Metaethics - an overview

 Metaethics—the study of what morality actually is (rather than just which actions are right or wrong).

Here is a breakdown of the common views, organized by how they answer the question: "Are moral facts real?"

Moral Realism (The "Objective" View)

This view holds that moral facts exist independently of our opinions, much like scientific facts (e.g., gravity or the shape of the earth).

• The Core Belief: "Killing is wrong" is a fact that is true regardless of what anyone thinks or feels about it. If the whole world voted that killing was okay, the Moral Realist would say the whole world is simply mistaken.

• Analogy: Math. $2+2=4$ is true whether you like it or not.

Moral Anti-Realism (The "Subjective" Views)

This is the broad category for views that deny that objective moral facts exist. It is usually broken down into three specific positions:

A. Moral Relativism (Cultural or Individual)

This is the most common alternative view. It holds that moral statements can be true, but only relative to a specific standpoint.

• The Core Belief: "Killing is wrong" is true for us because our culture says so, but it might be "right" for a different culture (e.g., the Aztecs practicing sacrifice). There is no "God's eye view" to say which culture is correct.

• Analogy: Etiquette or Law. Driving on the left side of the road is "right" in the UK but "wrong" in the US. Neither is objectively correct by the laws of physics; it depends on where you are.

B. Non-Cognitivism (Emotivism)

This view argues that moral statements aren't facts at all—they are expressions of emotion.

• The Core Belief: When you say "Killing is wrong," you aren't stating a fact. You are essentially screaming "Boo on killing!" or expressing a negative feeling. It is neither true nor false; it is just an emotional outburst or a command.

• Analogy: Cheering for a sports team. Yelling "Go Team!" isn't true or false; it's an expression of support.

Error Theory (Moral Nihilism)

This is the skeptical view that moral talk is trying to state facts, but it always fails because moral properties don't exist.

• The Core Belief: "Killing is wrong" is a false statement. But "Killing is right" is also a false statement. Morality is a fiction we invented, like witches or unicorns.

• Analogy: Atheism regarding mythology. If someone asks, "Is Zeus stronger than Apollo?", the Error Theorist says, "Neither, because Greek gods don't exist."

---

Quick Comparison Table

View	Are moral claims True/False?	Is morality objective?	"Murder is wrong" means...
Moral Realism	Yes	Yes	"It is an objective fact that murder is wrong."
Moral Relevatism	Yes	No (Relative)	"My culture/society disapproves of murder."
Non Cognitivism	No	No	"Murder? Boo! Don't do it!"
Error Theory	No (All false)	No	"We made up the concept of 'wrongness'; it doesn't exist."

"Soft" Realism (The Middle Ground)

True because we prove/construct them; yes, but

There is a nuanced view often called Constructivism (associated with philosophers like Kant). It argues that morality is "constructed" by human reason. It isn't a floating physical fact like an atom (Anti-Realism), but because all rational humans must agree on it to function, it acts as if it is objective (Realism).

The "Hard" Realist View (Metaphysical Objectivity)

Morality is objective because it exists independently of human minds, like a rock, a planet, or a law of physics.  If all humans vanished tomorrow, the fact "Murder is wrong" would still float around the universe, just like the law of gravity would.

The "Soft" Realist / Constructivist View (Rational Objectivity)

Morality is objective because it is the necessary outcome of correct reasoning. It doesn't exist "out there" like a rock; it exists like a math proof. If all humans vanished, morality would vanish (because there are no minds to reason). However, as long as rational minds exist, there is only one correct answer to moral questions.

It's still objective, since it's not a matter of opinion or culture. If you disagree with a moral fact, you aren't just different you are irrational. You have made a logic error.

Moral Realism - Defended

Moral Realism - Defended

The concept of Moral Realism is the philosophical position that morality is objective, much like science or mathematics. It holds that there are moral facts about the world that are true regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, or believes.

This view contrasts with Anti-Realism (which claims morality is subjective, culturally constructed, or fictitious) and Non-Cognitivism (which claims moral statements are just expressions of emotion, like booing or cheering).

The Core Concept

To be a moral realist, one must generally accept three pillars:

1. Cognitivism: Moral statements (e.g., "Murder is wrong") express beliefs that can be true or false. They are not just emotional outbursts.
2. Truth-Aptness: These moral beliefs describe facts. "Murder is wrong" is capable of being true in the same grammatical way that "The cat is on the mat" is true.
3. Objectivity (Independence): The truth of these facts does not depend on the observer's opinion. If the entire world believed that torturing innocents was "good," the moral realist would argue that the entire world is simply mistaken, just as if everyone believed the earth was flat.

Here is the robust defense of Moral Realism, structured by its strongest arguments.

