Well, Matt Slick is at it again, but what’s new?
Matt has put out 36 questions for atheists about standards of morality. He has also asked them in a YouTube video. Many of these don’t pertain to my view on morality, many of them are extremely redundant, and many of them are laughable because they must also be questions that can be put to his god.
I’m not answering these questions because he is sincere about wanting answers to them. Based on the questions, he is making them for his followers to think about. Not a single question here made me think in the slightest. None of them are particularly different than anything that has been asked a million times before.
The real reason I am answering these is because I want Matt to see that I have put forward the effort to answer his questions genuinely and honestly, without trying to avoid a single part of them. I would hope that he would have the courtesy to do the same with the very short list of questions I have at the end of this post.
I’m going to make a prediction here. For some reason, a couple of my blog posts have made Matt flinch in the past, and he totally ignores the meat of what I have to say and makes silly statements about strawmen, and never really addresses my points. I predict that’s what he will do here as well, if he even tries to address them.
I further predict that he won’t directly answer the questions I have for him either. He will try to attack the question from the side without even considering the reality that is his inability to demonstrate objective morality exists.
Matt’s Questions
To preface, I don’t claim absolute knowledge on what I think morality is all about. I am merely explaining how things seem to me, and how they have always seemed to me, even when I was a believer.
His questions are in blue, my answers are below them.
1. OBJECTIVE STANDARD Do you have an objective standard of morality by which you can judge whether or not something is morally right or wrong?
No, I do not, and I don’t think anyone does.
2. NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals?
I get my morals from my opinions about what things may affect me or the people I care about, and the kind of world I want my loved ones and myself to live in. It’s not much more difficult than that.
3. NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how are your moral values not just based on your subjective opinions?
They are just based on my subjective opinions, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t use objective truths to determine what those opinions are. If I don’t want to be murdered, it is best for me to try and shape a society that attempts to prohibit murder. If I don’t want my sister to be raped, it is best to shape a society that attempts to prohibit rape.
4. NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then what gives you the right to make moral judgments upon Nazi Germany or the God of the Bible?
What do you mean by “right”? If you mean why should I have the freedom to express my opinion, why shouldn’t I? I can determine my own opinion about other people’s actions in accordance with what I think is best. Nobody has the ability to stop me from doing that, since those opinions are in my mind. As with all rights, they exist in our minds only. Freedom isn’t something that is given to us, it is a concept that each individual holds that is totally separate from the society they live in or any authority anyone exerts over them.
I think everyone actually has the right to do whatever they want, and nobody can take that away from them. They can only prevent them from exercising those rights. Rights are inherent in the individual, and even preventing the exercise of those rights does not remove them.
For example, you have the right to murder anyone you wish. I can prevent you from doing so, and incarcerate you if you do, but you still retain the right, even while incarcerated. This gets muddied, because in common use, a right is something that the government determines that you have or don’t, or in your case your imagination of a god.
So, I’m wondering if you have a different idea of what a “right” is, and if so, what is it, and if it isn’t inherent to an individual, where do they come from? Even better, how can you demonstrate that your view of rights is objective? (Realize also that I am not saying that rights are objective.)
5. NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
They should, only if there are consequences for not adhering to my standard. When many people get together with the same ideas about morality, they become a society. That society gets to use their power as a group to force individuals to abide by their standard. If they want to do something that is prohibited by that society, they run the risk of the might of the collective punishing them.
I know the question of whether or not I think it’s right for a group of people (society) to inflict their opinions on others will come up in response to this. No, I don’t think it’s right. I don’t think it’s wrong either. It’s just the way it is. Nobody has a moral high ground. Because of this, it would appear that might makes right (correct), whether we like it or not.
6. NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you say that people should not adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong, then how is your standard of any value to anyone?
My standard is of value to me and those that would be protected by me working toward enforcing my standard. I think the discussion of how societies work in regard to the previous question is applicable here as well, so I won’t repeat myself.
7. NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you say that people should adhere to your subjective moral standard, then who decided that your subjective standard is the one that anyone should follow?
Although I didn’t say this, it’s not anyone’s individual standard that holds any weight, it is the standard of the majority in a society that gives weight, otherwise there is no more weight than ones fist can give.
8. DON’T NEED OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?
I’ve already answered this. It is a redundant question, since it is essentially the same as question number two.
9. DON’T NEED OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then how do you know that what you think is right and wrong really is right and wrong?
There is no right or wrong, there is preferable and not. Nobody has access to any source that would show that their values are right or wrong, which means the same as correct or incorrect. This is because there is no objective moral standard that anyone can evaluate. Absent that evaluative domain, nothing can be shown to be more than opinion.
10. HAS OBJECTIVE STANDARD If you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?
I don’t say that there is an objective standard of morality. Not applicable.
11. SOCIETY STANDARD If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then what justifies the idea that society is the proper place to obtain a standard of morality?
I only think that society gives moral standards inasmuch as they have indoctrinating influence. Many Christians have an indoctrinating influence that tells them that gay marriage is somehow going to inflict harm on traditional marriage. Although this is completely objectively false, the Christian society is shown here to create a “moral” standard that has no objective basis.
12. SOCIETY STANDARD If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then which society has the right moral system when they contradict each other?
I’ll clarify here. Individuals make up society, and give society its standards. Absent indoctrinating influence, society has no bearing on standards.
13. SOCIETY STANDARD If you say you got your objective standard of morality from society, then if Nazi Germany was morally wrong to put Jews to death, why was it wrong since its morals were derived from its society?
Not applicable to me or my argument.
14. SOCIETY STANDARD How is having a moral standard based on societal norms not ultimately subjective, since that society is comprised of individuals with subjective moral standards?
Not applicable to me or my argument. All morals are subjective.
15. SOCIETY STANDARD If you believe that society produces an objective moral standard, then how does an accumulation of individuals with subjective moral standards within that society produce an objective moral standard?
Not applicable to me or my argument.
16. SOCIETY STANDARD If society is what determines moral truth, then how is this not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that a society determines what is right and wrong because a society determines what is right and wrong?
Not applicable to me or my argument.
17. SOCIETY STANDARD If society determines what is right and wrong, then it is deriving morals from itself. Aside from the issue of whether or not God exists, why then would you reject the rationale that God derives morals from himself and thereby declares what is right and wrong?
Not applicable to me or my argument, although you seem to think the rationale that God derives morals from himself is also irrational, as I will show below in the instinct section.
18. SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If society determines what is right and wrong, then are the morals derived from society obligatory to all members of society?
Not applicable to me or my argument, although societies morality is obligatory only in the sense that you are required by force to oblige.
19. SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If the morals derived in society are not obligatory then how are they proper morals that should be followed?
Not applicable to me or my argument, but as I said earlier, might makes right.
20. SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If the morals derived in society are obligatory, then from where do you derive the right to impose them on people?
Might makes right.
21. SOCIETY STANDARD OBLIGATORY If you say that society has the right to impose its morals on its people, then how can you legitimately complain against Nazi Germany or the Jews of the Old Testament since both societies imposed their morals on people?
Anyone can legitimately complain about Nazi’s etc. because they live in a society which includes the entire world. If someone wants to make society more in compliance with their point of view, they not only have a right, but they have an obligation to themselves to try to make all individual societies better as that will make the world better, which is just an extension of any society on earth.
22. COMMON SENSE STANDARD If you say your moral standard is based on common sense, then what do you do when what is “common sense” for you contradicts with what is “common sense” for someone else?
This is just a silly argument for a standard. I’ve never met anyone that seriously argued for common sense when it comes to morality.
23. COMMON SENSE STANDARD If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”?
Not applicable.
24. COMMON SENSE STANDARD If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?
Not applicable.
25. EVOLVING STANDARD If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then by what non-subjective standard do you judge that it is getting better?
I don’t use a non-subjective standard.
26. EVOLVING STANDARD If you say your moral standard, whether social or personal, is evolving and getting better, then how do you know it is getting better without committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying things are getting better because they are evolving?
I say it’s getting better because that’s my opinion of it. Since it’s all subjective, no fallacy need apply.
27. EVOLVING STANDARD If you say your standard is evolving and getting better, then can you assert that it won’t evolve into something that contradicts what you believe now, thereby demonstrating that your moral beliefs now were really wrong?
My moral standards have changed many times to contradict what they were before. I used to think that gay marriage was a bad thing. I now don’t. My current belief contradicts my previous belief.
I personally would never want to meet a person whose moral beliefs don’t change throughout their life. If you don’t look at the world and realize that some things work better than others, and some ideas you held were just stupid, you’re not living your own life, you’re stuck in a dogmatic situation with no reason to be so, as nobody has an objective source to show you from which you can get a perfect morality.
Now, since morality isn’t a “correct” or “incorrect” issue, but a preference, there is no problem if what I believe now changes, since the only person it should matter to is myself.
28. EVOLVING STANDARD If your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?
Morality isn’t true or false, right or wrong, correct or incorrect, it is a preference, like whether you like chocolate or not.
