Critiquing: If We Can’t Impose a Moral Standard from One Period of Time on Another, How Does That Affect the Moral Argument?

January 29, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Moral Standards — Objectivity in Context — Relativism Misunderstood — Historical Morality — Theological Misconceptions

---

Introduction

In this analysis, we will evaluate the logical coherence of the content, addressing potential inconsistencies, logical fallacies, and unsubstantiated claims. Our critique will focus on assessing arguments presented regarding the application of moral standards across different historical periods and the moral argument for God’s existence. This evaluation is from a standpoint that avoids any theological or biblical references.

Key Arguments and Claims

1. Moral Argument for God’s Existence
2. Objective vs. Relative Morality
3. Historical Context of Moral Standards
4. Misconceptions about Theological Doctrines
5. Application of Modern Moral Judgments to Historical Events

Logical Coherence and Consistency

Moral Argument for God’s Existence

The content presents the moral argument for God’s existence, stating:

“If there is no God, then there is no objective morality. But there is objective morality. Therefore, there is a God.”

This argument relies heavily on the assertion that objective morality exists. However, the argument’s logical coherence is undermined by the lack of evidence for the existence of objective morality. The content claims:

“Everybody knows that there’s a problem of evil in the world. Therefore, there is a God.”

This leap from the existence of evil to the existence of God as a necessary source of morality lacks intermediate logical steps. The argument would benefit from addressing how the presence of evil specifically indicates objective moral standards derived from a deity rather than from human social constructs or evolutionary mechanisms.

Objective vs. Relative Morality

The content attempts to clarify the nature of objective morality versus moral relativism:

“Objective morality doesn’t mean there’s one set of rules that apply to every person regardless of the circumstances.”

It provides the example of pushing an elderly person to illustrate context-dependent morality. While the example demonstrates how circumstances can affect moral judgments, it inadvertently suggests moral relativism rather than true objectivism. The argument presented seems internally inconsistent because it argues for a form of morality that changes with context, which aligns more closely with relativism.

Historical Context of Moral Standards

The content discusses the issue of applying modern moral standards to historical events, particularly biblical events:

“It’s unrealistic to demand that our enlightened morality be required of civilizations that existed 3,000 years ago.”

This argument implies that moral standards evolve over time, aligning with a relativistic viewpoint rather than an objective one. Furthermore, the content does not adequately address the potential for moral progression to be recognized as inherently valuable independent of divine command, which could suggest that moral standards are not as fixed and divinely ordained as claimed.

Misconceptions about Theological Doctrines

The response to the question about following a God who allowed his son to be killed attempts to correct perceived theological misconceptions:

“God didn’t kill Jesus. The Romans killed Jesus at the hand of the Jews.”

This explanation includes a complex interplay of theological assertions without addressing the fundamental moral objection raised. The focus on who physically carried out the act deflects from the ethical implications of divine intention and foreknowledge. Additionally, this response does not engage with the broader moral implications of divine command theory and the justification of actions based on divine will.

Application of Modern Moral Judgments to Historical Events

The content contends that imposing modern standards on historical actions is flawed:

“God is trying to improve on the circumstances. And he’s doing that with the laws, even though the laws don’t obliterate all of the injustice.”

This argument suggests that divine moral laws are subject to temporal and cultural contexts, which again implies a form of moral relativism. It also raises questions about the consistency and omnipotence of a deity who enacts temporary and imperfect laws.

Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

1. Straw Man Fallacy: (On the non-Christian side) Misrepresenting the argument about God’s actions as “cosmic child abuse” without fully engaging with the ethical critique.
2. False Dichotomy: Presenting the choice between God’s existence with objective morality and the absence of God with no morality, ignoring other potential sources of moral standards.
3. Confirmation Bias: Selectively using historical and scriptural interpretations to support the argument without considering contradictory evidence or interpretations.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Several claims lack substantiation:

• Existence of Objective Morality: The assertion that objective morality exists without empirical evidence.
• Historical Moral Progress: (On the non-Christian side) Claims about the evolution of moral standards without concrete historical analysis.

Obligation to Substantiate Claims

The content makes several bold assertions that require robust evidence. Claims about the existence of objective morality and divine influence on historical moral progress should be supported with clear, empirical, and logical arguments. The lack of such evidence weakens the overall coherence and persuasiveness of the content.

Testing Alleged Promises

To test the promises of divine moral guidance, one could:

1. Empirical Observation: Examine societies with and without adherence to these moral principles to compare outcomes.
2. Historical Analysis: Study the moral evolution of civilizations and correlate it with claimed divine interventions.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

The degree of belief in the moral argument for God’s existence should align with the strength of the evidence provided. Given the current lack of empirical support for objective morality and divine intervention, the content does not provide sufficient evidence to warrant strong belief in its conclusions.

---

Conclusion

The content presents several arguments for objective morality and divine guidance but lacks logical coherence and sufficient evidence. By addressing these gaps and engaging with the ethical critiques more thoroughly, the arguments could be made more robust and persuasive.

Feel free to discuss these points further in the comments section.