Is there objective "good" and "evil," or is morality merely a matter of opinions and cultures?

This question is among the oldest and deepest philosophical inquiries, with particular importance in discussions about God's existence. Is murder "truly wrong," or merely something we dislike? Is justice an "objective virtue," or just a social agreement? The answer to this question affects how we see the world, how we live, and perhaps what we believe.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some believers:

"Without God there is no morality, end of story." Hasty reasoning. Even if this were true (which is debatable), merely repeating it doesn't convince someone seeking an argument. Many atheists live deeply moral lives and have philosophical justifications for their ethics. The stronger argument would be: if morality is truly objective, this raises a question about its source.

"Atheists have no morals." Both factually and argumentatively wrong. Factually, many atheists are highly moral. Argumentatively, the question isn't "do atheists behave morally?" but "how do they justify the objectivity of morality?" Conflating these questions weakens the argument.

From some atheists:

"Morality evolved, so it's not objective." A logical leap. Even if our capacity to perceive morality evolved, this doesn't negate its objectivity. Our ability to perceive mathematics also evolved, but this doesn't mean 2+2=4 is a "personal opinion." Evolution might explain "how" we perceive morality, not "whether" it's objective.

"Morality is relative because cultures differ." A superficial observation. Yes, cultures differ in many details, but there are remarkably shared fundamental values: justice, mercy, honesty, courage. Even apparent differences may reflect different applications of shared principles, not the absence of principles.

Why These Responses Are Inadequate

They share an excessive oversimplification of a complex question. The question of moral objectivity is not merely religious, but deeply philosophical. Atheist philosophers like Derek Parfit and Thomas Nagel defend moral objectivity, while some believers (extreme Divine Command Theory) might make morality arbitrary.

Serious Positions in the Debate

First, Moral Realism. A position holding that there are objective moral facts, independent of our opinions. "Torture for pleasure is wrong" isn't merely an opinion, but a fact. This position has religious versions (morality is grounded in God's nature) and secular versions (morality consists of necessary facts like mathematics).

Second, Moral Relativism. A position holding that morality depends on culture or individuals, not objective facts. What is "right" in one culture may be "wrong" in another, and there's no neutral standard for judgment. This position is common in cultural anthropology and some contemporary philosophical currents.

Third, Moral Emotivism. A position holding that moral judgments are merely expressions of feelings, not claims about facts. Saying "murder is wrong" means only "I don't like murder!" or "boo to murder!" This position was developed by philosophers like A.J. Ayer in the twentieth century.

Fourth, Moral Constructivism. A middle position attempting to avoid absolute relativism and rigid realism. Morality is "constructed" by rational agents under ideal conditions, but it's not arbitrary. John Rawls and Christine Korsgaard are prominent representatives of this approach.

Fifth, Modified Divine Command Theory. A position holding that morality is grounded in God's nature, not in His arbitrary commands. God is good by nature, and morality reflects this nature. This avoids the Euthyphro dilemma (is the good good because God commanded it, or did God command it because it's good?).

Where We Stand in This Debate Today

Most specialized philosophers lean toward some form of moral realism (56% in the 2020 PhilPapers survey), despite intense disagreement about its details. Absolute relativism is less popular in academic philosophy than might be assumed from popular discourse.

Regarding the relationship with God's existence, many philosophers see that moral objectivity—if real—needs explanation. The Moral Argument for God's existence states: if morality is objective, the best explanation for this objectivity is God's existence. This argument is subject to serious debate, with strong defenses (William Lane Craig, Robert Adams) and strong criticism (Erik Wielenberg, Shelly Kagan).

For Advanced Reading

If you want to delve deeper:
- Intermediate level: The moral argument in C.S. Lewis's formulation in "Mere Christianity"
- Advanced level: The Craig-Kagan debate on morality without God (Yale 2009)
- "Moral Argument" family page on the website
- Michael Huemer, "Ethical Intuitionism" (2005) — secular defense of moral realism
- Robert Adams, "Finite and Infinite Goods" (1999) — religious defense of moral realism