Prabhupada and ”The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”
Introduction
An argument is a series of related statements which represent an attempt to support an assertion. It is, in other words, an attempt give others good reasons to believe that what we are asserting is true rather than false.
An argument consists of three things:
A classical example:
Premise 1: All humans are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
Premise 1 and 2 are the reasons given in support of the assertion we are trying to prove (the conclusion). The conclusion is the assertion we are trying to prove. The inference is the mental task of inferring the conclusion from the premises. Imagine that we had the two premises and not the conclusion written on a piece of paper. The mental task of reading the two premises and understanding that from them we must come to the conclusion that Socrates is mortal is called the inference.
What do we as devotees do with arguments for the existence of God?
When we as devotees are considering to rely on or use an argument for the existence of God in our preaching we must ask ourselves three questions:
Is the argument valid?
Is the argument sound (true) or at least more plausable than its negation?
Is it compatible with, or maybe even included in, Prabhupada’s teachings?
I will now present a typical version of The Moral Argument for the Existence of God and argue that it’s both valid, sound, included in Prabhupada’s teachings and also directly found in the Vedic literatures.
What is The Moral Argument for The Existence of God?
The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God which attempts to deduce the existence of God from observations of an objective and absolute moral law. Various versions of The Moral Argument exist. The following version is simple and easy to memorize:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then an absolute moral law do not exist.
Premise 2: An absolute moral law do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exist.
For the sake of clarity and to avoid misunderstandings let’s define the terms ”God” and ”absolute moral law”. We can define God as an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent personal being. By ”absolute moral law” we mean a moral law that exist objectively and is true for all human beings, even if only some or no one agrees to it, knows about its existence or can act in violation of it.
The validity of The Moral Argument for the Existence of God
In understanding validity it’s crucial to keep in mind the difference between validity and soundness. If an argument is valid it means no more than “if the premises are true and we have inferred the conclusion from them according to the standard rules of logic, then our conclusion must also be true.” But – and this is very important – validity can’t tell us whether or not the premises are in fact true. Validity is not at all concerned with truth. It’s only concerned with correct reasoning. This means that a valid argument can be unsound, false, as in the following example:
Premise 1: All girafs have wheels.
Premise 2: All pots are girafs.
Conclusion: Therefore, all pots have wheels.
When evaluating the validity of this argument we don’t test if the premises are true. We do no more than ask ourselves: “If the premises are true, does the conclusion follow necessarily from them?” In this argument it does. Thus the argument is valid.
So validity is only a necessary, but not a sufficient, attribute of a succesful argument. In addition to validity an argument also has to be sound. This means that not only does the inference have to be made according to the standard rules of logic, but the premises must also be true. If these two criteria (validity and true premises) are met, then the conclusion of the argument must also necessarily be true and we have a succesful argument.
But let’s stick to discussing the validity of The Moral Argument for now.
The standardized form of the above version of The Moral Argument is logically valid, because it follows Modus Tollens which is one of the nine fundamental rules of logic.
Modus Tollens have this form:
Premise 1: If P then Q
Premise 2: Not Q
Conclusion: Therefore not P
P and Q are variables which means that we can replace them with any given propositions and the argument remains valid.
In relation to The Moral Argument P represents ”God does not exist” and Q represents ”Absolute values do not exist”.
If we know that if P (God does not exist), then Q (an absolute moral law do not exist), then we also know that if not Q (an absolute moral law do not not exist), then not P (God does not not exist). Note that ”absolute moral values do not not exist” means they do exist and that ”God does not not exist” means that God exists. Something either exist or it does not exist. So if it does not not exist it must exist.
This makes the argument look like this:
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then an absolute moral law do not exist.
Premise 2: An absolute moral law does not not exist (translates to ”an absolute moral law
does
exists”).
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not not exist (translates to ”God exists”).
So The Moral Argument, as standardized above, is indeed logically valid, because if its premises are true the conclusion follows necessarily. But, as stated above, validity is not sufficient for a succesful argument. We have to ask ourselves if it is also sound (true).
The Soundness of The Moral Argument for the Existence of God
As described above the criteria for a sound argument is that 1) both its premises and its conclusion are true and 2) the conclusion is inferred from the premises according to the standard rules of logic. So when we are looking for soundness in an argument we are looking for its truth value. Is it true or false?
We have seen that The Moral Argument is valid, so now we procede to ask if its premises and its conclusion are true? As devotees we accept three kinds of evidence (pramana):
Pratyaksha-pramana (sense perception)
Anumana-pramana (logic)
Sabda-pramana (transcendental sound vibration)
Of the three kind of evidence sabda-pramana is absolute and imperative while pratyaksa-pramana and anumana-pramana are relative and supportive. The easiest way for us as devotees to find out whether or not an argument for the existence of God is sound/true is to check if it is to be found in the Vedas and/or in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. If it is we accept it. If it is not we have to ask ourselves if the argument is compatible with the Vedas and Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. If it is we might decide, if it is both valid and sound of course, to accept is as a good argument and use it in support of our claim that God exist. If it’s not compatible with sastra and Srila Prabhupada’s teachings we discard it.
As stated above I will argue that The Moral Argument is to be found both in the Vedas and in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings. But even if it weren’t I would still argue that the argument is perfectly compatible with the Vedas and Prabhupada’s teachings and that we can provide good reasons to accept it as being sound solely on the basis of pratyaksa-pramana and anumana-pramana.
Setting the scene
Before I procede I want to mention that to my knowledge Srila Prabhupada did not present a standardized version of The Moral Argument. He always used it in a not so strict manner. The Vedabase reveals only one instance where Srila Prabhupada uses the precise term ”Absolute Morality”. However, he uses similar and synonymous terms many times, and when analyzing his statements about morality I think it will be clear to everyone that he is in fact talking about an absolute morality such as we have defined above. In addition to the single search result where Srila Prabhupada uses the term ”Absolute Morality” the Vedabase reveals that Srila Prabhupada also denotes such morality as “real”, “actual”, “highest”, “universal”, “ultimate”, “greatest”, “spiritual” and “transcendental” morality.
So I am of the conviction that we have sufficient data to show that Prabhupada agreed with and used The Moral Argument in his teachings. Some of the statements from Srila Prabhupada covers more than just one of the above 4 points, but I will attempt to go one step at the time first showing 1) how he defined ”absolute moral laws”, then 2) how he argues in favor of the truth of premise 1, then 3) how he argues in favor of premise 2 and at last 4) how he infers the conclusion that God exist from the premises according to the standard rules of logic. I’ve marked statements especially important with bold and between the quotes I will communicate my understanding of them. I have not included all of Srila Prabhupada’s statements on the matter, but attempted to use only as many as necessary to support my contention that Prabhupada agreed with and used The Moral Argument.
How Prabhupada defines ”absolute moral laws”
Prabhupāda: Universal morality is to obey God, that's all. This is universal morality.
Śyāmasundara: But are any of God's laws fixed...
Prabhupāda: That is included.
Prabhupada: There is necessity of change in the makeshift laws of man, but there is no change in the God-made laws because they are made perfect by the all-perfect Personality of Godhead.
Here we are informed that some of God’s laws are ‘universal’ and ‘fixed’ which means ‘there is no change’ in them.
Prabhupada: Parīkṣit Mahārāja says here, “It is not that if I say there is no God then there will be no God or I will not be responsible for what I do.” That is the atheistic theory. Atheists do not want God, because they are always sinful—if they thought that there were God, then they would be forced to shudder at the thought of punishment. Therefore they deny the existence of God. That is their process. They think that if they do not accept God then there is no punishment and they can do whatever they like. When rabbits are being attacked by bigger animals, they close their eyes and think, “I am not going to be killed.” But they are killed anyway. Similarly, we may deny the existence of God and the law of God, but still God and His law are there. In the high court you may say, “I don’t care for the law of the government,” but you will be forced to accept the government law. If you deny the state law, then you will be put into prison and be caused to suffer. Similarly, you may foolishly decry the existence of God—“There is no God” or “I am God”—but nevertheless you are responsible for all your actions, both good and bad.
In the above quote Prabhupada informs us that ‘God and His law are there’ (they exist objectively) and we will be ‘forced’ to accept God's law even though we don’t like it or deny it. We ‘…are responsible for all our actions…’ and will be held accountable if we break the laws of God.
Prabhupada: Those who are not in knowledge, who commit violations of the standard laws, are subject to be punished under criminal laws. Similarly, the laws of nature are very stringent. If a child touches fire without knowing the effect, he must be burned, even though he is only a child. If a child violates the law of nature, there is no compassion. Only through ignorance does a person violate the laws of nature, and when he comes to knowledge he does not commit any more sinful acts.
Here we are also informed that God's 'standard laws' are 'very stringent' and even if we are ignorant of these laws we 'are subject to be punished under criminal laws' just like a child who is ignorant of the heat of fire will be burnt anyway if it touches fire.
To sum up we can safely say that Prabhupada is talking about an absolute morality such as we have defined above, namely a morality that ‘exist objectively and is true for all human beings, even if only some or no one agrees to it, knows about its existence or can act in violation of it.’
Prabhupada agrees with Premise 1
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then an absolute moral law does not exist
Prabhupada: So the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Mahad-guṇāḥ. We can find it easily, just like we say that no illicit sex, no meat-eating, we consider this is sinful. But there are others, big, big leaders, politicians, philosophers, even religious priests, they do not think that this is immoral or this is sinful. Meat-eating is sinful. Why? What is the sin there? Illicit sex, what is the wrong there? Intoxication, what is wrong there? They do not find any immorality. So this standard of morality, there cannot be fixed up if one is not God conscious. There cannot be. Standard of morality, standard of goodness, cannot be. That is the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Lack of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They think that animal has no soul. They do not accept this morality that animal cannot be killed, it is sinful, it is immoral. They have created their own theory. So without being standardized by Kṛṣṇa consciousness, or God consciousness, you cannot find the standard platform of morality, honesty. These things you cannot find. This is not possible. Therefore, the verdict of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Just like if you do not follow a standard law, how you can fix up 'This is morality' or 'This is honesty or dishonesty.' There must be standard law. And who can give you the law unless he is the greatest authority? So law changes according to different countries, climate, situation. So man-made law cannot give you standard morality, honesty or... It is not possible. Because one will think 'This is morality,' another will think, 'No, this is not morality.' Same thing. Keep to the left, keep to the right. Somebody says 'Keep to the left is right,' somebody says 'Keep to the left, it is wrong.' Manorathenāsati dhāvato bahiḥ [SB 5.18.12]. Because those who are not Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are hovering on the mental plane. They cannot, there cannot be any fixed up morality, honesty, dishonesty. No. And rascals will also say yato mata tato patha. Means, whatever you think is all right, that is all right. According to you, your conception this is right, and according to my conception, both of them are right. How both of them can be right?
Here Srila Prabhupada informs us that ‘[t]here must be a standard law’ and that such a ‘standard law’ can’t be had without "the greatest authority" as its ontological foundation. No ‘man-made law’ can give us a standard morality. Why? Because then everyone creates ‘their own theory’ based on the contradictory view ‘yato mata tato patha’ which means that ‘whatever you think is all right, that is all right. According to you, your conception this is right, and according to my conception, both of them are right.’
Prabhupada: So this contradiction, opposing elements, will continue unless there is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. So this is not a fact that the karma-vādīs simply by discharging your duties nicely... This is... On principle, it is all right. But we must know what is actual morality. There are so many examples. Just like when there is war, to kill the enemies, that is morality. But in peaceful condition if you kill a person that is immorality or sinful. The process is the same, morality or immorality, the process is the same. But sometimes it is moral, sometimes immoral. So how it will be standardized? Therefore Bhāgavata says dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam [SB 6.3.19]. Real dharma, real religion, morality, honesty, they can be decided on the words of the Supreme Lord. That is the... When Kṛṣṇa says 'This is all right,' then it is all right. When Kṛṣṇa says it is not right, then it is not right. This is our decision. We Kṛṣṇa conscious men, we simply accept. And that is a fact. That is a fact in this way because Kṛṣṇa is the greatest authority, Supreme Being. Supreme means the greatest authority. Just like state says 'Now it is wartime. If you kill a number of enemies then you will be awarded with gold medal.' The same process of killing. But at another time, when there is no war, if you kill one person you'll be hanged. The killing process is the same, but the judgement is given by the greatest authority, the government. 'This is all right, this is not right.' Therefore, standard of morality means to abide by the orders of the greatest authority. That is standard of morality. This is the conclusion. You cannot make your own morality. No. If Kṛṣṇa says 'This is all right,' then it is all right. Otherwise, it is not. [Lecture on BG 2.26-27 -- London, August 29, 1973]
Here Prabhupada makes the same point: We need Krishna, who is “the greatest authority”, to standardize morality. Morality mean to 'abide by the orders of the greatest authority’. Therefore we humans can’t make our own morality.
”...we cannot find out the standard of moral codes unless and until we find out the standard of morality in all perfectness.”
