by Dr. Phil Fernandes
A chapter from his doctoral dissertation
© 1997, Institute of Biblical Defense, All
Rights Reserved
The moral argument for God's existence reasons from the existence of universal moral values to the existence of a universal moral Lawgiver.1 This argument maintains that the source of the objective moral values we experience must be an ultimately good Being.2
The apostle Paul stated that Gentiles, who do not have God's written Law, "show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them" (Romans 2:15). The Bible declares that God has written His Law on the hearts of all men. This is the basis for defenders of the faith using moral arguments for God's existence.
THOMAS AQUINAS
Aquinas' fourth way to prove God's existence is his argument from the different degrees of perfection found in finite things.3 Men commonly judge some things to be more perfect than other things. But judgment concerning the degree of perfection in things only makes sense if there exists a most perfect Being. To say that something is more perfect than something else is to say that it closer approximates the perfect. One cannot determine that something falls short of a perfect standard unless that perfect standard is known. Therefore, the perfect must exist. Whatever contains the most perfection must be the source of all the perfection that exists in other beings. Therefore, concludes Aquinas, there must exist a most perfect Being who is the cause of all the perfections that exist in beings containing lesser degrees of perfection.4
IMMANUEL KANT
Immanuel Kant rejected any attempts to prove God's existence through pure rational argumentation. However, he believed that God's existence must be practically posited in order to make sense of man's moral experience.5 Kant argued that man must assume the existence of God and life after death if he is to make sense of his desire for happiness and his moral duty.6 Kant believed that the uniting of man's desire for happiness with man's moral duty could not occur in this life or without God's power. Therefore, reasoned Kant, it is morally necessary (not rationally necessary) to assume God's existence.7
It must be remembered that this argument does not prove God's existence. It only states that man must assume God's existence and the afterlife if he is to make sense of his moral life. Kant's argument does not demand that we conclude that God exists; it merely says that man must live as if God does in fact exist.8
C. S. LEWIS (1898-1963)
C. S. Lewis used an advanced form of the moral argument for God's existence in his work Mere Christianity.9 Lewis argued that man's idea of right and wrong is a clue to the meaning of the universe.10 Lewis reasoned that there must exist a universal moral law for several reasons. First, all moral disagreements between persons imply an appeal to a standard of behavior to which all persons are subject.11 People accused of doing wrong usually claim that their action did not violate the universal standard, or that they somehow had a special excuse for not submitting to the standard in this particular case.12 They do not usually deny the standard itself. Second, quarreling often occurs when one person tries to prove that the action of another person is wrong. However, the fact that two people quarrel about whether or not an action was moral implies that they agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong.13 One person claims the action was right; the other person claims the action was wrong. What they agree upon is the concept of right and wrong (the moral law).14
Lewis reasons that this moral law could not be mere herd instinct. If it were, then the stronger instinct would always win, but, this is not the case. Often, man suppresses his stronger instinct in order to do what he thinks is right.15 For instance, when confronted with imminent danger, a man may desire to run for safety but instead chooses to disregard his own well-being to rescue another. Therefore, the moral law is not man's basic instincts. Instead, it judges between these instincts to determine which instinct is to be applied in the specific situation.16
Lewis also believed that it is wrong to say that this moral law is merely a social convention.17 For not everything that man has learned from others is a social convention. Some things, like mathematics, would be true even if it was never taught.18 The moral law is like mathematics in this respect. It is real regardless of what one's society teaches about it.19 Social progress makes no sense unless the moral law exists independent of societies.20 If the moral law is merely invented by society, then one society (America) cannot call the actions of another society (Nazi Germany) wrong.21
Lewis declared that the moral law cannot be a law of nature.22 For a law of nature is descriptive. It describes how nature is, how it usually acts. But, the moral law does not describe how nature is. The moral law is prescriptive; it prescribes how nature ought to be.23 The moral law stands above man and judges his behavior.
Lewis concluded that there exists a moral law above all men to which they are subject.24 However, matter could not be the cause of moral laws.25 Matter gives instructions to no one. Experience shows us that mind is the cause of moral laws.26 Therefore, this universal moral law that stands above all men must come from a Mind that stands above all men.27
CONCLUSION
Each of the three thinkers mentioned in this chapter have contributed valuable aspects to the moral argument. Lewis' argumentation is impressive. A person might arbitrarily deny the existence of the moral law, but the denial is forced and temporary. If that person is wronged, he will appeal to the moral law for justice.
If the moral law is merely subjective, then no one can declare the actions of another to be wrong. If the moral law is produced by nations, then no nation can condemn the actions of another nation. The moral law could not even be the product of world consensus. The world consensus of the twentieth century could not condemn the slavery of the nineteenth, first, or any other century since world consensus favored the practice of slavery during those times.
The moral judgments of men do not make sense unless the moral law stands above all individuals, all nations, and any supposed consensus of the world. The moral law is universal; it applies to all mankind. The moral law is also eternal; it does not change with time. Therefore, there must exist an eternal moral Lawgiver who stands above all men. Prescriptive laws only come from lawgivers.
A variation of Kant's argument can be utilized effectively by apologists. If there exists no God who will someday judge the actions of men, then it makes no difference how one now lives. One million years from now it will make no difference if one lived like Mother Theresa or Adolph Hitler. If God does exist, then how one lives does make a difference. If there is life after death with rewards and punishment, then the moral experience of man makes sense.
Finally, the thought of Aquinas can be used. When a man makes moral judgments he determines some things to be more perfect than other things. This implies the knowledge of something which is the ultimately perfect standard by which all else is judged. No one can determine a line to be crooked without knowledge of a straight line. The Christian believes that this ultimately perfect standard is the all-good God Himself. Without this all-good God, there could be no such thing as evil. For evil is merely the perversion of that which is good. There could be nothing that is good unless there exists an ultimately good Being who is the source of all lesser goods.
Despite the apparent strengths of the moral argument for God's existence, it is susceptible to some of the same criticisms as the teleological argument. Could not there be several moral lawgivers instead of one? Maybe the moral lawgiver is only a finite being?28 Though these objections can be answered, premises from the cosmological argument for God's existence must be utilized to do so.29
Therefore, it is probably best to start one's argument for God's existence with cosmological premises. This will provide evidence for the existence of one Being who is the eternal uncaused cause of all else that exists. Then one can use premises from the moral and teleological arguments to show that this one Being must also be a moral and intelligent Being.
3 Geisler, Thomas Aquinas, 121.
9 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 15-39.