Program / Course 22: Christian Ethics / Lesson 1.5
What you will learn
- Define moral realism, relativism, subjectivism and expressivism.
- Explain the main arguments for and against objective moral truth.
- Describe the argument from morality to God and the main objections to it.
- Describe how Christian traditions and secular philosophers stand on the question.
The big idea
Moral realism is the view that some moral claims are true or false independently of what any person or culture thinks. Rivals deny this, saying that morality is an expression of feeling, a product of culture or a human construction. The debate is about the status of moral claims, not about whether people should be moral. Christian traditions have generally held a form of realism, rooted in God, while many secular philosophers defend realism without God and others reject it. Each side has serious arguments.
Key terms
- Moral realism
- The view that there are objective moral facts, so that moral claims can be true or false whatever anyone believes.
- Cultural relativism
- The view that what is right is determined by the standards of a culture, so that no culture’s morality is better than another’s.
- Subjectivism
- The view that a moral statement reports or reflects the speaker’s own attitude.
- Expressivism (non-cognitivism)
- The view that moral statements express attitudes or commands and are not claims that can be true or false. Emotivism is an early form.
- Error theory
- The view, defended by J. L. Mackie, that moral claims aim to state objective facts but that there are no such facts, so they are all false.
- Moral epistemology
- The study of how, if at all, people can know moral truths.
- Argument from morality
- An argument that objective moral truths are best explained by the existence of God.
Background
Almost everyone speaks as if some things are really wrong. A person who says that cruelty to children is wrong usually means more than that he dislikes it. Moral realism takes such speech at face value. The challenge comes from several directions. Anthropologists have recorded wide differences in custom. Some scientists and philosophers argue that moral beliefs have evolved because they helped groups survive, which seems to explain moral belief without needing moral facts. And philosophers ask what sort of fact a moral fact could be, and how anyone could know it.
Christian theology has generally held that moral truth is real. Scripture speaks of God as judge of the whole earth and of a law known even to those without the Scripture (Romans 2:14-15). Yet Christian thinkers have not all agreed on how to ground or know this truth, as the last two lessons showed. This lesson sets out the main options in the wider debate and how Christians and others respond to them.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The options
Moral realism says that moral facts exist and are independent of opinion. Some realists are naturalists, who think moral facts are a kind of natural fact, such as facts about well-being. Others, called non-naturalists, hold that moral facts are of a distinct kind. Theistic realists ground moral facts in God.
Relativism says that moral truth varies with culture or individual. Expressivism says that moral talk expresses attitudes. Error theory says that moral claims are all false because nothing in the world fits them. Constructivism holds that moral truths are the result of a rational procedure or agreement, and not discovered. The positions are sophisticated and have capable defenders, including some who live by high moral standards.
Step 2: Arguments for realism
Realists point first to moral experience. When a person judges that torturing a child for fun is wrong, it seems less like a taste and more like seeing something true. Second, realists point to moral progress and moral criticism. If morality were only local custom, it would make no sense to say that a society was mistaken to practice slavery. Reformers appear to be correcting errors, not just changing fashions. Third, realists argue that moral disagreement does not prove that there is no truth, any more than disagreement about history or science does.
C. S. Lewis made a popular version of the argument in Mere Christianity. He observed that people quarrel by appealing to a standard that they expect others to know, and that they feel the pull of a law they did not make. He then argued that this points beyond nature to a lawgiver. Critics grant the observation and dispute the inference.
Step 3: Arguments against realism
Critics raise several points. J. L. Mackie argued that objective moral facts would be strange: unlike other facts, they would be intrinsically action-guiding, and a special faculty would be needed to know them. Evolutionary debunking arguments say that human moral beliefs were shaped by survival, not by tracking truth, so there is reason to doubt them. Sharon Street and others have pressed this in the secular literature. Realists reply that evolution can explain why human beings have the capacity to reason morally without showing that moral conclusions are false, just as it explains the human capacity to do mathematics.
Relativists add that anthropology shows great variety. Realists reply that there is also great overlap, including bans on murder and betrayal of the group, and that variation often reflects different factual beliefs about who counts as a person or what the gods require.
Step 4: God and moral truth
Theists argue that God best explains objective morality. If moral truths are real and binding, they say, there must be something that grounds them, and a perfectly good God is a suitable ground. Some, such as William Lane Craig, argue that without God there are no objective moral values. Others argue that moral facts may exist without God, but that God explains why human creatures can know them.
Secular realists, such as Russ Shafer-Landau and the philosopher Derek Parfit, defend objective morality without God. They say that moral truths are like mathematical truths, necessary and independent of will. Christians who accept natural law can often agree with much of this, while adding that God is the source of all truth. Atheist critics reply that the argument from morality fails because moral facts do not need a ground, or because God’s commands face the Euthyphro problem.
- Is the claim being made a statement of fact, an expression of feeling, or a report of a custom?
- If the claim is true, what makes it true?
- How could anyone come to know such a truth?
- Does the view allow that a whole society could be wrong about morality?
- What does the view do with moral disagreement, and is that explanation convincing?
- Does the view require God, and if so, why?
