We’ve had a lively discussion on morals in my last post, but it seems to have gotten off track, so I would like to focus in on what the point of my post actually was here (so it doesn’t get lost in the comments). To save time and words, the following comes from the video clip below by InspiringPhilosophy.
First, the moral argument made here, and the one I’ve been making in my other posts, is about what is the foundation of objective moral duties and facts, not how we know or came to learn what morality is. This is where my atheist readers are getting off track with their plethora of comments.
What this means is that even if someone gave a complete evolutionary account of how morality arose in humans that would just explain how we came to understand moral facts and duties. It would not explain what they are or their foundation, only how we came to learn about them.
This is a confusion between epistemology and ontology. Just because we understand something, it doesn’t mean we know why it is.
Second, as the author of the video rightly points out, moral facts and duties are deciphered through rationality and reasoning. Much like mathematics and philosophical positions, not through empirical investigations. This is the fatal flaw in the Empiricist’s position.
Humans cannot be the source of moral knowledge. We are not perfect moral beings nor do we have perfect knowledge of the facts. In fact, because we’re not morally perfect, our own actions should reveal we are not the foundation of moral knowledge. We constantly fail to grasp moral facts and wrongly perform moral duties. Plus, we are contingent beings, so we cannot be the foundation of moral facts and duties for the same reason the laws of logic are not grounded in a human source. Humans have only discovered the laws of logic and mathematics, we did not create them.
Third, moral facts and duties must be grounded in something necessary and unchanging (for them to be objectively binding). Non-sentient objects cannot be rational, so it would have to be something sentient to be rational, simply by logical deduction.
This source would be a conscious, rational, and necessary entity. And whatever that entity is, we could logically call “God.”
Here the video clip to explain why this is so, along with answering the arguments against this logical conclusion: