Ethics
J. L. Mackie, the twentieth century's most formidable atheist philosopher, agreed that objective moral values would be entities of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe — and therefore concluded they do not exist.
high confidencePhilosophical
THE CLAIM
J. L. Mackie, the twentieth century's most formidable atheist philosopher
WHERE IT STANDS
Firmly established
high confidence
THE PREMISE
"Objective" means independent of anyone's opinion: the wrongness of torturing a child for pleasure would remain a fact even if every human being on earth were persuaded otherwise.
This is the premise a Christian is supposed to have to defend. It is the one that gets defended hardest by people who reject the conclusion.
WHO DEFENDS IT
J. L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Penguin, 1977): if objective values existed they would be qualities of a very strange sort, requiring a special faculty to perceive them. He called it the argument from queerness and concluded that values are invented, not discovered.
Michael Ruse, philosopher of biology: morality is a biological adaptation, and ethics understood as an objective code is an illusion produced by our genes.
Sharon Street, "A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value" (Philosophical Studies 127:109-166, 2006): if our evaluative attitudes were shaped by selection for fitness, there is no reason to expect them to track mind-independent moral truths. Premise 1 is her conclusion.
Nietzsche said it first, in The Gay Science (1882): the madman announces that God is dead and then asks whither we are moving now, away from all suns. He understood that the loss removes the horizon, not just the object.
THE CLAIM
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3.
Therefore God exists.
"Objective" here means independent of anyone's opinion. It means the wrongness of torturing a child for pleasure would remain a fact even if every human being on earth were persuaded otherwise.
This is what makes the argument unusual. Its first premise is defended most forcefully by people who reject the conclusion.
J. L. Mackie opened Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Penguin, 1977) by arguing that if objective values existed they would be qualities of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe, requiring a special faculty to perceive them. He called this the argument from queerness, and he drew the anti-realist conclusion: values are invented, not discovered.
Michael Ruse, a philosopher of biology and an atheist, has written that morality is a biological adaptation and that ethics, understood as an objective code, is an illusion produced by our genes to make us cooperate.
Sharon Street's "A Darwinian Dilemma for Realist Theories of Value" (Philosophical Studies 127:109-166, 2006) makes the case with the most rigor: if our evaluative attitudes were shaped by selection for reproductive fitness, there is no reason to expect them to track mind-independent moral truths. Street is an atheist arguing against moral realism. Premise 1 is her conclusion.
And Nietzsche said it first and plainest. In The Gay Science (1882) he has the madman announce that God is dead and then demand: whither is it moving now? away from all suns? He understood that the loss of God removes the horizon, not just the object.
We do not infer that the Holocaust was evil; we perceive it, the way we perceive that the external world exists. Any premise in an argument concluding that it was merely socially disfavoured is less certain than the thing it denies.
The international community acted on premise 2 in 1945. At Nuremberg the defence argued that the accused had acted in accordance with the law of their state. The tribunal convicted anyway, on the ground of crimes against humanity — a standard above the positive law of any nation.
That verdict is unintelligible unless there is a law above the law.
Romans 2:14-15 describes Gentiles without the Law doing by nature the things of the Law, showing the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness. The moral argument is not an addition to that; it is the philosophical restatement of it.
WHERE IT STANDS
The live opposition is not anti-realism but non-theistic moral realism: Erik Wielenberg (Robust Ethical Realism, 2009; God and the Reach of Reason, 2008), David Enoch and the later Derek Parfit hold that moral facts are brute necessary truths standing in need of no grounding at all, as mathematical truths do. Whether brute moral facts are more or less plausible than a moral Lawgiver is the actual fault line, and it is a live dispute in professional metaethics.
Romans 2:14-15 — The work of the law written in the heart, conscience bearing witness.
Romans 1:32 — Knowing the judgment of God — moral knowledge presumed even where it is defied.
Genesis 1:27 — The image of God as the ground of human worth and moral standing.
Micah 6:8 — What the LORD requires — justice as revealed obligation, not preference.
Psalm 19:7-9 — The law of the LORD is perfect; His judgments are true and righteous altogether.
James 4:12 — There is one lawgiver — the argument's conclusion stated as doctrine.
6 pieces of evidence
The argument's first premise is defended by leading atheists — Mackie's argument from queerness (Ethics, 1977) and Street's Darwinian dilemma (Philosophical Studies 127, 2006) both conclude that a godless universe has no objective values.
Premise 2 is known more securely than any premise in an argument against it; moral perception functions like sense perception.
Nuremberg convicted on crimes against humanity over the defence of obedience to state law — an institutional act that presupposes a standard above human legislation.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a false one: goodness is neither above God nor invented by Him but identical with His nature (Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods, 1999).
Evolution can explain why we hold moral beliefs; it cannot explain why any of them would be true, which is a different question.
Romans 2:14-15 already asserts a moral law written on the conscience of people who never received the Torah.
1 objection taken at full strength
THE ANSWER
The classical Christian answer refuses both horns. Goodness is neither above God nor invented by Him; it is identical with His nature. Commands flow from that nature and therefore cannot be arbitrary, and there is no standard above God because the standard is God.
Robert Adams develops this rigorously in Finite and Infinite Goods (Oxford, 1999).
6 passages
Berean Standard Bible
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”
Romans 2:14-15
“Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things are worthy of death, they not only continue to do these things, but also approve of those who practice them.”
Romans 1:32
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
Genesis 1:27
“He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?”
Micah 6:8
“The Law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is trustworthy, making wise the simple.”
Psalm 19:7-9
“There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?”
James 4:12
THE RECEIPTS
