State and defend the deductive argument that God is required for the existence of objective moral laws - Essay Example

The first premise is that if objective moral law standards exist, they point to the existence of a God. Here, it is assumed that all laws have a lawmaker, and since the laws are objective, then they must be made by a person who is not human. By definition, objectivity requires autonomy from human interferences (Reppert 34). The second premise is that objective moral standards exist, which means that regardless of preference or convention, some things are always right or wrong; a typical example is killing someone for no reason.

Truths are self evident, and one is justified if it reasonable to believe in it; in this regard, if a person sees a red object, then they can assume that it is colored. The third premise comes from the first two premises and thus concludes that because of the above, a God exists. Some people respond to the first premise that draws associations between God and moral standards. These opponents state that sometimes laws can exist without a lawmaker. A case in point is Platonic realism in which it is explained that abstract objects exist outside of time and space; these objects stay constant and have no cause.

Examples of such abstract objects include laws of mathematics and logic; number 3 exists independently of one’s thought, while laws of morality like fairness and justice are abstract. Therefore, platonic realism illustrates that since morality laws are brute facts (have no explanation), then there is no need for a lawmaker. A response to the second premise is that objective moral laws do not exist as postulated in moral nihilism, moral subjectivism and cultural relativism. Moral nihilists say that moral realities are absent as truth does not exist in ethics.

Moral subjectivists claim that actions depend on the one holding them rather than some objective standard. Cultural relativists say that moral laws depend on the societies to which