How do we know that torturing children is evil, and that it's not merely a "cultural preference"?

This question places us before one of the deepest philosophical dilemmas: are good and evil objective or relative? And if they are objective, what is the source of this objectivity? Your question about torturing children is not merely an example, but a crucial test case for any serious ethical theory.

Inadequate Responses to Avoid

From some believers: "Torturing children is evil because God prohibited it" — a correct but insufficient response here. The questioner seeks rational justification, not merely religious authority. Even the believer needs to understand: why did God prohibit this act? Was it merely by command, or because it is evil in itself?

"Sound human nature (fiṭra) knows it is evil" — correct, but the question concerns the source of this natural knowledge. Is it merely biological evolution? Cultural programming? Or genuine moral intuition?

From some relativists: "All morality is relative, there is no objective good or evil" — a self-contradictory position. One who says this cannot condemn any act however heinous. Would the moral relativist actually accept saying: "Torturing children is not evil, but merely a cultural preference"?

"Morality evolved for survival reasons" — a partial explanation. Even if our moral faculties evolved, this does not negate the existence of objective moral facts. Our eyes also evolved, but this does not mean colors do not exist.

The Basic Moral Intuition

Let us begin from an indisputable point: every normal human feels strongly that torturing an innocent child for mere pleasure is absolute evil. This is not an "opinion" or "preference," but a deep moral intuition that transcends cultures and times.

Consider the difference between these two judgments:
- "I prefer chocolate over vanilla" — personal preference
- "Torturing children is evil" — objective moral judgment

The first is open to disagreement without problem. The second carries entirely different weight. One who denies it is not considered "different in taste," but morally defective.

Serious Philosophical Positions

First Position: Strong Moral Realism

Philosophers like David Enoch and Russ Shafer-Landau defend the existence of objective moral facts independent of our opinions. The arguments:

- Convergence Argument: Despite cultural differences, there is notable convergence in basic moral judgments. All cultures condemn unprovoked killing, betrayal, and harming innocents.

- Argument from Best Explanation: The best explanation for our strong moral intuitions is that they respond to actually existing moral facts.

- Argument from Moral Argumentation: We argue about morality as if there are correct answers. This only makes sense if there are moral facts.

Second Position: Divine Command Theory of Ethics

Robert Adams and William Lane Craig see God as the metaphysical foundation of objective moral values. Not "because God commanded," but because God's very nature is the standard of goodness.

This solves the Euthyphro dilemma: God does not command good arbitrarily, nor is He subject to external standards, but His nature is the standard.

Third Position: Kantian and Practical Reason

Contemporary followers of Kant (Christine Korsgaard) ground morality in the requirements of practical reason. Torturing children is evil because it contradicts the categorical imperative: "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means."

Fourth Position: Moral Intuitionism

Michael Huemer defends that we have the ability to perceive moral facts directly, like our ability to perceive mathematical facts. "Torturing children is evil" is a truth we grasp through direct intuition.

Why Moral Relativism Fails Here

Moral relativism faces fatal problems:

1. Self-Contradiction: Saying "all morality is relative" is itself an absolute moral judgment.

2. Inability to Condemn: The relativist cannot condemn the Holocaust or genocides.

3. Contradicts Moral Experience: We experience some moral judgments as objective, not as opinions.

4. Moral Progress Impossible: If there are no objective standards, there is no meaning to saying that abolishing slavery was "progress."

Cumulative Analysis

From the perspective of god-database.com, the issue of objective morality intersects with multiple approaches:

- Philosophical Approach: The existence of objective moral values points to a non-material dimension in reality.
- Human Approach: Human nature as a moral being raises questions about the source of this nature.
- Natural Disposition (Fiṭra) Approach: Moral intuition parallels religious intuition.

Where We Stand in This Debate Today

Contemporary philosophical consensus leans toward some form of moral realism. The PhilPapers 2020 survey showed that 62% of philosophers accept some form of moral realism.

Even prominent atheists like Sam Harris defend moral objectivity (though on controversial naturalistic grounds).

Conclusion

We know that torturing children is evil through several converging ways:
- Strong direct moral intuition
- Requirements of practical reason
- Cross-cultural convergence
- Its devastating consequences for human flourishing

This knowledge is not "merely cultural preference," but perception of an objective moral reality. The deeper question: what is the metaphysical foundation of these moral facts? Here arises the question of God as a possible foundation for objective values.

For Advanced Reading

- Intermediate level: The Euthyphro dilemma and its contemporary solutions
- Advanced level: The moral argument for God's existence according to William Lane Craig
- "Moral Arguments" page on the website