Moral Argument Moral Argument — Overview The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The argument can be summarised in the following syllogism: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
This synopsis relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this synopsis by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Granting this, Harris says we must conclude that there are facts about which courses of action will allow one to pursue a better life. Harris attests to the importance of admitting that such facts exist, because he says this logic applies to groups of individuals as well.
He suggests that there are better and worse ways for whole societies to pursue better lives. Just like at the scale of the individual, there may be multiple different paths and "peaks" to flourishing for societies - and many more ways to fail.
Often his arguments point out that problems with this scientific definition of morality seem to be problems shared by all science, or reason and Moral argument in general. Harris also spends some time describing how science might engage nuances and challenges of identifying the best ways for individuals, and groups of individuals, to improve their lives.
Many of these issues are covered below. Philosophical case[ edit ] Harris says science requires that one acknowledge certain values e.
|Academic Tools||Some facts are facts about the way that the world is.|
Furthermore, he says that this is the case for almost all scientific investigation. He mentions that modern science amounts to careful practice of accepted first Moral argument principles like empiricism and physicalism.
Harris says a science of morality may resemble Utilitarianismbut that the science is, importantly, more open-ended because it involves an evolving definition of well-being. Rather than committing to Reductive materialismthen, Harris recognizes the arguments of revisionists that psychological definitions themselves are contingent on research and discoveries.
Harris adds that any science of morality must consider everything from emotions and thoughts to the actual actions and their consequences. He mentions the research of Paul Slovic and others to describe just a few of these established mental heuristics that might keep us from reasoning properly.
For instance, he references one poll that found that 36 percent of British Muslims think apostates should be put to death for their unbelief,  and he says that these individuals are "morally confused".
This, he thinks, is intuitive; "trains of thought But from a deeper perspective Consider what would happen if we discovered a cure for human evil.
Imagine, for the sake of argument Would this make any moral sense at all? He says it follows that there could, in principle, be a species compared to which we are relatively unimportant although he doubts such a species exists.
He also supports the formation of an explicit global civilization because of the potential for stability under a world government. Harris criticizes the tactics of secularists like Chris Mooneywho argue that science is not fundamentally and certainly not superficially in conflict with religion.
Harris sees this as a very serious disagreement, that patronizingly attempts to pacify more devout theists. To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me.
It should change it for philosophers too. Reading this thrilling, audacious book, you feel the ground shifting beneath your feet. Reason has never had a more passionate advocate. Diller  and Andrew E.
Nuzzolilli wrote a generally favorable review in a journal of the Association for Behavior Analysis International: The Moral Landscape represents an important contribution to a scientific discussion of morality. Cognitive scientist and anthropologist Scott Atran criticized Harris for failing to engage with the philosophical literature on ethics and the problems in attempting to scientifically quantify human well being, noting that Nobel Prize—winner Daniel Kahneman studies what gives Americans pleasure—watching TV, talking to friends, having sex—and what makes them unhappy—commuting, working, looking after their children.
So this leaves us where. Imagine a sociologist who wrote about evolutionary theory without discussing the work of Darwin, Fisher, Mayr, Hamilton, Trivers or Dawkins on the grounds that he did not come to his conclusions by reading about biology and because discussing concepts such as "adaptation", "speciation", "homology", "phylogenetics" or "kin selection" would "increase the amount of boredom in the universe".
How seriously would we, and should we, take his argument?The moral argument seeks to exploit this fact; If moral facts are a kind a command, the moral argument asks, then who commanded morality? To answer this question, the moral argument suggests that we look at the importance of morality.
Animals and Ethics. What place should non-human animals have in an acceptable moral system? These animals exist on the borderline of our moral concepts; the result is that we sometimes find ourselves according them a strong moral status, while at other times denying them any kind of moral status at all.
The moral argument comes to our aid in this case. The most acknowledged formal argument is the one used by William Lane Craig which is as follows: Moral Argument If God doesn't exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Moral arguments for God’s existence form a diverse family of arguments that reason from some feature of morality or the moral life to the existence of God, usually understood as a morally good creator of the universe.
Moral arguments are both important and interesting. Moral Argument – Conclusion In conclusion, the moral argument is a robust argument for the existence of God. It is important to distinguish between moral ontology and epistemology when engaging in this debate since these categories are frequently conflated by atheist critics.
A Debate on the Moral Argument Questions on the Resurrection and the Moral Argument Questions on Greatest Being Theology, Certainty, and the Moral Argument Those Who Deny Objective Moral Values Questions on the Grounding of Morality Response to Pigliucci's article on "Gods and Morality" Questions on the Singularity, Omnipresence, and Morality.