I don't understand the Moral Argument


I am a theist and I wish I could use this argument in defense of the existence of God but I feel as though I don’t understand it very well. Basically if any of you think this argument is valid could you guys answer some of my difficulties…

  1. If God placed a moral obligation within us then why do people violate this all the time?
  2. Why are some things like slavery, oppression of races etc. wrong now but were mostly accepted before? Wouldn’t that go against a moral obligation?
  3. Why does God have to explain this and not evolutionary explanations? I have heard someone say that we do good things to help out one another as a result of evolution in protecting one another back in primitive times. Why is this not reasonable and why is God a better explanation?

PS: I’m not the best at philosophy. Thank you to anyone who answered.

  1. free will and concupiscence.
  2. sometimes I see human progress as like a development of a single being. Slavery etc was part of this development and over time and with the influence of religion and education we have developed away from this sin.
  3. it’s true that by clubbing together (literally probably) we survived better, a learned behaviour but humans are social beings by and large and this is hard wired into our brains, by whom? By God, The Creator.

(I too am not great at philosophy, I abandoned it following my submission of an essay on Plato’s republic where the tutor wouldn’t let me get past the meaning of the word ‘good’. I figured if we were going to have a problem with that I’d rather go and cut the grass.)


I think it is best for the atheists to disprove human morality. We know that humans possess a natural morality, why is that? If all comes down to cosmic dust, then there should be no difference between crushing a rock and killing another human. However, natural morality prevents us from killing. It does not make sense unless there are consequences in an afterlife, therefore God exists.


The thing I love about arguments from morality is that you can piece together an argument for God from two different schools of atheists.

  1. If objective morality exists, then God exists.
  2. Objective morality exists.
    C. God exists.

Moral realitivists accept 1 and reject 2. Most atheists would accept 2 but reject 1. So we can piece together our whole argument from Atheist sources!


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.