The moral argument is both one of the most effective, and most commonly used arguments for Theism. This is primarily due to its balance of logic and emotional impact. Generally speaking, an argument requires a degree of both to be effective. An argument that is entirely logical, but is lacking on the emotional side, will likely be overlooked, and even raged against. An argument that is purely emotional, yet devoid of logic, is easy to dismiss, and indeed should be dismissed. But the only way to dismiss the moral argument is to create, and attack, a straw man.
The moral argument does have one logical flaw in that it can backfire. There are three possible responses to it. A Moral Realist will reject atheism, an atheist will reject Moral Realism, or an atheist will hold to Moral Realism and spend the rest of his or her life with an absurd and self-contradictory worldview.
The moral argument can be simplified with two syllogisms:
P1: If there are real moral laws, there is a moral law giver.
P2: You know there are real moral laws.
C: There is a moral law giver.
Alternatively:
P1: If there is no moral law giver, there are no real moral laws.
P2: You do not believe there is a moral law giver.
C: You cannot consistently believe there are real moral laws.
From these two syllogisms, we see that the moral argument has two main elements: Objectivity, and consistency. It is not merely a matter of personal opinions, or how one comes to hold them, but how grounded those opinions are grounded in reality, and how consistently they can be held. It is possible, as I have shown in previous articles, to reach the right answer with the wrong formula. The example I gave is two warring parties who sat down for peace talks because an eclipse occurred during their final battle. It is a good thing to seek peace, but it's illogical to do it because you got scared of an eclipse. Similarly, there are questions to which there are no right answers. "What is the best ice cream flavor?", for example. I might say lemon, you might say vanilla. There is no logical way to see who is right, because objectively, no one is.
The contention of the moral argument is that there is both a right answer to every moral question, and that there is a correct formula by which we may determine them. Yet, no matter how many times the moral argument is expressed, atheists will often have a single default response to it: The straw man fallacy.
The straw man fallacy is the fallacy of misrepresenting a belief or argument in order to criticise the misrepresentation. This gives the appearance of having refuted the argument or belief, while leaving the actual belief or argument untouched. The way this usually happens with the moral argument is to make it personal, focusing on either party to the debate. It's either "I don't need God to tell me not to murder", or "you shouldn't need God to tell you not to murder".
This is a misrepresentation of the argument because the argument is not that anyone needs a direct revelation from God to hold particular opinions. In fact, aside from the fact it is a premise of the argument that the atheist does know that murder is objectively wrong, the Bible expressly says "...Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law..." (Romans 2:14, emphasis mine). From this, one could argue that an atheist actually does need God to know murder is wrong, they just don't know it. But if an atheist is so horribly confused on the basic details of the moral argument, they cannot be expected to understand advanced theology.
What they can be expected to understand, however, is that they are one individual member of a species which, even today, is incredibly numerous, and that their particular drop in this particular ocean is no more valuable than any other. You may have your own opinions, but other people have theirs as well. Thus, while it is extremely common for Christians citing the moral argument to default to using examples like the morality of killing humans, I find it surprisingly effective to instead discuss the morality of killing animals.
When we switch the victim in this manner, the straw man refutation burns away. "I don't need God to tell me my dietary preferences are right" just doesn't have the same emotional kick. We tend to understand that dietary preferences are a very personal thing. Even the Bible describes it as a "doubtful disputation". It is wrong to eat anything by which your own conscience is offended, and it is wrong to maliciously offend others with your own food, but no food is unclean in and of itself.
But of course, there are disputes about this. Even in the Western world, where we tend to celebrate many forms of diversity, that celebration quickly devolves into chaos and strife. We look down on cultures that eat animals we see as sacred - cats, dogs, horses, and the like. By contrast, we dedicate entire restaurant chains to eating animals other cultures see as sacred, like cows. Even then, there are people who are appalled at the thought of eating any of these animals, or even use their products. "Her name is Snow!", one vegan cried as she stormed into a KFC to tell a story about how she had adopted a chicken just like the ones everyone in the store was eating.
Now, why is KFC able to get away with selling a boneless banquet for £10.49, while selling a boneless manquet would result in some very serious legal troubles? Simply because there is a real moral difference between a man and a chicken.
When it comes to human beings, atheists tend to understand the value of human life. Even when they justify murder, they tend to do so by downplaying, or even flat out denying the humanity of the victim. Not that even this is universal, but it's quite common. Agreement on the value of animal life, however, is less evenly distributed. The problem atheists have is that they cannot justify distinguishing between a man's life and a pig's life in any meaningful way. They will always have one of two results.
The first result is that the argument distinguishes between a man and a pig, but not in a way that is logically connected to their moral value. For example, a man may be able to speak, whereas a pig cannot, but why would the value of life be determined by the ability to speak?
The second result is that the argument may appear to justify a man's moral value, but will do the same with a pig. "Men don't want to die". Ok, do you think a pig does? If they sense a threat to their lives, they have the same fight or flight instincts we do, and in a fair fight, quite frankly, my money's on the pig. Our brains and technology are all that preserve our place at the top of the food chain.
But ultimately, the issue at hand is not "why is a man more valuable than a pig?", but "why is any life, man or pig, valuable at all?" Any argument for the value of life must be grounded in objective reality. Otherwise, it's just one opinion vs. another. See, there is a major difference between what is true and what we want to be true. We form our own subjective opinions all on our own. I don't need any external force to tell me lemon ice cream is the best, but it's not an objective fact. It's my opinion, and I am neither right or wrong.
Similarly, I don't need science to know about gravity. I have experienced gravity for my entire life, long before I was capable of pronouncing the very word. But gravity is actually rooted in reality. If, for some reason, someone doubted the existence of gravity, I have ample scientific evidence to alleviate those doubts. Gravity is an objective truth, though of course we can improve our understanding of it through scientific study.
And so now we are faced with a hard question. Is morality a subjective opinion, with the value of human life being "just my preference", or is it something more concrete? Well, it's not physically concrete, you can't bottle it like water. You can't weigh it like a brick. You can't measure it, like a force. You can't calculate it, like a mathematical formula. If morality is an objective truth, there can only be one way to establish it. It must be considered as a law.
A law is an immaterial, yet objective concept. Why? Because there is a right answer to any legal question. But a law can only be given by an intelligent body. When we ask "is this legal?", we have to define jurisdiction. Is it legal to recreationally smoke weed? In England, no. In Colorado, U.S., yes. In Antarctica? The question suddenly becomes nonsensical, there is no government of Antarctica, and therefore there are no laws. Nothing is legal, nothing is illegal, all actions are legally neutral. We can even say there was a time in human history when there was no government, and therefore nowhere on Earth was anything legal or illegal.
A law, in spite of being based on the subjective opinion of the governing body, is nevertheless objective within the context of its own system. It is objectively illegal to recreationally smoke weed in the UK. It is objectively legal in Colorado. These are objective truths because they are grounded in some form of reality. But even here there is no universal reality regarding the legality of, well, anything. There are over 190 countries in the world today, each with their own different laws. Some of them even permit murder.
But there's a difference between "legal in this region" and "good in general". Likewise, there's a difference between "illegal in this region" and "evil everywhere". That's why I, as a Christian, can say murder is wrong everywhere, whether it's legal or not. Why? Well because I believe in the moral law giver. I believe in the King of kings, by whom all things were created, by whom all things are sustained, and by whom all things are judged. His laws are above our own, and they aren't even based on a whim. They are based on His design. With regard to the value of life, He says "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it.”" (Genesis 9:2-7).
So, why is a man's life more valuable than a pig's? Because the God who made us both did not make us equal. On the very day He created us, He gave us dominion over them, and on the day He brought us off the ark, He gave them to us as food. But man, He made in His image, and so He demands a reckoning for every human life.
Can an atheist say this? Clearly not. By definition, an atheist does not believe man was designed at all, much less in the image of the God they do not believe exists. But if they reject God, they forfeit His morals. How do they establish their own alternatives? To put it in language an atheist understands, when they make the claim that morality exists, they bear the burden to prove it. And just as a Christian cannot stop at merely establishing Theism, an atheist cannot stop at merely establishing objective morality. They have to prove their own. Like any other man, an atheist must establish that their worldview can account for morality, and that their worldview is true!