29. SELF DETERMINED If you say your morals are self-determined, then are they true for everyone or just for you?
Again, not true or false.
30. SELF DETERMINED If your self-determined morals are true only for you, then do you have the right to judge the morals of anyone else, such as the God of the Bible, by saying they are wrong?
Redundant question. Already answered.
31. INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how are they morals and not simply brain patterns to which you arbitrarily attach moral values?
This instinct part is where it gets funny. I have talked to Matt before about this very subject. He holds to the Craig view, namely that God is moral not arbitrarily or because of something outside himself, he is moral because of his nature.
What are instincts if they aren’t the nature of a being? Why is it a problem for instincts to determine a human’s morality, but not for God?
If you can answer how God’s programmed behavior makes them morals, you can also answer why an individual’s instincts would do the same. Therefore Matt, I’ll leave this question for you to answer yourself, since it doesn’t apply to me, but it certainly applies to your God.
Realize, if it’s nature, it can’t be arbitrary right? Remember how you try to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma? It seems like you hold a double standard.
32. INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then wouldn’t that mean that different people’s brains would produce different moral values?
Hmm, since different people have different moral values, it would seem completely expected.
Nature is a strange thing. It causes organisms to act within specifications essentially. There are a certain set of parameters in which a heart rate can work, or blood pressure can work, or how neurons can work. This is the same with instinct. That means that for the majority of things most people would act the same, but there would be certain circumstances where they could act different, but still be totally within their nature.
This is not an argument against instinct, but a showing that you don’t understand that everyone has their own individual set of morals that they act upon.
33. INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how would you really know if anything is right or wrong?
Again, there is no right or wrong with morality, just preference. Besides that though, if you stop breathing, your brain will tell you that you need to resume. If you ignore that signal and don’t resume breathing, your brain will shut your consciousness down and resume its desired result of breathing on its own.
If there is a right and wrong, all it could be is the brain’s desire to be in a certain state, and giving you a strong enough signal that makes you believe some things are right and others are wrong.
34. INSTINCT If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then how does one neuro-chemical state of the brain that leads to another neuro-chemical state produce proper moral truths?
There are no moral truths.
35. WHATEVER WORKS If you really don’t know what is right or wrong, but just go with “whatever works,” then what gives you the right to complain about anyone’s moral actions anytime or anywhere, since different behaviors work for different people in different situations?
Anyone that actually goes with whatever works would seemingly only think that something is right or wrong if it works or doesn’t. This would seem like an actual objective standard, at least to get to whatever the person wants to work.
36. WHATEVER WORKS If you really don’t know what is right or wrong, but just go with “whatever works,” then how is moral stability obtained when “whatever works” can change depending on circumstances and goals?
Are you saying that your morality wouldn’t change based on circumstances and goals?
I’m sure you would think it immoral to allow your family starve to death. I’m sure you also would think it immoral to steal. What happens if next month you find yourself with your family in the middle of nowhere with your family in imminent danger of starving to death. If you came across an abandoned warehouse that was full of food, but no way to find anyone to ask permission of to get the food, would you break into the building and take food that isn’t yours in order to save your family?
How is this question supposed to show anything different than your own morality?
Final Thoughts
Do I know absolutely that morality is subjective? No, I think professing absolute knowledge of almost anything is a stupid thing to do. On the other hand, it does seem to be the only thing that makes sense.
I know that people have objective things that they look at to determine their own personal opinions of morality, and many would think that is an objective source. I think that since the end result is still a subjective opinion, that means that morality is subjective.
People that want to use this moral argument are using what people perceive as being objective against them. In fact, even if there were an objective source for morality, there would be no necessity for it to be God. Further, Matt has shown by his questions that he has little to stand on when it comes to the morality of his deity.
In the long run, people like to feel their morality is objective because it makes them feel okay for inflicting their arbitrary values on other people. I don’t see the reason to worry about it unless you want to fool people into thinking your opinion holds more weight than other people’s opinion.
Direct Questions for Matt
How can you show that morality is objective? Obviously no two people seem to share the same morality. There isn’t some book somewhere that everyone can go to and say, “Ahh, this is moral, and this isn’t.” Even if there was, what authority would that book have? Why should it be the standard beyond all others?
I want you to point out the evaluative domain that would show that anyone’s opinion on morality is more than opinion, and why you should have the right to demand your morality be upheld above other people’s.
Without being able to demonstrate your source for the morality you consider to be objective, why should anyone take your moral views seriously?
Related posts: