Q&A: Question about the moral argument for the existence of God
Question about the moral argument for the existence of God
Question
Hello Rabbi, I have a question regarding the moral argument. The side that argues for the existence of God claims that there needs to be an objective reference point in reality in order for morality to be objective rather than subjective. What if I were to argue that just as logic is objective and exists in reality, so too morality operates in the same way. For example, the moral statement, “It is forbidden to harm others for one’s own pleasure,” could be claimed to exist like other logical propositions that exist, such as the law of non-contradiction, and that these objective moral laws—unlike logical ones—also obligate us (because otherwise it wouldn’t be morality…).
Thank you in advance.
Answer
I spoke about this in a discussion with David Enoch, who himself raised this analogy. I answered him that the principles of logic do not exist anywhere in reality. They are only forms for describing connections and relationships between concepts and propositions. I have written here more than once that the concept of a “law” is used in a different sense in science and in law than it is in logic. See also Column 456, which describes the debate. See also Column 457. It seems to me that I addressed there a subtle point regarding moral laws: on the one hand, they are a priori and do not depend on reality, and they could not have been otherwise (even the Holy One, blessed be He, is subject to them); but without Him they have no validity. See there.