Without God There Can Be No Objective Morality | The Matt Walsh Show Ep. 96

An atheist cannot logically make objective moral claims. He cannot logically say that any action at all is objectively right or objectively wrong. Yet, many atheists do make such claims. Many atheists do believe that things like rape, murder, theft, etc., are not just subjectively wrong, but actually wrong. Atheists seem to recognize a moral code, even though no such moral code could exist without God. What does that tell us about atheism, God, and morality? Let's talk about that now.

[VindicatorMike]

Sorry, but "because god says so" is not an objective argument for morality. It's just authoritarian.

[flawlessstrategy]

"Without God There Can Be No Objective Morality" And?... Is this supposed to prove god exists? First you must prove objective morality exists for the rest of your argument to work.

[julianbigelow]

5:43- 7:41

These people condemn homophobia, because, in their opinion, it is wrong to hate people, just because of who they are. Since America was first founded, it has always been legal for a man and a woman to get married. Same sex couples have every bit as much to offer the world as a sterile heterosexual couple (a gay couple can adopt, thereby giving a stable loving home to a child who would otherwise live in the foster care system. The only thing a heterosexual couple can do that a gay couple can’t is reproduce the old fashioned way, and even that one comes with an exception for heterosexual who happen to be sterile). If a gay couple gets married and adopts a child, it hurts absolutely no one. Therefore, it only makes sense for gay couples to be allowed to get married. Laws prohibiting same sex marriage would make as much sense as laws prohibiting inter racial marriage.

9:34- 10:43


11:27- 12:39

There is no objective reason to care if something that you do hurts someone. It is my opinion, that you should have empathy for your fellow human beings. I believe that morality is derived from the principle of empathy. I do not want to be murdered or raped, so I do not murder or rape. Because I do not believe in a universal law giver, any and all moral judgements that I make are ultimately just my opinion. When I make a judgement about what is and is not moral, I can make logical arguments all day long, I can feel sympathy for victims until I am blue in the face, but I cannot open up a scientific text book and point to an experiment, carried out by Isaac Newton which proved that rape is wrong.

However, if you believe that all morality comes from God, you must explain how you know that. You must explain not only how you know that God exists, but also how you know why God would want you to be empathetic.

Everything that I just said is what I am pretty sure accurately represents reality. However, I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong. If anyone disagrees with anything that I just said, please explain to me what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. If presented with a convincing enough counter argument, I might change my mind.

[yankeetherebel]

On one hand, I understand why other Christian conservatives, whom I listen to and watch, choose not to bring their faith into their discussions and debates. I get that they want to prove their points of view without giving their opponents an easy way out via the "you're a crazy christian" card.

However, on the other hand, I absolutely LOVE that you've decided to speak freely and honestly... regardless of whether or not doing so results in disparaging remarks from non-believers.

Too many Christians (most, in fact) live as though God and their faith in Him exists within one of their many life boxes. They'll pull out their "God Box" maybe once or twice a week for a couple hours and when they're done, they put it back with the other life boxes until the next time they decide to use it.

You don't do that and I find it incredibly refreshing.

The Holy Spirit of God is an amazing gift that is intended to serve as a Christian's life source. As such, everything a Christian does should be based on their faith and on the Spirit of God that exists within his/her soul.

Faith is not a life accessory, it's the lifeblood. And I want to thank you for standing up for your faith regardless of the world's consequences.

[franklincerpico]

Someone hasn't done his homework. Pointing to an invisible man in the sky as the source of your morality doesn't make it objective.

[kyle-qwyx]

Correct, if a book doesn't tell you something is bad, it can't be!

[karlosjeffers]

Even a religious follower does not get their objective morality from The Bible or the Qu’ran let alone anybody else. Not unless they are a fundamentalist.

[matthewjackson]

'Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings', unless we're talking about God, where all rational and logic goes out the window. This is why Conservative positions are never put in law - laughable beliefs.

