Recent Work on the Moral Argument, Part 3
/
In this third installment in the series, we look at the work of two very bright younger scholars who are doing exciting work in moral apologetics. We relish the prospect of seeing the work they will produce for a long time to come. Suan Sonna is building a Thomistic moral argument, and Adam Johnson just successfully defended his dissertation on a Trinitarian metaethical theory; both of their projects are succinctly described and detailed below.
Here at MoralApologetics.com we have been saying for years that there is enough work to be done on the moral argument to require a thriving community working on it together. We hope that this week’s installment can help you see that just such a community is coming together to do exciting and cutting-edge work.
Suan Sonna is currently working on a Thomistic moral argument. His argument aims to do the following: (1) it proposes 10 standards any adequate moral theory must satisfy in terms of metaphysics, epistemology, and normativity; (2) Sonna argues that the best metaethical theory with respect to those 10 standards is Thomistic or Neo-Aristotelian; (3) And, he unpacks the implications of this Thomistic synthesis for divine command theory, the ethics of a perfect being, and clarifies the relationship between God and morality.
The basic structure of Suan’s argument is like so: If the Thomistic metaphysical synthesis is correct, then the existence of the God of classical theism inevitably follows. And one way in which the superiority of this synthesis can be demonstrated is in the domain of moral theory. In turn, Sonna argues that the best model of moral realism is by nature theistic, and unavoidably so. As Alasdair MacIntyre's did in After Virtue, Sonna more pointedly poses the following dilemma to skeptics who wish to be moral realists - Aristotle (God) or Nietzsche (Nihilism)?
To give you a sense of Adam Johnson’s work, here is a proposal he recently put together that captures much of its essence, entitled “Proposing a Trinitarian Metaethical Theory”:
Many different types of theists can affirm the following moral argument for God:
1. There are objective moral truths.
2. God is the best explanation for objective moral truths.
3. Therefore, God exists.
However, which understanding of God is a better explanation for objective morality? I argue that the trinitarian God of Christianity is the best explanation for objective morality. To develop this argument I propose a Trinitarian Metaethical Theory (TMT) which maintains that the ultimate ground of morality is God’s trinitarian nature. I begin with Robert Adams’s metaethical model and then expand it in significant ways by incorporating God’s trinitarian nature.
The TMT affirms, along with Adams, that God is the ultimate moral good and other beings are good when they resemble Him. But the TMT further proposes that a being is good when it specifically resembles God’s trinitarian nature as found in, and expressed among, the loving relationships between the persons of the Trinity. There are two ways this trinitarian addition to Adams’s model is helpful in understanding how God serves as the foundation of moral goodness.
First, to say morality is based merely on God’s nature ignores the relational aspects of God that are helpful in plumbing the depths of morality. Because morality is inextricably tied to personal relationships, it is easier to conceptualize and understand moral virtues in the context of eternal personal relationships as opposed to a single divine person existing in eternal isolation. God did not need to create other persons in order to be loving, moral, and relational because, being three persons in fellowship, He has always been these things.
Second, without the inner-trinitarian relationships, it is not clear that love, the cornerstone of morality, is a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. However, if the inner-trinitarian relationships are included, then it is more clearly the case that love is part of the bedrock of reality. Because loving relationships are a primordial aspect of God, we can more easily affirm that love is necessarily good. Since God is triune, love is not something new and contingent that came about through creation but is eternally necessary. In this way God’s inner-trinitarian relationships allow us to affirm that loving God and loving others, the bedrock of morality, is necessarily good.
The TMT also affirms, along with Adams, that our moral obligations are generated by God’s commands. An important aspect of this part of Adams’s model is that obligation arises from social relationships. He explained this aspect by affirming a social theory of the nature of obligation and then argued our relationship with God is simply an idealized version of this theory. The TMT expands Adams’s theory of obligation by adding important truths concerning God’s triune nature. There are two ways this addition is helpful in understanding how God serves as the foundation of moral obligation.
First, understanding the social trinitarian context of ultimate reality helps us understand why obligations arise from social relationships. Since God exists as divine persons in loving relationships with each other, there is a profound sense in which ultimate reality itself is social and thus all of reality takes place in a social context. Social relationships were not something new that came about when God created other beings, but are a necessary part of ultimate reality. This tells us that social relationships are part of the fabric of being itself and thus we should not be surprised that personal relationships play such a large role in moral obligation.
Second, God’s commands are instructions for the life-path by which we can best achieve His ultimate purpose for us—to become a co-lover with the members of Trinity. While God has authority over us, His commands flow not from a despotic desire to control us but from a desire that we would enjoy the greatest thing possible—loving relationships with Him and others. This illumines Jesus’ explanation that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others, and how the rest of the commandments rest upon this foundation (Matt 22:36–40). This is so because these two commands instruct us to be like the members of the Trinity who both love God (the other members of the Trinity) and love others (the other members of the Trinity). Love, the basis of morality, originates from within God’s inner life of three divine persons in perfect loving communion.
Kudos to Suan and Adam! MoralApologetics.com celebrates the work of these gentlemen, stands with their wonderful efforts, and is excited to see such exciting developments that showcase the power of the moral argument(s) and the splendor of God’s unfailing love.