This means that there must be a perfect, absolute reference point in order to ‘find the standard of moral codes’. From the previous quotes it is clear that such a ‘standard of morality in all perfectness’ can not be man-made but must emanate from 'the greatest authority', Krishna.
So far the emphasis has primarily been on Prabhupada’s ontological point, namely that without God as the foundation of morality, morality becomes reduced to mere relative human opinions. In the below quotes the emphasis is on Prabhupada’s epistemological point, namely that without knowledge of God we can’t be moral. There is a difference between these two points (some philosophers will say a big difference), because theoretically God could reveal His moral commands to the atheist through intuition, for example, without the atheist ever knowing where the moral knowledge actually came from. But according to Srila Prabhupda and sastra it is clear that if we don’t know God, then we are hovering on the mental platform (see the harav abhaktasya verse) and can’t know His moral commands. Thus our morality becomes man-made and flawed.
Prabhupada: There is no question of morality unless one surrenders to Kṛṣṇa.
Prabhupada: Actually, unless one surrenders to Kṛṣṇa, there is no question of this ethics and morality.
Prabhupada: …morality without the knowledge of the Supreme Authority is only a show.
Prabhupāda: Religion, religion is the source of moral and ethics. Because religion means to come to the perfectional point. So as soon as there is perfection, moral and ethics are already there. So called moral ethics, that is artificial. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. If one is not a devotee of the Lord, his morality has no value. That is artificial. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Mahad-guṇāḥ, high qualities, moral, ethics, they are high qualities. So Bhāgavata says that unless one is devotee of God, he cannot have high qualities. That is artificial.
Svarūpa Dāmodara: So without God consciousness, there's no question of morality.
Prabhupāda: No. There is no question of morality. First of all, define what is morality? What is the definition of morality?
Svarūpa Dāmodara: The value of life in its proper perspective.
Prabhupāda: Value of life, everyone has got his own value of life. a drunkard, he has got his value of life. That 'When I drink, it is value.' Is that morality?
Svarūpa Dāmodara: That is the morality of the drunkard.
Prabhupāda: Therefore everyone has got his own morality. Then what is the standard morality?
Brahmānanda: Yeah. There must be a standard for everyone.
Prabhupāda: That is Ramakrishna mission's morality: yata mata tata patha. Whatever you think, that is your way. Yata mata tata patha.
Svarūpa Dāmodara: Yata mata tata patha.
Prabhupāda: As many ways you think, that's all right.
Svarūpa Dāmodara: That is how they define morality.
Prabhupāda: Yes. That you make your own morality.
Brahmānanda: That's not standard, though.
Prabhupāda: No. These rascals do like that, so why don't you make your own law in the state?
Brahmānanda: Cannot.
Prabhupāda: Why do they not make their own law, that I have got my own law. I don't care for state law.' Will they be accepted?
Svarūpa Dāmodara: They'll be caught.
Brahmānanda: Anyone who does that is either criminal or insane.
Prabhupāda: Yes, insane. All criminality is done when one is insane. That is the definition of the Vedas. Everyone is criminal when he's insane. Sane man never commits any criminality. Just like when a, when a man commits murder, unless he becomes insane, he cannot commit murder.
Svarūpa Dāmodara: So among the college students, among the college students it's very common that they say: 'I don't care what is said.' These people, students.
Prabhupāda: Yes, but...
Svarūpa Dāmodara: I want to, I want to follow my own aim and desire, my own morality. They say like that.
Prabhupāda: That's all right, but why don't you do that in case of your relationship to the state. Suppose the state says: 'You must drive to the right.' Why don't you drive on the left? Why do you obey the state laws? What does he say? You do whatever you like.
Brahmānanda: That means there's someone more powerful than they are.
Prabhupāda: Yes.
From this conversation we learn that without knowing God we can’t know what His moral laws are, and thus there is no standard of morality. It even becomes impossible to define morality.
In conclusion Srila Prabhupada’s view is that without “the greatest authority” as an absolute ontological reference point there is no standard of morality. Morality becomes reduced to mere relative human opinions based on selfish desires and it becomes impossible to even begin to define what is moral and what is immoral.
Prabhupada agrees with Premise 2
Premise 2: An absolute moral law does exist
As a devotee you already know better than me that Srila Prabhupada argued in favor of the existence of an absolute moral law. But for the sake of showing how Srila Prabhupada agreed with and used The Moral Argument I have included a few quotes about it here.
Prabhupāda: Universal morality is to obey God, that's all. This is universal morality.
Śyāmasundara: But are any of God's laws fixed...
Prabhupāda: That is included. If you obey God, then all the laws are also included. That is the universal morality.
Here Prabhupada says that Gods laws exist and that some of them are fixed which means they are never changed. He says that to “obey God” is ‘universal morality’. A ‘Universal morality’ is a morality which is true in all places and at all times. ‘Universal’ is synonymous with ‘absolute’.
Prabhupada: ‘Therefore the conclusion is that this material morality has no value. Spiritual morality. Spiritual morality means to abide by the order of Kṛṣṇa. That is morality.’
A spiritual morality exist. It is ‘to abide by the order of Krishna’. A spiritual morality must also be absolute since everything spiritual is absolute by nature. So Srila Prabhupada is again talking about a morality which transcends space and time.
Prabhupada: ‘If the conduct of the pure devotee crosses the lines of ordinary morality it is because he acts on the plane of Absolute Morality which is not known to the conditioned soul and cannot therefore be imitated.’
This is the one search result where ‘Absolute Morality’ appears on the Vedabase. It is a clear confirmation that besides so called material morality there exist an absolute morality which is beyond space and time, spiritual in nature, and which has Krishna as its ontological foundation.
Prabhupada: Morality means abiding by the orders of God. That is real morality. Other moralities are manufactured, and they differ in different countries. Religion and real morality, however, function according to the same principle. Religion means carrying out the orders of God, and morality means following those principles whereby one can fulfill the desires of God. [BID: John Stuart Mill]
Syamasundara: But he says that everything should be understood in terms of what it ought to be, that there is an absolute good.
Prabhupada: Yes.
Prabhupada: We cannot avoid making distinctions between moral and immoral acts. Material discrimination is necessary but we must also accept the transcendental position of Krishna consciousness. There is a transcendental good beyond the relative good of the material world. [SB 11.21.3]
Prabhupada: The man-made laws may be evaded by cunning outlaws, but in the codes of the supreme lawmaker there is not the slightest possibility of neglecting the laws. A slight change in the course of God-made law can bring about a massive danger to be faced by the lawbreaker. Such laws of the Supreme are generally known as the codes of religion, under different conditions, but the principle of religion everywhere is one and the same, namely, obey the orders of the Supreme God, the codes of religion. That is the condition of material existence. All living beings in the material world have taken up the risk of conditioned life by their own selection and are thus entrapped by the laws of material nature. The only way to get out of the entanglement is to agree to obey the Supreme.' [SB 1.13.42]
So man-made laws can be ‘evaded by cunning outlaws’, but ‘the codes of the supreme lawmaker’ can’t be neglected without bringing about a ‘massive danger to the lawbreaker’.
From the above quotes we can, beyond doubt, conclude that Srila Prabhupada accepted as a fact that an absolute morality (as defined above) does exist.
Prabhupada infers the conclusion from the premises according to the rules of logic
So far we have seen that Prabhupada agrees with and uses the two premises of The Moral Argument. And we also know he accepts the conclusion, that God exist. But we have yet to see if he ever inferred the conclusion from the premises (you might remember that the inference is the mental task of understanding the premises and seeing that from them the conclusion must necessarily follow).
Let us look at the following quotes.
Prabhupada: Science is discovering some subtle laws of the nature, but who made that law? As soon as you say that 'Here is a law which is being carried very nicely,' there must be a lawmaker. You have to accept it. The science of astronomy, the planets, the stars, the sun, the moon moving in their orbit very nicely, very perfectly, and accurately -- there is law. This is law of nature. You might have discovered -- you are great scientist -- that under this law, the law of gravitation or this law, that law, so many laws there are. But the background you have to inquire, 'Who is the law-maker?' Unless there is law-maker, how there can be law? Take for example your state laws. As soon as you say that this is law, 'Keep to the right,' you have to accept there is a law-maker under whose direction this law is being carried out nicely. If you don't carry out, then you are punished. Similarly, nature's law is not ultimate. There is law-maker, and that law-maker is God. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gita, mayadhyaksena prakrtih suyate sa-caracaram: [Bg. 9.10] 'Prakrti,' means nature, 'is working under My superintendence, under My superintendence.' How you can deny? If there is nature's law, who made this law? You see that the clock is running very nicely, the machine is going on, but that is not the ultimate. There is a maker of the clock or watch. Without understanding the maker, simply if you understand the clock only, that is not sufficient knowledge.