[hreedwork]

Thank you! Great discussion, lots to consider. You helped me sort out confusing topics. 😎

[jerichosharman]

Realising that most people on the earth most likely agree that they wouldn’t want to burn to death……..and then agree “hey let’s not burn each other to death” is not appealing to an objective moral standard……..it’s appealing to our human collective benefits

[iRvilte]

Thanks Daily Wire, please continue to insult the intellectual integrity of half your audience. We come for your (usually) excellent conservative political commentary, and then you just bash half of us for being atheists, cheers.

[geelee]

Matt Walsh- "My Strawman of an Atheist is using a Strawman to refute my stupid assertion".

[MileyCyraxx]

The left drove me away with PC bullshit, the right drives me away with this kinda bullshit. Both require suspension of logic.

[julianbigelow]

19:32- 20:20

I deem a thought immoral under one of the following circumstances.

1. The thought involves a bloated sense of entitlement.
2. The thought involves bigotry.

If you hold the opinion that black people should be rounded up into concentration camps and exterminated, that can lead to that actually happening. If you feel entitled to something that isn’t yours, it can lead to you stealing.

All that said, if you are very angry and you think thoughts that involve what seems like bigotry and/or a sense of entitlement, but you never share them with anyone and, after you start to feel better, you realize that those thoughts were irrational, then I see no issue. Here is a specific hypothetical example. Let’s say that a man asks a woman if she would be his girlfriend. She rejects him. He feels a bit angry, he keeps, on his face, a stoic look, but he is devastated and bitter inside. He goes home (this hypothetical man lives alone) and he says, when no one can hear him and he knows that no one can hear him, some very sexist things. He talks all about how devastated he is that the woman rejected him and he phrases it in such a way that makes it sound like he was entitled to that woman’s affections. After he calms down, he realizes that beng rejected is not the end of the world, he does not actually hate women, he just said that, to himself by the way, in a moment of anger, and he is not entitled to that woman’s affections. He had some bad thoughts, but he did not actually believe any of them, he just thought them in a moment of anger and no one heard those thoughts. In my view, this hypothetical man did nothing wrong. Now imagine that this man had lashed out at the woman, but did not hurt her and, after calming down, he had apologized to her. That would have been a grey area, because, while on the one hand, he hurt that woman’s feelings, he did not mean to and he atoned for what he did.

20:20- 22:07

Here, Matt brings up a hypothetical involving rape fantasies and another hypothetical were a man watches child pornography upon which he happened to stumble. He argues that no one is harmed by you merely having fantasies. That is true. Because this is true, I would argue that no moral injustice was committed by merely having a fantasy. An imaginary action, no matter how gruesome, is still imaginary. Imagine, if you will, a man who finds his sister sexually attractive. He loves going on a family reunion to the beach, because he gets to see his sister in a bathing suit. This man could fantasize about murdering his sister and performing necrophilia on the sister’s dead body for all I care, because it is a fantasy. If that man flirts with his sister, tries to touch his sister, especially if it’s on an intimate part of her body, without her consent, if he takes sexy photos of her, that is a problem, because he is committing incest and sexual harassment. If the sister takes naked pictures of herself and the brother stumbles upon those photos by random chance and enjoys looking at them, that is totally okay, because it is just thought and the only person responsible for the photos being taken in the first place was the sister, who was willing to have naked pictures taken of herself.

Let’s address Matt’s point about the hypothetical man who stumbles upon childhood pornography by random chance and watches it. Matt argues that, the harm caused by the production if the child porn has already been done, the man who watches the pornography, because he found t by random chance, is in no way adding to the harm caused by the production of the porn. Therefore, that man, who stumbled upon the child porn, did not hurt anyone by watching it. Assuming that to be true, that would mean that the man did not doing anything wrong. In my view, morality is about what hurts people and what doesn’t, this hypothetical man, who stumbled upon the child porn, did not hurt anyone, therefore, this man did nothing wrong.

22:35- 23:32

Why would someone feel guilty for a mere thought?

There isn’t a reason. Feelings are very complex. We, as humans, regularly experience thoughts, that make no sense, for no reason whatsoever. To hear all about human biology and psychology and the natural tendency, of the human mind, the experience irrational thoughts and feelings, including irrational guilt, Google “People with anxiety know that their fears are irrational” or simply check out these links.

