Pro
#1
Thank you, avni, for accepting this debate and welcome to debatecraft.
Intro
An argument is sound if the argument is both valid and if the premises are true. In this case our syllogism states:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exist
This syllogism is valid. If both premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows.
Premise 2: Objective moral values exist
I’m actually going to begin my arguments by defending premise 2 before I defend premise 1. Premise 2 is where the bulk of this debate will probably be focused on. Why should we believe that moral facts are objective? Here are a few reasons:
(1) Moral progress
Moral progress only makes sense in the framework of moral realism. Almost everyone can agree that slavery is wrong and that the abolition of slavery was an improvement on society. But why should we believe this is the case? If morality were merely subjective or based on culture, then who is to say that we actually made progress as a society?
Consider the following statistics: In Yemen, under the oppressive forces of the Youthis, gay people are routinely imprisoned and sentenced to death [2], enslaves children [3], and restrict women’s freedom of movement [4]. Most people would rightly be repulsed by such behavior. But why should we be repulsed? If morality was merely subjective or based on culture, then who are we to say Yemen’s culture is worse than ours?
(2) The objective nature of morality allows for moral judgement
Consider the above examples from Yemen. We are certainly repulsed at the notions of child slavery. But why? If morality is nothing more than one's mere opinion, then it makes no sense condemning or praising someone. Under moral anti-realism or subjectivism, stating “slavery is immoral” is like saying “wearing white after labor day is wrong.” But we intuitively know that there are things that are objectively right and wrong, like child slavery.
(3) Argument from Epistemic Realism
Consider the following dialogue:
Kohai: What do you think of my argument for evolution?
avni: I think it's a sound argument -- your conclusion was well-argued, and I see no problems with it.
Kohai: So does that mean you'll reject young earth creationism now and accept the scientific facts of evolution?
avni: No
Kohai: Why not?
avni: Because I have no duty to embrace the truth. I reject reality and substitute it with my own.
Such an exchange is rightfully absurd. If there are epistemic facts and duties, then why are there no moral facts and duties? In the context of this debate I am sure my opponent would have me be respectful of him, honestly engage with his arguments, and not commit logical fallacies. But why is that the case? We can summarize this as follows [5]:
P1. If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
P2: Epistemic facts do exist
C1: Moral facts do exist.
P3: If moral facts do exist, then moral realism is true.
C2: Moral realism is true
Consider the following principles and values which are foundational to the very possibility of rational discourse, all of which the moral anti-realists must deny:
1. It is good to believe the truth and avoid falsehood.
2. We ought to think rationally.
3. We ought to argue from an honest perspective.
4. We ought not misrepresent your opponent's arguments.
5. You must not commit logical fallacies.
6. We ought not to use AI to create our arguments for us
If relativism or nihilism about value entails such conclusions, then it can be rightly rejected as absurd. Given the ubiquity and centrality of rational discourse in everyday life, we have every reason to suppose that there are such things as objective moral facts.
Premise 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
Now that we have established moral realism, why should we accept the first premise? If moral realism is true, that means there is a mind-independent source of morality that transcends humanity and is morally perfect. This source also must be rational as moral judgements require the ability to think. The moral source also must be powerful and authoritative that can compel humanity to act in a certain manner. This entity is what we call God.
Objection: Euthyphro’s dilemma
There is a famous argument made by Euthyphro that attempts to undermine the divine origins of ethics. The argument states: “do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?”
The problem is that this is a false dilemma. Morality is not good because God says it is good nor is it good because it is already good independent of God, but rather morality reflects the moral perfection of God’s nature.
Conclusion
Objective moral values and duties exist, as shown by progress, judgment, and epistemic realism. These require a personal, morally perfect God to ground ethics. The resolution is strongly affirmed.
Sources
1.https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-moral-argument/moral-argument-part-1
2. https://www.barrons.com/news/13-sentenced-to-death-for-homosexuality-in-yemen-source-0f0dc729
3. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ILAB/child_labor_reports/tda2018/Yemen.pdf
4. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/03/04/yemen-warring-parties-restrict-womens-movement
5. Michael Jones, "Moral Realism Defended." https://youtu.be/zjkgD4w9w1k?si=fgWg7NfYThtSr3PL&t=42