Prabhupada argues that without a lawmaker there can be no law. But we see the laws of nature and thus there must we a law-maker, God, behind them. “You have to accept it”. This is The Moral Argument in a nutshell.
Prabhupada: An intelligent person, who has actually developed some finer qualities of human consciousness, can understand that every law is made by an intelligent brain and behind every law there is the lawmaker who makes the law. So for all these natural laws, there is the Supreme Lawmaker, who is the Absolute Personality of Godhead. In the Bhagavad-gītā we have, therefore, information that natural laws are so stringent that they cannot be overcome by anybody. But whoever surrenders unto the Supreme Lord can overcome them. The king is the lawmaker and if he likes he can forgive a law-breaker by special prerogative of the king—by the 'king's mercy,' but the king can do no wrong even if he sometimes breaks the law. That is, an experience of a common man in the phenomenal world and the same thing is applicable in the matter of Supreme laws also.
Again, if there is no lawmaker, there is no law. But there are natural laws and thus there is a Supreme Lawmaker behind them, the Absolute Personality of Godhead.
Prabhupada: Therefore the laws of God’s nature are neither blind nor accidental, as men with a poor fund of knowledge conclude. Behind the laws of nature is the living brain of God, just as there is always a lawmaker behind all the laws of the state. It does not matter whether or not we see the lawmaker behind the common laws; we must admit that there is a lawmaker. Matter can never work automatically, without a living hand, and therefore we must admit the existence of God, the supreme living being, behind the laws of nature.
The same argument as above. Behind every law there is a lawmaker, which means that if there is no lawmaker there is no law. But there is in fact a law and therefore we have to admit the existence of a lawmaker, God, even if we can’t see the lawmaker.
Prabhupada: You cannot violate a little portion of the laws of nature. So many. In every step. As soon as you violate, immediately there is punishment. And still, we are declaring independence. Asatyam. What is that? Where is Bhagavad-gītā? Find out. Jagad āhur anīśvaram [Bg. 16.8]. Asatyam apratiṣṭhaṁ te jagad ahur anīśvaram. 'There is no God.' Why you say there is no...? You are under control. There is a controller; otherwise, how you are under control?
The argument here is that if we are controlled (by reward and punishment) there must be a controller. If this is true then there can’t be control unless there is a controller. But we observe that we are being controlled by the laws of nature and therefore we have to accept the existence of a controller behind the laws of nature.
The following quote sums it all up.
Here The Moral Argument is presented like this: If there is no system of ruling, there can’t be any control. But there are control; the laws of nature which are 'impossible to supersede'. These laws controls us by enforcing ‘systematic action, reaction’ (the law of karma) on us. Thus there must be a ‘system of ruling’ which is the ‘supreme ruler’.
As
I stated in the beginning of this text Srila Prabhupada does not present
The Moral Argument in a super strict logical way with premises and conclusions lined
up in a standardized way. A pedant might try to challenge Srila Prabhupada’s not so strict and common sense use of the argument.
One could for example argue that even if there must be a lawmaker
behind all laws it doesn’t follow that the lawmaker behind the
laws of nature is God as defined above. It might be some limited
lawmaker. Maybe even an evil lawmaker. But the fact is that when taking into consideration everything Prabhupada said about this argument in different contexts we can conclude that he could have easily standardized the argument to prove his point if he so desired. But in the contexts that was not necessary to get his point across. So there is no reason to raise these
pedantic objections. Srila Prabhupada’s mission was not to satisfy
the pedantic desires of fools, but to inform those interested about
the Supreme Absolute Truth.
How Prabhupada uses pratyaksa- and anumana-pramana in his reasoning
From the deductive method Srila Prabhupada knows that Krishna exist (The Moral Argument’s conclusion) and that He, as the Supreme Controller, is the source of the laws of nature which are moral in nature since their purpose is to rectify the conditioned soul by reward and punishment (Premise 2). And not only is He their source, He is their only possible source, because He is the Supreme Controller (Premise 1).
Via the inductive method Srila Prabhupada uses pratyaksa-pramana and anumana-pramana to argue the opposite way. First he argues from observations of the stringent laws of nature which are impossible to overrule. Secondly he argues based on the observation that behind moral laws there is always a lawmaker, that a Supreme Lawmaker, who is behind the laws of nature, must exist. This is The Moral Argument in a nutshell. Srila Prabhupada does not always include sastric information in his presentation of The Moral Argument which seems to suggest that he thinks it is a good way to argue in support of the sastric claim that God exist solely on the grounds of pratyaksa-pramana and anumana-pramana. Srila Prabhupada often made the point that this is necessary since some people only accept anamana and pratyaksa as evidence.
