Give a critical account of moral argument to prove the existence of God.

The Moral Argument: An Overview

The moral argument, in its various forms, asserts that objective moral values and duties require a divine foundation. Without God, morality is seen as subjective, relative, or illusory. The core premise is that objective moral truths exist, and these truths cannot be adequately explained by naturalistic or evolutionary processes. The argument typically proceeds by claiming that God is the necessary explanation for these objective moral truths.

Types of Moral Arguments

1. The Argument from Universal Moral Law

This argument, popularized by C.S. Lewis in his book *Mere Christianity*, suggests that the widespread sense of moral obligation across cultures points to a universal moral law. This law, it is argued, implies a Lawgiver – God. Lewis draws an analogy to human laws, which require a human legislator. Similarly, the universal moral law requires a divine legislator.

• Strengths: Appeals to the intuitive sense that morality is not merely a matter of personal preference.
• Weaknesses: The inference from a law to a lawgiver is not necessarily valid. The moral law could be a product of evolutionary pressures or social conditioning, rather than divine decree.

2. The Argument from Moral Accountability

This argument focuses on the idea that justice demands a final reckoning for moral actions. If there is no God, then ultimate justice is impossible, as there is no ultimate judge or rewarder/punisher. Therefore, the existence of moral accountability implies the existence of God.

• Strengths: Addresses the human desire for justice and fairness.
• Weaknesses: Relies on the assumption that justice *requires* an afterlife or divine intervention. Secular ethical systems can offer alternative accounts of justice, focusing on societal consequences and rehabilitation.

3. The Argument from Moral Motivation

This argument suggests that genuine moral motivation requires a belief in a higher power. Without God, morality becomes merely a set of rules, lacking the emotional and spiritual force necessary to inspire truly altruistic behavior. The fear of divine punishment or the hope of divine reward provides the necessary motivation to act morally.

• Strengths: Acknowledges the psychological role of belief in shaping moral behavior.
• Weaknesses: Assumes that morality is only possible if it is externally motivated. Many secular ethical theories emphasize intrinsic moral values and the importance of empathy and compassion.

4. The Euthyphro Dilemma and its Implications

A significant challenge to the moral argument is the Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Plato. It asks: “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” If morality is independent of God, then God is not necessary for its existence. If morality is dependent on God, then morality becomes arbitrary – God could have commanded anything, even cruelty, and it would be morally good simply because God commanded it.

This dilemma highlights the difficulty of grounding morality in divine command without either rendering morality arbitrary or making God redundant.

Critical Assessment

The moral arguments for the existence of God face several significant challenges. Firstly, the claim of objective morality is itself contested. Moral relativism and subjectivism offer alternative accounts of morality, arguing that moral values are culturally or individually determined. Secondly, even if objective morality exists, it does not necessarily require a divine explanation. Evolutionary biology and social psychology can offer naturalistic explanations for the development of moral intuitions and social norms. Thirdly, the Euthyphro dilemma poses a serious threat to the idea of divine command morality, raising questions about the rationality and consistency of grounding morality in God’s will.

Furthermore, the arguments often rely on questionable inferences. The leap from the existence of a moral law to the existence of a divine lawgiver is not logically guaranteed. It is possible to have a moral law without a lawgiver, just as it is possible to have laws of physics without a physicist who created them.