Sartre offers some thought experiments in order to purge God as the all encompassing entity about human morality. Consider the following:
4 Step Argument:
- If morality is absolute, then there are observable moral objects
- God’s prohibitions/permissions would be such observable objects
- There are no other conceivable such objects
- by 1,2,3) If God does not exist, then morality is not absolute. No absolute moral facts.
Possible Objections:
- What are observable moral objects? This seems obviously implausible. One cannot fathom such objects as observable.
- Seems to claim an identity, namely, that God’s prohibitions/permissions is exactly what morality is about. Does morally wrong mean the same thing as prohibited by God? These two things are not the same. A creature with a heart is a creature with a kidney. Although this follows with a double arrow, they are not really identical. [Difference between a biconditional statement and = ]
C1. morally wrong = (by def.) prohibited by God.
C2. God prohibited rape
b/c it’s wrong.
C3. God prohibited rape b/c it’s
prohibited by God.
X
Let us try C4:
C1. morally wrong = (by def.) prohibited by God.
C4. Rape is wrong just because God prohibited it.
C5. If God permitted rape, it would be ok (in all senses e.g. morally)
If C1 is true, there are only two ways to prove it, C2 or C4. These are exhaustive, so if C1 is true, the C2 or C4 route must work. Both lead to falsity, therefore C1 is false.
One might say ‘God would never say rape is ok because it is heinous.’ The C4 route will not allow us to make this objection.
An atheist can reject C2 and C4 altogether by saying ‘there is no God at all, so I reject the premises.’ But if we think morality has something to do with permissions/prohibitions of God, then C2 or C4 are employed. For an identity to be true, one avenue must work. Both are false, C1 is false.
To prove the falsity of the identity above, we offer a true analogical identity:
C1’: Illegal = (by def.) prohibited by gov’t
C2’ Gov’t prohibited rape
b/c it’s illegal
X
Let us try C4’:
C1’: Illegal = (by def.) prohibited by gov’t
C4’: Rape is illegal because gov’t prohibits it
C5’: If gov’t legalized rape, it would be legal.
C2’ is false. Avenue that opens is C4’. C4’ leads to C5’. C5’ works. There is no “batting of an eyelash†here. It seems matter of fact and easily acceptable. In the case of God, it is not as easy, and one can imagine one might still have reservations about raping kids even if God declared its legality and further sanctity today. This big difference is response shows there is more to morality than God’s permissions/prohibitions making things moral/immoral. This shows that there is more to our morality than God. This is what we’re interested in. Then we did not get e.g. raping children is wrong, (completely) from God. God does not reduce the mystery of moral facts.
Is this scheme acceptable? Can we say that the gov’t/legality identity claim is an analogy? Are there mistaken and/or debatable assumptions in the 4 step argument?