The Moral Argument for the Existence of God is mentioned in sastra
Some time ago Gauranga Premananda Prabhu from Amsterdam sent me a list of Vedic arguments for the existence of God. One of them happened to be The Moral Argument. He informed me that in the Vaisnava-khanda of Skanda Purana there is a story about a brahmana who had an atheist neighbor. Once this atheist neighbor challenged him about the existence of God. In response the brahmana gave several arguments for the existence of God one of which was The Moral Argument. The brahmana asked the rethorical question: ”Can there be subjects without a king?” The brahmana’s intention with this question was, of course, to inform the atheist that without a king there can be no subjects. But we are all subjected to the laws of nature. And thus there must be a king, God, behind them. Gauranga Premananda Prabhu presents a very nice Vedic version of the argument:
The Ruler of the universe:
Subjected
(1) Can there be subjects without a king? (Skanda purana, vaisnava-khanda 1.2.45.101)
(2) a. In this material world every soul is subjected to manifold miseries: janma (birth), mrtyu (death), jara (old age) and vyadhi (disease), kala (time), karma (activities), guna’s (the influence of the three modes or ropes of nature), three klesa’s (miseries due to mind and body, demigods, other living entities).
(2) b. We are maintained with food, water, light and heat, air.
(3) Beyond the prison or the houses of the subjects or citizens is the palace of the king.
(4) Hence, heaven and the Supreme Ruler exist.
Translated into a form which is similar to the one I present in this article:
Premise 1: If there is no king, there are no subjects.
Premise 2: But there are subjects (of the laws of nature).
Conclusion: Therefore there is a king (behind the laws of nature).
Thus we also see The Moral Argument presented in sastra.
Conclusion
Srila Prabhupada agrees with and uses The Moral Argument. He is of the conviction--I should say he knows--that an unchanging, absolute, ultimate, universal morality that transcends space and time exists. He thinks this fact can be known by analyzing the stringent laws of nature which is impossible to neglect without being punished. He further argues that behind every law there must be a lawmaker, and so behind the laws of nature there must be a Supreme Lawmaker, God. So Srila Prabhupada accepted The Moral Argument as a valid and sound argument which can be used in arguing for the existence of God. Consequently we should also embrace it as such.
Preaching perspectives
When we know The Moral Argument is valid, sound and that we therefore safely can use it in preaching the question arises: ’How can we present The Moral Argument most effectively?’ Philosophers have used this argument for millenia, and it exists in refined forms that I think we devotees can learn a lot from. I don’t mean to say that Srila Prabhupada’s words are not sufficient to prove the point. But as stated Srila Prabhupada presented the argument in a not so strict manner. Srila Prabhupada was careful to never rely too much on pratyaksa-pramana and anumana-pramana since these are imperfect, although definitely useful. He kept his main focus on sabda-pramana. So it is no wonder that he did not spend as much time on The Moral Argument and other logical arguments for the existence of God as on arguing directly from scripture. So I think it is no offense to say that many philosophers have gone into significantly greater details and presented additional points which can be made to strengthen The Moral Argument. Prabhupada has probably made some of these points (I haven’t been able to research all his teachings on the subject) and I'm sure that many of them can at least be deduced from his teachings. But even if this is not so I find comfort in the fact that Srila Prabhupada often encouraged his disciples at Bhaktivedanta Institute and elsewhere to provide new scientific insights in support of our vaisnava-siddhanta. As long as we are careful not to contradict our views, then why not do the same in the area of philosophy?
With this in mind I will now provide a standardized version of The Moral Argument I have made for preaching purposes. This version of The Moral Argument includes many of the same points that Srila Prabhupada makes. But it also includes additional points which I’m sure is at least compatible, supportive of and deducable from Srila Prabhupada’s teachings if they are not to be directly found in them. This standardized version is made solely on the basis of pratyaksa-pramana and anumana-pramana. I have choosen to do it in that way in order to address and challenge people who do not accept any religious scripture. My idea is to communicate to them and others that even if we procede by their method (logic and sense perception) we still have to accept the existence of God.
Chapter Two
The Moral Argument for the Existence of God (Axiological Argument)
An interesting and persuasive argument for the existence of God is The Moral Argument (also called The Axiological Argument. Axio means “value”). The argument can be presented as follows.
