In recent years the Argument from Morality, otherwise know as The Moral Argument, has become remarkably popular, and especially in the form of Dr. William Lane Craig’s. In this video, I raise but a few of the critical (and completely damning) flaws and fallacies within Craig’s specific argument – which goes as follows:
1. If god does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, god exists.
1. Begging the Question:
As always, the video will have much more content as YouTube limits the description length on videos. With that said, the first flaw I’d like to raise is that premise one is completely unsubstantiated, making the entire argument a Non-Sequitur. It in no way logically follows that only a specific god can be responsible for the existence of objective moral values, unless the proponent is literally defining ‘objective moral values’ to mean, “moral values, principles and duties that are declared by god” – and if they are doing this, then they’re including the claim of their argument within their premise… which is Begging the Question.
2. Equivocation Fallacy:
A second flaw that Craig’s Moral Argument commits, and one that is subtle but completely devastating, is an Equivocation Fallacy. To put it as bluntly as possible, during his first premise, Craig and his argument uses a definition of the term ‘objective moral values’ that is, for all intent and purposes, the definition of “absolute moral values”. That is, “moral values, principles and duties that are universally valid and true unconditionally and under all circumstances”.
But during his second premise he uses a definition of the term ‘objective moral values’ that is, “moral values, principles and duties that exist independently of human opinion, but may vary according to context and circumstance.”
3. Argument from Ignorance:
It might be subtle, but Craig and the proponents of his Moral Argument very often commit an Argument from Ignorance.
They do this because they implicitly assert (and sometimes explicitly), that only their very specific god could be responsible for the existence of objective moral values, without justifying why this is the case. In fact, they often state “if not who, then what!”, which translated from fluff land to English is “we don’t know, therefore god… my very specific god”.
4. Shifting the Burden of Proof:
A fourth major flaw that Craig’s Moral Argument commits, and one that shares a strong relationship with the Argument from Ignorance, is the shifting of the Burden of Proof.
In their assertion that “if not who, then what”, they are very clearly trying to switch the Burden of Proof, because what they are indirectly asserting is that if you can’t account for objective moral values then their assertion must be true… which isn’t just ludicrous, it’s actually a subtle Black and White Fallacy… but don’t get me started on that one.
5. Doesn’t Support Monotheism:
And finally, as the last flaw I’ll raise in this video, we have the fact the Craig’s Moral Argument doesn’t support monotheism. Even if objective moral values existed in the way that Craig insists, this wouldn’t even suggest, let alone prove, that a single god is responsible… there is no reason to rule out the possibility that many gods are responsible, and in fact, there is no reason to rule out the possibility that many petulant and childish gods were responsible that have since died. The point being, Craig’s argument supports theism, not monotheism, and certainly not his specific monotheism.
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules
Tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule
And if you’re feeling particularly generous, support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope this video helps you defeat those who would use the Craig’s Moral Argument (the Argument from Morality) against you! Stay rational my fellow apes.