Argument From Morality

👍 (2)

P1: If objective moral truths exist, then there must be a metaphysical ground that explains their objectivity, normativity, and binding authority. (Because moral facts are not reducible to individual preferences, evolutionary convenience, or social contracts.)

P2: Objective moral truths do exist. (E.g., it is truly wrong to torture children for fun, or commit genocide, regardless of what anyone thinks or feels.)

P3: If moral truths exist independently of human minds, then they must either:

a) Exist as brute Platonic facts,

b) Be grounded in an impersonal moral order,

c) Be grounded in a necessarily existent, personal moral being.

P4: Brute moral facts (option a) lack explanatory power:

They are metaphysically queer they exist, but do not explain why they are binding or how we know them. (As J.L. Mackie observed: moral realism without God leaves moral facts “queer.”)

P5: An impersonal moral order (option b) cannot prescribe duties or obligations. (Only persons can impose obligations; natural laws describe, but moral laws command.)

P6: Therefore, the best explanation for the existence, normativity, and knowability of moral truths is that they are grounded in a necessarily existent, supremely good, personal being. (Only such a being has the ontological status to be the Good and to prescribe moral duties.)

P7: Therefore, God is the best and necessary ground for objective moral truths.

C: Therefore, objective morality is best explained by the existence of God, the necessarily existent, morally perfect Lawgiver.