1. If God does not exist, absolute moral values do not exist.
2. Absolute moral values do exist.
3. Therefore God exist.
Defending premise one
Absolute moral values are values that exist objectively and are true for all human beings even if only some or none of us agrees to them, knows about their existence and even if it’s possible for us to act contrary to them. Some people argue that the existence of God is not a necessary condition for the existence of absolute moral values. They will hold that absolute moral values can exist independently of any personal being. It’s true that this is a logical possibility, but it runs contrary to our experience which constantly affirms that all moral values are contingent upon personal beings. Based on this experience we have the following inductive argument:
1. All observed values are contingent upon personal beings.
2. A is a value.
3. Therefore A is contingent upon a personal being.
Moving on from here, it’s obvious that fallible and limited human minds can’t establish absolute moral values. Since moral values are always contingent upon personal beings it seems likely that absolute values, if they exist, must be made by an absolute personal being with absolute power so that no other person can change or overrule this personal beings established moral values. If someone could they would not be absolute. Most atheists agree with this premise and therefore they have to reject the second premise in order to avoid the conclusion.
Defending premise two
Either absolute moral values exist or they do not exist. If they exist then moral absolutism is true and if they don’t then moral relativism is true. So either moral absolutism is true or moral relativism is true. They can not both be true. So if it’s possible to show that moral relativism is not true or unacceptable then we are left with moral absolutism. This is what I will do here. My argument will looks like this:
1. Either moral absolutism is true or moral relativism is true.
2. Moral relativism is not true.
3. Therefore moral absolutism is true.
Now, I will present four points–which might overlap each other–as to why it doesn’t make sense to accept moral relativism. And since moral absolutism is the only alternative to moral relativism it has to be accepted instead.
1. If moral relativism is true then it’s true that all actions are morally equal. So to be a moral relativist while, at the same time, hold a certain normative moral position (like, for example, claiming it’s morally unacceptable to be a moral absolutist) is first of all self-contradictory, because if all actions are equal then it can’t be better or worse to be a moral relativist than a moral absolutist.
2. But the fact is that no one is really able to live as if all actions are really morally equal. No one can stop making moral judgments and this, as shown above, only makes sense if absolute moral values exist. This means that it’s impossible to live as a consistent moral relativist.
3. All moral relativists hold moral positions and that makes them contradict reality as reality would look like if moral relativism were correct. The moral relativists moral philosophy will dictate “you ought to do A” and “you ought to refrain from doing B” while the objective reality would be that “there’s nothing you ought to do”. So if moral relativism is true and we want to live a philosophically consistent life we have to hold no normative moral position at all.
4. To really try to live according to moral relativism (to live as if every action is equal to every other action) will make us morally crippled monsters. At least in the eyes of the average person. We will, for example, not try to further or praise good deeds and stop or condemn bad deeds.
To make the case for moral absolutism even stronger I will present a 5th point which provides positive evidence for the existence of absolute moral values.
5. No one is born thinking that all moral actions are equal. We all have a moral intuition which tells us that something is really right and something is really wrong. We might ask ourselves if we have any reason to doubt this moral intuition? The Christian philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig answers this question in the following way:
“…could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.” [...] “The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior–they are moral abominations.” [...] “By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.” [1]
Because we all, at least deep within ourselves, know that something is really right and that something is really wrong then very few moral relativists are really moral relativists if they are pressed with questions like “do you really think it’s true that pedophilia is not morally wrong?” or “do you really think it’s true that it’s not wrong to torture babies for fun?” To press them with questions like this will force them to choose between accepting an absolute and objective morality or be an irrational, morally crippled monster. No matter what they choose we, obviously, have won the debate.
Conclusion
The above points makes it clear that the prize one has to pay for adopting moral relativism is very high. One can only cling to moral relativism if one is willing to 1) think inconsistently 2) live inconsistently 3) contradict reality and 4) be a morally crippled monster. None of the above problems follows necessarily from moral absolutism, and since moral absolutism is the only possible alternative to moral relativism, we have to accept moral absolutism. And since God is the only reasonable foundation for absolute moral values we also have to accept the existence of God.
References:
[1] “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-ethical Foundations for Morality” by Dr. William Lane Craig (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html)
Chapter Three
Debating "The Moral Argument for the Existence of God"
In an attempt to serve Srila Prabhupada, my Guru Maharaja and all the devotees,
Ajita Krishna Dasa (ISKCON Denmark)