Examples
A reformer’s claim
Someone says that a society which allowed slavery was wrong even though most of its members approved. If morality is only custom, this claim has no meaning. A realist takes it as true. A relativist must say that it means only that people now disagree with that society. (A constructed example of the argument.)
Mackie’s queerness
Mackie asked what in the world could make an action wrong and give everyone who knew it a reason to avoid it. He thought nothing in nature does this and concluded that moral claims are systematically false. Theists such as Alvin Plantinga reply that a theistic world has just such a source.
Agreement beneath difference
Two cultures disagree on whether an elderly relative should be cared for at home or in an institution. Both agree that the relative is owed respect and care. The disagreement lies in how to give what both think is due. Realists point to such cases to say that deep disagreement is often smaller than it looks. (A constructed example.)
Different perspectives
Catholic
Catholic teaching holds that there is an objective moral order knowable by reason and grounded in God. The Catechism treats conscience as the judgment of reason by which a person recognizes the moral quality of an act, and insists that conscience can err and must be formed. Relativism is criticized in recent papal teaching as a threat to truth, though Catholic thinkers also acknowledge sincere error and the need for dialogue.
Orthodox
Orthodox theology holds that truth and goodness are in God, who is himself the Truth (John 14:6). Orthodox writers usually treat moral knowledge as bound up with holiness: purified hearts see more truly. They are less inclined to argue about the metaphysics of moral facts and more inclined to stress that the moral life is lived in the church, though they affirm that morality is real.
Protestant
Protestants broadly affirm moral truth grounded in God and revealed in Scripture. Reformed philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff have defended realism and the rationality of moral belief. Karl Barth held that the knowledge of the good comes through the command of God in Christ and not by independent reason. Some liberal Protestants have held more constructivist or contextual views.
Secular philosophy
Secular philosophers are divided. Realists such as Parfit and Shafer-Landau defend objective morality. Mackie defended error theory. Expressivists such as Simon Blackburn argue that moral talk expresses attitudes but can be refined by reason. Others hold constructivist views like those of Christine Korsgaard. These positions are live and serious, and each has produced arguments that Christians have had to answer.
Why it matters
Whether moral claims can be true shapes how a person deals with disagreement and with the temptation to cynicism. Those who think morality is only preference may stop arguing or may impose their preference by force. Those who think there is moral truth are invited to give reasons, to listen, and to accept correction. For Christians, the question also bears on how to speak with nonbelievers about moral questions in public life.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Moral realists think they already know all moral truth.
Correction: Realism is about the status of moral claims, not about how well anyone knows them. Realists can be very modest about their own knowledge and can admit that they have been wrong.
Misunderstanding: Rejecting realism means rejecting morality.
Correction: Expressivists, constructivists and others argue that morality remains serious and binding. Some of them are demanding moral thinkers. The disagreement is about the nature of moral claims.
Misunderstanding: Cultural differences prove relativism.
Correction: Differences in belief do not show that there is no truth. People disagree about history and science as well. Relativism also has the odd result that moral reformers are always wrong.
Misunderstanding: Only believers can be moral realists.
Correction: Many atheist philosophers defend realism. The argument from morality says only that God is the best explanation, which they dispute.
Knowledge check
What does moral realism claim?
It claims that there are objective moral facts, so that moral claims can be true or false whatever any person or culture believes. A realist can hold this on theistic or non-theistic grounds, and can be uncertain about particular moral questions while holding that there is a truth to be found.
Name two rivals to realism and state each briefly.
Expressivism holds that moral statements express attitudes and are not strictly true or false. Error theory holds that moral claims try to describe objective facts but there are no such facts, so they are false. Relativism holds that morality depends on culture or individuals. Any two of these are correct.
What is the evolutionary debunking argument, and how do realists reply?
It says moral beliefs were shaped by survival pressures, not by tracking moral truth, so there is reason to doubt them. Realists reply that evolution can explain the human capacity to reason about morality without showing the conclusions false, just as it explains mathematical ability. Some also appeal to God as guiding the process.
What does the argument from morality claim, and what is one objection?
It claims that objective moral truths are best explained by the existence of a good God. One objection is that moral facts may exist without a divine ground, as some secular realists argue. Another is that a God whose will grounds morality faces the Euthyphro problem.
Think it through
- Are there moral claims you hold so firmly that you cannot imagine being wrong about them? What supports them?
- How do you decide between a real moral disagreement and a difference in custom?
- Is the argument from morality persuasive to you? What would a reasonable nonbeliever reply?
- How should a person speak about moral truth with someone who thinks morality is only opinion?
Independent assignment
A defense and a challenge
In your notebook, write 400 to 600 words. Choose a moral claim you hold, such as that torturing an innocent person for fun is wrong. Write the best case you can that it is objectively true. Then write the best case a relativist or expressivist could make against you, and reply. State whether your reply depends on belief in God, and why. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Moral Arguments for the Existence of God Read for the arguments from morality to God and the objections.
- C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity Read Book 1 on the law of human nature.
- Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief Read selectively on belief and knowledge.
- Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals Read the first essay for a famous challenge to the origins of Christian morality.
- Romans 2:15 The law written on the heart.
- John 14:6 Jesus as the truth.
- Judges 21:25 Every man did what was right in his own eyes.