Christian Apologetics Alliance

answering seekers, equipping Christians, and demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview

  • About the CAA
    • Statement of Faith
    • Leadership and Ministries
      • Blog Leadership
    • Authors
      • Write for Us
    • Join the CAA
    • Friends and Partners
      • How to Partner with the CAA
    • Donations
  • Resources
    • CAA Chapters
      • CAA Chapter Leaders and Locations
        • CAA Huntsville Chapter
          • CAA Huntsville Chapter – Local Resources
      • Churches: Host a CAA Chapter
      • Chapter Application Form
    • CAA Speaking Team
    • CAA Community
    • Apologetics for Parents
    • Apologetics Bloggers Alliance
    • CAA Catechism
    • Apologetics Certificate Programs
    • Christian Apologetics Search Engine
    • Events | Ratio Christi
    • Ask the Alliance
    • Media
      • Logos
      • Banners
      • Wallpaper
  • EQUIPPED: The CAA Quarterly
  • Contact Us

Does grounding moral truth in God’s nature violate Hume’s is-ought?

August 18, 2012 by Maryann Spikes

Unknown-4The short answer is, no, only if you try to justify that truth by referring back to God’s nature.  Here is the long answer.  It is possible to blend Hume’s is-ought distinction in Ethics with Plato’s justified-true-belief theory of knowledge.  A catchy name for it is the Ought-Is-Belief theory of knowledge, moral or otherwise.

Simply put, whatever sort of beliefs one is talking about, including moral beliefs, they must be ‘both’ justified by reasons (a justified belief OUGHT to be believed) ‘and’ correspondent to reality (a true belief IS true).  Just because one has good reasons for one’s belief does not mean it is true.  And even if one believes something that is true, one may have horrible reasons for believing it (bit of a tangent:  Gettier was wrong in assuming falsehoods count towards justification) (Gettier is answered elsewhere).  All of this is true about any belief one holds, moral or otherwise.  In order for one’s belief to be knowledge, it must satisfy those two conditions:  1:  It must be backed by good reasons (justified/ought).  2:  It must correspond to reality (true/is).  These conditions are very different from each other.  Both are required separately.  So, satisfying both conditions is not Hume’s problem—it is when one condition takes the place of the other that one commits Hume’s is-ought fallacy, or its reverse (ought-is).

That said…

Hume obviously only drew this distinction when he was discussing moral knowledge, not any other kind of knowledge, and Plato grappled with Euthyphro’s (false) dilemma (it, skeptics, anti-realists and Gettier are all answered elsewhere).

If one understands the blending of Hume and Plato (Ought-Is-Belief) and one is not a Christian, one may not be comfortable with it, because one’s moral theory doesn’t correspond to, or describe, anything in reality, knowing of no always-good person who never has and never will violate one’s moral theory.  That discomfort, though understandable, is not a valid reason to reject the is-ought distinction.

If one is a theist who still rejects Hume’s is-ought distinction because one thinks it means the Good cannot correspond to God, then one is misunderstanding what Hume really meant by his distinction, and there is still some work to do in communicating the blending properly.

What would violate Hume’s is-ought, and Plato’s justified-true, is if one attempted to justify moral truth by referring to something that is: “You ought to do this, because God exists” or “…because it is a command of God.”  It would also violate Hume’s is-ought, and Plato’s justified-true, in reverse if you turned it around and said, “This moral belief is justified, therefore God exists.”  You ‘can’ say, “This justified moral belief is not true unless God exists”—but it would not follow that, therefore, God exists.  Still, it does not violate the Ought-Is-Belief theory to ground moral truth in God’s nature:  “This moral belief is true only if it corresponds to God.”  Something is only true if it corresponds to something in reality.  If there is nothing to which it corresponds, it is impossible for it to be true.  So, again, the short answer is no—grounding moral truth in God’s nature does not violate Hume’s is-ought.  And, for that matter, it does not violate Plato’s justified-true.

A version of this post appeared originally on Ichthus77.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • More
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket

Filed Under: Argument from Morality, Arguments for God, Euthyphro's Dilemma and Hume's Is-Ought

About Maryann Spikes

Trackbacks

  1. Defining the good: The Golden Rule | The Christian Apologetics Alliance says:
    August 15, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    […] in philosophy might recognize this is Plato’s “justified true belief,” Hume’s “is ought distinction,” and the resolution to Euthyphro’s […]

  2. Philosophers’ Carnival… | Christian Apologetics Alliance says:
    August 20, 2012 at 10:26 am

    […] out, and includes my submission Does Grounding Moral Truth in God’s Nature Violate Hume’s Is-Ought?  Thanks, Nick  Submit to the next carnival here. Share:ShareEmailDiggRedditStumbleUpon This […]

Connect

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Search

What Interests You?

  • The Problem of Evil, Suffering, and Hell
  • Apologetics Methods, Tactics, & Logic
    • Incarnational Apologetics
  • Arguments for God
  • Science, Reason, and Faith
  • The Reliability of the Bible
    • Undesigned Scriptural Coincidences
  • The Historicity of Jesus & the Resurrection
  • Worldviews & World Religions
    • Evaluating Islam
    • The New Atheism
    • Post-modernism, Relativism, and Truth
  • Imaginative Apologetics
    • Fiction Book, Movie, & TV Reviews
  • Contemporary Issues
  • Youth and Parents
  • Full List of Categories

Archives

Christian Apologetics Alliance is a Top 100 Christian Blog

Unity Statement

In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, in all things charity. The Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA) is united in our Statement of Faith. The CAA does not, as an organization, have positions on many of the doctrinal or theological debates that take place within the church. Our primary concern is to promote the gracious, rational defense of the central claims of Christianity and the critique of opposing systems of thought. The CAA joyfully welcomes Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and diverse Protestant believers, and we are committed to treating all these traditions with respect in our community.

Copyright © 2011 - 2020 Christian Apologetics Alliance