How do we know morality is objective?
Answer:
If we can identify (through reflection) some actions that are wrong/evil in any situation at any time, then that means that the act is objectively wrong regardless of whether or not EVERYONE can see it. Just as we can identify (upon reflection) that 2+2 will always equal 4, we know that objective truth exists regardless of whether or not everyone agrees that 2+2=4. Just as humans have rational faculties that inform us of rational truths (2+2=4), humans also have moral faculties that inform us of moral truth (i.e. good and evil).
Clear case example of objective moral truth: Torturing babies for fun is wrong/evil at any time, and at any place. If someone can't see that is wrong, you don't need to listen to their perspective on the matter; you need to tell them to get help!
Just like mysterious math problems that get conflicting answers depending on who you ask, there are ambiguous moral questions that get conflicting answers depending on who you ask. Therefore, it seems the reasonable approach to interpreting/solving moral difficulties would be the same way we interpret math difficulties. That is, we interpret what is (morally) unclear from what is (morally) clear, not the other way around. It is just as foolish to trash objective morality and relativize every moral act because of the many uncertainties, as it would be to trash everything we know about math because of all the mathematical uncertainties. In other words, it is foolish to disregard the morally obvious (torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong) for the sake of the morally mysterious (eating certain foods, alcohol, divorce, war, waterboarding, etc.).
There are a few videos to add to this subject (two from Ravi Zacharias, and two from William Lane Craig).
If we can identify (through reflection) some actions that are wrong/evil in any situation at any time, then that means that the act is objectively wrong regardless of whether or not EVERYONE can see it. Just as we can identify (upon reflection) that 2+2 will always equal 4, we know that objective truth exists regardless of whether or not everyone agrees that 2+2=4. Just as humans have rational faculties that inform us of rational truths (2+2=4), humans also have moral faculties that inform us of moral truth (i.e. good and evil).
Clear case example of objective moral truth: Torturing babies for fun is wrong/evil at any time, and at any place. If someone can't see that is wrong, you don't need to listen to their perspective on the matter; you need to tell them to get help!
Just like mysterious math problems that get conflicting answers depending on who you ask, there are ambiguous moral questions that get conflicting answers depending on who you ask. Therefore, it seems the reasonable approach to interpreting/solving moral difficulties would be the same way we interpret math difficulties. That is, we interpret what is (morally) unclear from what is (morally) clear, not the other way around. It is just as foolish to trash objective morality and relativize every moral act because of the many uncertainties, as it would be to trash everything we know about math because of all the mathematical uncertainties. In other words, it is foolish to disregard the morally obvious (torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong) for the sake of the morally mysterious (eating certain foods, alcohol, divorce, war, waterboarding, etc.).
There are a few videos to add to this subject (two from Ravi Zacharias, and two from William Lane Craig).
Ravi points out 3 aspects of (objective) evil that are undeniable parts of reality:
1. The FACT of evil—When you say there is such a thing as “evil” you are assuming there is such a thing as “GOOD”. When you say there is such a thing as GOOD, you are assuming there is such a thing as an (objective) MORAL LAW—on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When you assume there is such a thing as an (objective) MORAL LAW, you must posit a moral law GIVER. If there is no moral law GIVER, there is no MORAL LAW. If there is no moral law, there is no GOOD. If there is no good, there is no EVIL.
2. The FACE of evil—The accountability of PERSONAL responsibility (when speaking of evil, it always involves a PERSON—either the victim OF, or the one who commits acts OF EVIL).
3. The FEELING of evil—The reason we react the way we do is because something in the heart says, “This is wrong.”
1. The FACT of evil—When you say there is such a thing as “evil” you are assuming there is such a thing as “GOOD”. When you say there is such a thing as GOOD, you are assuming there is such a thing as an (objective) MORAL LAW—on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. When you assume there is such a thing as an (objective) MORAL LAW, you must posit a moral law GIVER. If there is no moral law GIVER, there is no MORAL LAW. If there is no moral law, there is no GOOD. If there is no good, there is no EVIL.
2. The FACE of evil—The accountability of PERSONAL responsibility (when speaking of evil, it always involves a PERSON—either the victim OF, or the one who commits acts OF EVIL).
3. The FEELING of evil—The reason we react the way we do is because something in the heart says, “This is wrong.”
The next video is from William Lane Craig explaining "How We Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds They Are Illusory?"
Notice the distinction between necessity and certainty. Craig points out the mistake in reasoning people make when they reason, “I am PERSONALLY UNCERTAIN about how to solve/interpret X; therefore, how can there be ANY NECESSARY (fundamental) solution/answer to X?”
X= complex mathematical, or moral problems.
This next video may appear redundant but Craig elaborates a bit more on this one.
When Craig talks about “premise 2” he is referring to the moral argument for the existence of God:
P1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
P2: Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Craig quotes Louise Antony, an atheist philosopher he debated that affirmed premise 2 the following way: “Any argument for moral skepticism will be based upon premises which are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.”
In other words, our moral experience is so strong, so obvious, and so real, that to question its objective reality and dismiss it as “illusory” is as sensible as doubting our sense of hearing, touch, taste, sight, and smell, as objectively real.