Russell argues against Theism - Moral Values
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kennesaw State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2200
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by AdmiralResolve5716
Russell: I would like you to make an argument that proves God’s existence on the basis of Moral values.
Theist: Objective Moral values exist that cannot be explained by naturalism, or the idea that they are
created by natural causes. Because of this, there is a supernatural source for these objective moral
values, and the best explanation for their existence is God.
Russell: So, you’re saying that these objective moral values CANNOT be explained by naturalism, correct?
Theist: Yes, that is correct.
Russell: While there are objective moral values, they are not supernaturally sourced. These objective
moral values can come from evolution and human reason, meaning there is no need for a supernatural
source to provide these morals.
Theist: I see what you’re saying. However, Moral values are normative, meaning they tell us what we
ought to do rather than describing what it means. And Nothing naturalistic is normative. Therefore,
moral values cannot be naturalistic.
Russell: Yes, moral values may be normative, and nothing naturalistic is normative, but this doesn’t mean
that moral values are not naturalistic. Moral values, in this case, are an exception to normative values
that cannot be reduced to other kinds of values, for example, aesthetic, or judgement by look or beauty,
or prudential values, the good for a person.
Theist: I see.
Russell: Now, and on the subject of morality, you would say that if objective morality comes from a
supernatural source, that source is God. Correct?
Theist: Yes, correct.
Russell: Well in that case, there is no objective standard between what is good and what is evil.
Theist: Explain.
Russell: If God is the deciding factor in what is right or what is wrong, then their inborn difference
between right and wrong. Whatever God wills is right, simply because God wills it.
Theist: Go on.
Russell: This means that God could will the opposite of what is Good. So in this case, say he wills you to
kill. In this case, because God wills it, it would be right. As well as this, if there is no objective standard of
good and evil, then what does it mean to say that God is Good? Because if God defines what is good, it is
simply a redundant statement; like saying God is God. Therefore, I conclude that moral arguments
cannot prove God’s existence because they lead to an absurd conclusion that God is not good in any
meaningful sense.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help