4) The Moral Argument
Renowned 20th century author C.S. Lewis (most famous for his landmark series of fantasy novels The Chronicles of Narnia) wrote many books on the subject of the divine and man’s relationship therewith. Among his most famous arguments demonstrating God’s existence is the practical reality that people all seem to believe, through their own actions, that an objective standard of morality exists. For such a thing to be, there must be a mind from which it proceeds — possessing no equal. He writes:
“But the most remarkable thing is this: whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real right and wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as right and wrong–in other words, if there is no Law of Nature–what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?”
1) If ethics is subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as “wrong” are only wrong from their point of view.
2) But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.
3) Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.
If there is an objective moral standard, then there must be an objective moral law giver (a maximally great mind). Otherwise, all value judgments concerning human action proceeding from finite minds are simply subjective opinions — neither objectively right nor wrong.
Check out this video for a full explanation.