political stability, crimes ought to be punished, justice ought to prevail and so on.
The argument was always over whether affirmative action would, in fact, serve these ethical ideals or otherwise. By appealing to such ‘moral laws’, these debates assume (rather than deny) the existence of a transcendent law, which the others must be beholden to.
At the heart of C.S. Lewis' case for God is the existence of some moral laws. All he needs to show is that some universal, objective, moral laws exist.
IMHO, it’s unnecessary for his case to pinpoint exactly what is the moral thing to do in every debatable issue.
Lastly, it’s very interesting that you observed ”how society has progressed in its views about equality (think slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination), about the rights of the individual etc”
Indeed, the very idea of “progress” only makes sense if there is some objective yardstick to measure ‘improvement’.
If morality is simply ‘what society does’ or ‘what society says’ or ‘what I prefer’, who is to say that such ‘progress’ is not really a moral ‘regress’?
(Thanks to Greg Koukl/Beckwith for the "cow/grandma" analogy)
Comments
Thus, you ought to familiarize yourself with all the counter-arguments else you get caught red handed!
Even IF it happens, I think it's one of the easiest arguments to dismantle. Even Elder Yong of the STEMI forum 'eats' Russell for lunch so... here is a simple outline of my 'moves' on that counter-argument :)
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm
But yea, be prepared to anticipate at least two - three possible counterarguments down the road