Is God Really the Best Explanation of Objective Moral Values and Duties?

Many argue that God is the ultimate authority for objective moral values and duties. However, this belief is increasingly challenged by a combination of historical and logical arguments. This essay will explore why the Golden Rule, an ethical principle that resonates universally across cultures, serves as a sufficient and effective alternative to divine authority.

The Golden Rule vs. God's Demands

One common argument against divine authority is that it often prescribes morally questionable behaviors. For example, the Bible, under the guise of divine law, has been used to justify horrific acts such as:

Killing heathens (Numbers 31:17–18) Killing disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) Killing homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13) Killing adulterers (Leviticus 20:10) Killing those with weekend jobs (Exodus 31:14-15, Exodus 35:2) Slavery (Exodus 21:2–11, Ephesians 6:5–9, Timothy 6:1–2, Colossians 4:1)

These passages demonstrate that divine commands can be fundamentally at odds with modern ethical standards. The Golden Rule, on the other hand, provides a universal command: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This simple principle aligns with most ethical frameworks and transcends religious boundaries. It does not enforce slavery or endorse barbaric practices.

Objective Moral Values without God

Historically, the most religious countries have often been among the most morally challenged. Countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kuwait, with high levels of crime, pollution, and a lack of women's rights, do not necessarily correlate with higher moral standards. Even the United States, while still dealing with significant moral issues, often ranks lower in terms of objective moral values.

The argument that laws require divine authority for enforcement is also weak. Law enforcement agencies, independent of religious beliefs, maintain societal order. Without police presence, moral laws would lose their practical application. Furthermore, laws can vary widely across different regions and time periods, making divine commands arbitrary and non-universal.

Defining Morality: Ethics and Conduct

Morality is often described as judgment on actions as good or bad. Ethics, by contrast, is a logical reasoning framework. A simplistic definition of morality involves standards and codes of conduct, while ethics provides the rational basis for these standards.

Is morality objective?

Morality can include absolutes, but the necessity of an external arbiter for absolute good and bad is questionable. For example, while harming society is generally bad, it was not bad during the Nazi regime. Thus, moral standards must be relative to certain contexts.

God as the Sole Legitimate Basis

The concept of divine authority for morality is complex, and God may be seen as the only external arbiter for some. However, defining external standards of good and bad raises questions: who defines these standards?

People can still judge right and wrong without divine guidance. Cognitive abilities and ethical frameworks allow individuals to make moral judgments independently of religious doctrine. Therefore, while God may be seen as a source of morality for some, it is not the only or necessary basis for ethical behavior.