Everything that I just said is what I am pretty sure accurately represents reality. However, I recognize the possibility that I could be wrong. If anyone disagrees with anything that I said, please explain to me what you disagree with and why you disagree with it. If presented with a convincing enough counter argument, I might change my mind.

[cityoftruthpodcast]

Hi Matt et al,

I just covered this idea in my own podcast. One of the biggest sources of confusion here is the difference between morality and moral actions. Many people make morally sound choices without belief in objective morality. We all acknowledge this.

But for an objective morality to exist, some standard must be set forth for human action as a measure, and that standard can’t be self created (or it’s subjective). It must exist outside of man and yet determine his proper mode of action. This is where natural law theology comes in; man does indeed have a nature and therefore a proper sphere of action. We have a final cause for man. This gives us a moral standard.

By one more step, you can then argue convincingly that final causality can only exist with God. But natural law doesn’t necessarily HAVE to be rooted in God. It’s just less coherent if it isn’t. I think this is where the confusion comes in.

Moral action by definition entails the choice of something else over self interest. Man therefore must believe in something greater than itself. If a person chose self interest over the greater good, in any case, pretty much everyone agrees that that is moral failure. If you choose a greater good over self interest, that is moral. People likewise do that without God, and so those actions done, say, for love of country, are rooted in natural law and moral. But again, the second step is needed, to say that this idea of natural law and of greater goods must ultimately be reducible to a single principle.

I think that’s where nearly all the confusion lies on this issue. Someone hears you say you can’t have morality without God. Meanwhile they know of an atheist who threw himself on a hand grenade to save his platoon.

It’s not that you can’t have morality without God. It’s that it can’t be ideologically CONSISTENT and properly rooted without God.

[subterraneanhomesickalien]

The argument here, is that for an objective moral system to exist, God must exist. For a moral system to be truely objective, moral law must have originated from a source that is external to humanity. Otherwise, all we have is subjective moral OPINIONS and an objective moral system is logically impossible.

[Cscottprice]

@Alan: Amen (atheist here) and has this guy never picked up a book? Evry philosopher of the past 200 years has tacked the question of morality. Long story short, they found ten ways to base morality without a god in a robe with clouds surrounding "him". And contrary to what u say, doesnt take a Phd to understand their arguments.

[brauliomoncada]

Woah woah everyone needs to chill in these comments. I love to talk about religion. I am personally an Atheist but I still go to church to listen and learn about others religion. I go to Catholic mass, Jehovah Witness meetings in their Hall, and I go to Christian mass. It’s never okay to just say that someone is wrong without knowing what they know. While I may not believe what they believe I like to listen and learn because at the end of the day having a belief in something sets rules for people to follow and of all those religions I mentioned they all have common rules on treating others. So I say everyone should just listen and analyze without hate or anger.

[subterraneanhomesickalien]

I don’t see anyone in this comment section offering any constructive counterargument to his video. Only blatant hate and riducule of his beliefs. Just leave.

[orphideus]

[Argument from Consciousness]
This argument is another form of god of the gaps.
You ask how can life came into existence develop itself and become a human conscious and god not exist. Sorry but just because no one has the answers to the big questions, doesn't mean that the only answer is god. You can't claim knowledge of god just because you have no other answer. And even if it is god, why would it be your god? Why would it not be some other religion's god and objective morality? Also whether you like it or not, our brains are like computers. If you can do a math equation in your head, you are computing the value. And no one ever claimed the human body is like a statue. I'm not sure if you are being dishonest or just stupid with those comments.

[ Argument from Morality ]
This argument is embarrassingly bad logic. In the title you say without god there is no objective mortality. You say you KNOW objective morality exists. Then you say objective morality can't exist without a transcendent source, and god being that source proves god. But wait, how has god been proven without first proving objective morality? You said you KNOW it exists so you must have proof for it. But how can you prove objective morality without first proving god? Which proves which?

You say, to you these are the best and most compelling arguments but they are based on the most flimsy logic.
Still not seeing how belief in god is rational. If it was it would not be called "faith". If you just said you had faith in god and objective morality, I could accept that. But instead you make these claims without evidence.