Are Moral Values Grounded in Human Nature or Divine Revelation?
Introduction
The origin and grounding of moral values have been a subject of intense debate throughout history. This article aims to examine the arguments surrounding the foundation of moral values, considering both human nature and divine revelation as potential sources.
The Argument from Human Nature
Evolutionary Basis of Morality
One argument for the grounding of moral values in human nature is based on evolutionary psychology. Proponents of this view contend that certain moral instincts have evolved over time to promote group cohesion and survival. For example, empathy, cooperation, and altruism are considered innate traits that enhance the well-being of a community.
Criticisms of Evolutionary Morality
Critics argue that while evolution may explain some aspects of human morality, it cannot account for all moral values. They assert that an evolutionary basis for morality is insufficient to justify absolute or universal moral principles and often leads to a “might makes right” mentality. Furthermore, they highlight the problem of deriving prescriptive norms from descriptive facts (the naturalistic fallacy).
Moral Relativism
Another perspective on the grounding of moral values in human nature suggests that morality is culturally relative and varies across societies. Proponents of moral relativism argue that there are no objective moral standards, only subjective preferences based on individual or cultural perspectives.
The Argument from Divine Revelation
Moral Objectivism and Theistic Ethics
Theistic moral objectivists maintain that moral values have their source in divine revelation. According to this view, God’s nature serves as the foundation for moral principles, which are then revealed to humans through sacred texts or religious authorities. By adhering to these divine commands, individuals can discern right from wrong.
The Divine Command Theory
One version of theistic ethics is known as the divine command theory, which posits that actions are morally right if and only if they are commanded by God. This approach emphasizes obedience to divine authority as a central aspect of morality.
Challenges to Theistic Moral Objectivism
Critics of theistic moral objectivism raise several objections:
- Euthyphro dilemma: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is inherently good? If the former, then morality seems arbitrary; if the latter, then there must be a standard of goodness independent of divine will.
- Pluralism: With multiple religions and conflicting divine revelations, which set of moral principles should we follow?
- Evidential problem of evil: How can an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God permit significant suffering in the world?
Counterarguments from Theistic Worldview
Addressing the Euthyphro Dilemma
Theists respond to the Euthyphro dilemma by distinguishing between God’s nature and his commands. Moral values are grounded in God’s unchanging character, while specific moral rules may vary depending on circumstances.
Resolving Religious Pluralism
Regarding pluralism, theistic philosophers argue that common moral principles can be found across different faiths, indicating some shared understanding of morality. Additionally, they assert that certain religions (e.g., Christianity) provide more coherent and persuasive explanations for the existence of objective moral values.
The Problem of Evil: A Theodicy
In response to the problem of evil, various theistic defenses and theodicies have been proposed. These attempt to reconcile God’s goodness with the presence of suffering by appealing to factors such as human free will, soul-making theodicy, or eschatological redemption.
Rebuttals against Moral Relativism
Cultural Practices and Moral Progress
Critics of moral relativism point out that cultural practices have evolved over time due to external influences, suggesting an objective standard against which progress can be measured. Moreover, they argue that moral relativism struggles to account for universal human rights or condemn atrocities committed in the name of cultural traditions.
Self-Refuting Nature of Moral Relativism
Furthermore, critics contend that moral relativism is self-refuting: if there are no objective moral standards, then any attempt to impose one’s subjective preferences on others would be unjustifiable. This undermines the very foundation of moral discourse and social cohesion.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while both human nature and divine revelation offer insights into the grounding of moral values, neither account provides a comprehensive explanation on its own. Recognizing the limitations of each perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of morality that acknowledges both our innate capacities for empathy and cooperation as well as the transcendent source of objective moral principles.
References
Beckwith, F., & Koukl, G. (2017). Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. Baker Books.
Copan, P., & Craig, W. L. (2004). Creation out of nothing: A biblical, philosophical, and scientific exploration. Baker Academic.
Hasker, W. (1988). God, time, and knowledge. Cornell University Press.
Morris, T. V. (1986). The problem of evil: Selected readings (Vol. 27). Prentice Hall.
Oderberg, D. S. (2005). Real Essentialism. Routledge.
Plantinga, A. C., & Wolterstorff, N. P. (Eds.). (1983). Faith and rationality: Reason and belief in God. University of Notre Dame Press.
Swinburne, R. (2004). The coherence of theism. Oxford University Press.
Van Inwagen, P. (1995). God, knowledge, and mystery: Essays in philosophical theology. Cornell University Press.
Keywords
Moral values, human nature, divine revelation, moral relativism, theistic ethics, evolutionary psychology, cultural practices, objective morality, subjective preferences, divine command theory, Euthyphro dilemma, problem of evil, eschatological redemption.