Classical Arguments #3 - The Moral Argument

This Argument is considered to be the most recent of the Classical Arguments, showing up in the late 1700's on the pen of Immanuel Kant.  Kant was no friend to arguments for God's existence.  However he did ask the question, "What would have to be true in order for our sense of moral duty to be meaningful?"  His answer was - life after death and a judge capable of dealing punishment and rewards.  Today, a variation of this argument goes like this:

#1 If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist

#2 Objective moral values do exist

#3 Therefore, God exists

(By "objective" I mean independent of what people think.  So in this case we are talking about moral values that are good or bad no matter what people think.)

Let's look at the first premise.  If this world is just the product of time acting on space and matter then what could possibly be "bad" or "good."  There would only be the way things are.  For instance, it makes no sense to ask if a rock is morally "good" or "bad."  It simply is.  This is why atheist Richard Dawkins can say, "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."  The second premise is usually defended by pointing to actions that are obviously good or bad.  For instance: torturing babies for fun, killing Jews, cannibalizing the disabled, raping and molesting preschoolers, etc.  Would someone really say these acts are morally neutral and up to personal interpretation?  Or are these actions wrong independently of what anyone thinks about them?  If you think the latter is true, then you agree with premise 2.  But if both premises are true, then God exists.

Strengths:

• Lots of people are not familiar enough with science for other arguments to be persuasive, but everyone has to deal with morality everyday of their life.  

Weaknesses:

• It does not argue for the existence of a Christian god, but only for the existence of a god that would make objective morality meaningful. 

Bible References:

• Romans 2:14-15

If successful this argument provides you with a god that would make objective morality meaningful.  This god would be perfectly good and the standard and source of morality. 



Do you think this argument is successful?  What are some common objections?  Perhaps you have a question.  Feel free to leave a comment so that I can respond and not be bored at work!