Peter Boghossian on The moral argument

Boghossian's response to the moral argument is rooted in his broader project of examining how people arrive at beliefs. He observes that the moral argument — without God, objective morality cannot exist — is almost never the reason someone believes in God. Rather, people who already believe in God find the moral argument retrospectively compelling because it confirms what they want to be true: that their moral convictions have cosmic backing.

On the substance of the argument, Boghossian argues that morality is a human enterprise, developed through reason, empathy, and social experience. We do not need a divine lawgiver to recognize that suffering is bad and cooperation is beneficial. These insights are available to anyone capable of reflection, regardless of their theological commitments. The evidence for this is the existence of moral atheists and immoral believers, both of which the moral argument cannot adequately explain.

Boghossian also challenges the first premise of Craig's formulation — that without God, objective moral values do not exist. He argues this is an assertion, not an argument. Many secular metaethical frameworks ground objective moral claims without reference to God, from contractualism to well-being-based approaches. The theist's claim that these are inadequate typically depends on a definition of 'objective' that is rigged to require God.