Why Morality Cannot Be Objective
A common argument from religious believers against an atheistic worldview is the idea that without God, one cannot claim that anything is objectively wrong. Whether or not this is true has no bearing on whether a religious or atheistic worldview is correct. However, it is indeed the case that morality in an atheistic framework cannot be based on an objective standard like divine law. The problem, though, is that religious believers cannot truly base their morality on an objective standard either. They merely live under the illusion that they have access to an objective moral system. In this blog, I will explain why I believe that is the case.
What is Morality?
Simply put, morality involves categorizing human actions as "good" or "bad" (what is) and determining how we ought to act. Every society, throughout history and across cultures, has established moral rules guiding human behavior. These rules differ from culture to culture and evolve over time. Some actions, like murder and theft, are almost universally condemned, while others, such as abortion, polygamy, and sexuality, spark great debate and disagreement.
The evolution of moral standards is evident in historical shifts, such as the abolition of slavery, the improved status of women, and the acceptance of homosexuality. Morality, then, is a human construct. While intelligent animals like apes and dolphins display behaviors resembling moral instincts (grief, loyalty, self-sacrifice), they lack the abstract reasoning and foresight that humans employ to develop ethical principles.
Subjective vs. Objective Morality
The study of moral systems across cultures is called descriptive ethics, which explains how morality functions in practice but does not tell us how we ought to live. The latter falls under normative ethics. Within normative ethics, moral systems can claim to be either subjective or objective. Religious believers often assert that their moral framework is objective—but what does that really mean?
Objective morality asserts that moral truths exist independently of human beliefs. An action is good or evil regardless of what people think. A classic example used by believers is the idea that even if the Nazis had conquered the world and raised everyone to believe that genocide was good, it would still be morally wrong. According to this view, moral laws exist outside of human opinions, given by God, and dictate right and wrong regardless of human perception.
Subjective morality, on the other hand, posits that moral truths do not exist independently but are always tied to human beliefs and values. Since people have differing beliefs and societies change, moral perspectives also shift, making them flexible.
Many atheists accept subjective morality, believing that objective morality could only exist if God were real. But I argue that objective morality is impossible in principle, even if a God were to exist.
The Euthyphro Dilemma
A major philosophical problem for religious moral objectivism is the Euthyphro dilemma, derived from a dialogue by Plato. In this dialogue, Socrates asks Euthyphro:
"Is something good because the gods approve it, or do the gods approve it because it is good?"
This question presents a dilemma for believers who claim that morality is both objective and determined by God. Let's examine both possibilities:
- Something is good because God approves it.
- This means morality is entirely dependent on God's will. But if something is only good because God says so, then morality becomes arbitrary.
- If God were to declare that torture is good, then it would be good—solely because He commands it. This feels problematic, as it suggests that good and evil lack inherent meaning.
- Furthermore, it implies that if God were to decide tomorrow that honesty is evil, we would have to accept that shift, which contradicts our deep-seated moral intuitions.
- God approves something because it is already good.
- In this case, a moral standard exists independently of God, which He merely recognizes but does not determine.
- This, however, contradicts the idea that God is the ultimate source of morality. If morality exists outside of God, then we do not need God to discover or follow moral truths.
There is also a third possible response: God is by nature good and reveals that goodness to us. This, however, is merely a seeming escape from the dilemma. What does it mean to say that "God is by nature good"? This ultimately results in a tautology: goodness is defined by God's nature, and God's nature is defined as good. This does not provide an independent standard of morality but instead reinforces the circular reasoning behind the claim that morality originates from God.
This dilemma shows that invoking God as the foundation of objective morality leads to problems. If moral values exist independently of God, then morality does not require divine authority. But if moral values depend entirely on God's will, then they become arbitrary and potentially dangerous.
Even if... (The Is-Ought Problem)
Even if we set aside the Euthyphro dilemma and assume that objective moral truths exist, we still face a fundamental issue: The Is-Ought Problem, formulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume. This problem states that you cannot logically derive an ought (how things should be) from an is (how things are).
Let's assume that "murder is wrong" is an objective fact. That still does not tell us that we must refrain from murder. An objective fact alone does not impose a moral obligation. To objectively claim that we are obligated to follow moral truths, one must first prove that we are bound by such obligations. This remains an open question that neither religion nor philosophy can resolve without circular reasoning.
Believers often argue that God commands us to do good and avoid evil. However, this does not solve the problem—who says we must do what God commands? The mere fact that God issues moral directives does not inherently impose an obligation to follow them. Without an independent reason to obey, the claim that God's commands establish moral duty becomes circular and unconvincing.
Conclusion
Many religious people claim that an atheistic worldview lacks an objective moral foundation, but I have demonstrated that they cannot claim objectivity either. Even if a God existed, fundamental philosophical issues such as the Euthyphro dilemma and the Is-Ought problem persist.
Furthermore, history shows that moral values are not fixed, unchanging truths, but rather products of human nature, culture, and social progress. Moral norms are based on our social needs, empathy, and reason—not on an absolute external source.
Even if objective moral facts existed, we would still face the question of why we should follow them—a question that no religious or secular system can answer in a fully objective way. This means that, in practice, morality is always human-constructed and therefore subjective, despite our tendency to seek universal principles.
Religion may offer the feeling of objective morality, but upon closer inspection, it turns out to be nothing more than an illusion of objectivity.