As Christians, we have fulfilled both. We have not only established that our worldview provides solid grounding for morality, and indeed seems to be the only religion that does so in such detail, but also that ours is the worldview most likely to be true. How? Well simply because we have the only God whose word so consistently aligns with the reality we observe. His prophecies keep coming true. His history is spot on, constantly being confirmed by even modern archaeological discoveries. His is the religion that paved the way for the scientific revolution. Most importantly, He's the only God in all of human history that actually showed up.
And we nailed Him to a cross.
In our depravity, we don't just reject God when He keeps His distance. When He approaches us, even as an ambassador, we approach Him as an army of treasonous rebels, seeking His eternal throne for ourselves. So we hung His Son on a cross, even while He performed many fantastic miracles. He healed the sick. He fed the hungry. He exorcised the demoniacs. He even raised the dead. Yet we killed Him.
But He rose. See, what we meant for evil, He meant for good. We wanted Him dead so we didn't have to listen to Him anymore, but He did not resist that cross because through the shedding of His innocent blood, the reckoning God demands for all sin was fulfilled. If you've lied, that sin died on the cross. If you've stolen, that sin died on the cross. If you've committed adultery, that sin died on the cross. If you've dishonored your parents, that sin died on the cross. If you've blasphemed, that sin died on the cross. The very people who hated God so much that they put Him through a bogus trial, stripped Him of His clothes, beat and whipped Him until He barely looked human, and mocked Him as He hung on splintered wood, gasping for air, could find everlasting forgiveness - and many of them did - just by confessing Him as Lord, and believing God raised Him from the dead.
Now, I don't know about you, but personally, I rather value my life. There aren't many things I'm willing to die for, and if I get my way, I'll go peacefully in my sleep, many years from now. Naturally, I won't actively seek out suffering either. Like most people, I want to live a long and peaceful life. That doesn't mean I won't take risks, but there has to be something worth taking the risk for.
Conspicuously absent from the short list of things I will willingly suffer or die for is "things I know are not true". Heck, if a flat Earther puts a gun to my head, I'd rather say "I see no curve on the horizon" than risk an early grave.
Unless I have severely misunderstood human nature, I'd say that's the norm. We all value our lives, we all value our own comfort, and while we may all assign them different price tags, no one gives them up for nothing. But the Apostles gave up so much for their testimony that they had seen the risen Lord. Their property, their reputations, their comfort, even their very lives. The only way they could gain from their testimony is if it's true, yet they endured all manner of torture and death for it.
As liars make poor martyrs, the ministry of the Apostles stands as concrete proof that at least 12 people - and more besides - sincerely believed they had seen the risen Lord. What could reasonably explain this? You could possibly make an ad hoc excuse for one or two. But the more witnesses you add, the less reasonable these excuses become. Eventually, the life, death, and resurrection of Christ become the most certain facts of history. For nearly 2,000 years, Christians are the only ones with a coherent explanation for the origins of our own faith.
And so we come full circle: There are moral laws because there is a God, and we must believe in God if we are to maintain our belief that there are moral laws. The problem is, if morality is grounded in God, then it is His moral laws that exists, not ours. Yet, each and every one of us has lived according to ours. The result is we have objectively broken the moral laws which will determine our eternal fate.
This is where we can be grateful that Jesus never did. When the Son of God walked our planet, He never once broke one of God's laws, He lived a perfect life, and as a result, deserves the reward. However, He did not receive this. Rather, He received the punishment we deserve. This is where things get unfathomable: He did it willingly. The crucifixion was a brutal act of grave injustice, but it was not some tragic accident, beyond God's control.
The purpose of the crucifixion is substitution. Scripture says "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21). If Christ, who was morally perfect, died for us, who are morally imperfect, then we can be spared that punishment, and indeed can be gradually transformed so that one day, we, too, will be perfect. It is a gift from God to us, but it is one that must be received. If the gift is rejected, only the wage remains. The wrath we are owed is the wrath we will receive. But by grace, through faith, we will receive His eternal reward.
AI usage
AI was used to create the pig, vegan, and butcher in the header image.