---

1. The "Companions in Guilt" Argument

This is arguably the strongest logical defense of moral realism. It argues that if you attack moral facts for being invisible or non-physical, you inadvertently destroy other things we believe are real, like mathematics and logic. This is essentially a philosophical strategy of mutually assured destruction. It defends Moral Realism by asserting that the arguments used to kill off morality would also accidentally kill off mathematics and logic—two disciplines that almost everyone (including skeptics) believes are objective and true.

Critics say moral facts (like "murder is wrong") are weird because you can't touch them or put them in a test tube. Since You cannot touch "wrongness." It isn’t made of atoms. it cannot exist. Since we can’t see/touch them, how do we know them? We must rely on "intuition," which skeptics claim is unscientific.

The Defense: You also cannot touch or see the number 7, or the logical rule of Modus Ponens, or the concept of validity. Yet, we believe 2+2=4 is an objective fact, not just an opinion. Thus, If mathematical truths can exist without being physical objects, why can't moral truths? To reject moral realism because it isn't "physical" forces you to reject mathematics and logic. If you want to keep math, you have to allow room for non-physical objective truths (companions)

2. The Argument from Epistemic Norms

Epistemic norms are the rules and standards that govern how we form, maintain, and revise our beliefs. While moral norms tell you how to act (e.g., "don't steal"), and prudential norms tell you what is in your best interest (e.g., "eat healthy food"), epistemic norms tell you how to be a "good thinker." They are strictly concerned with truth, knowledge, and justification.

• You ought to believe p only if p is true.
• You ought to proportion your belief to the strength of your evidence
• You ought not believe both p and not-p at the same time.
• You should only tate as fact that which you know.

This version is arguably stronger because it focuses on Normativity (rules about what you ought to do). It is largely associated with philosopher Terence Cuneo and his book The Normative Web.

The Attack on Morality

Skeptics argue that "Ought" statements are not real facts. The universe just is; it contains atoms and energy. It does not contain instructions on what you should do. Therefore, moral "oughts" (e.g., "You ought not kill") are just human inventions or emotions.

The "Guilt" of Logic

The fact is Logic and Science are entirely built on "ought" statements. These are called Epistemic Norms (norms of belief).

• If you believe P and you believe P > Q, logic dictates that you ought to believe Q.
• If you see overwhelming evidence for a theory, you ought to believe that theory is likely true.
• You ought not believe that A and non-A are both true at the same time.

If the skeptic says, "There are no objective 'oughts' in the universe," they fall into a trap:

• If there are no "oughts," then there is no rule saying I ought to accept their argument, even if it is valid.

• If they say, "But my argument is the best explanation, so you should accept it," they are appealing to a binding, objective norm (a logical "ought").

• Therefore, to argue against moral norms, they must utilize epistemic norms. They are proving that objective norms exist in the very act of trying to disprove them

Thus, one cannot do Science without Morality (or at least, normative facts).

The "Companions in Guilt" argument forces the skeptic to choose between two uncomfortable positions:

Position	Consequence
Accept the Companions	If you admit that Math and Logic are objective, non-physical realities, you lose your main reason for rejecting Morality. You have opened the door to "abstract objective truths."
Reject the Companions	If you bite the bullet and say "Okay, Math and Logic are not objectively true either," you destroy your ability to reason or make scientific arguments. You end up in total Nihilism.

3. The Argument from Moral Progress

This one of the most intuitive and historically grounded defenses of Moral Realism. It posits that the undeniable improvement in human morality over time (e.g., the abolition of slavery, the recognition of women's rights) cannot be logically explained unless there is an objective moral standard we are discovering.  

Here is an expanded analysis of how this argument works, why it is powerful, and how it defends itself against skeptics.

The "Yardstick" Analogy.

The argument rests on a simple logical rule: To say something has "improved," you must measure it against a fixed standard.

Imagine you are trying to determine if a child has grown taller. You cannot just compare the child to themselves from yesterday (too small a change) or to a cloud (which keeps moving). You need a ruler (a fixed standard). If there is no ruler, you can only say the child has changed, not that they have grown.

If Moral Realism is false, there is no "moral ruler. A Relativist can say, "*We used to like slavery; now we dislike it.*" They can describe the change. But they **cannot** say, "*We are better now.*" To say we are better implies we are closer to the "correct" answer than our ancestors were.  So the question to relativists is "is society better without slaves"? 

Almost everyone believes that abolishing chattel slavery was a genuine improvement, not just a random change in fashion (like switching from bell-bottoms to skinny jeans). The moment you admit it was better, you implicitly admit there is an objective standard of "Good" that slavery failed to meet.

Historical Evidence: The Phenomenon of "Convergence"

Realists argue that moral history does not look like random drift; it looks like scientific convergence.

In science, we started with many different theories (alchemy, humors, flat earth). Over centuries, scientists from different cultures converged on a single truth (chemistry, germ theory, round earth) because they were all studying the same objective reality

Realists argue morality shows a similar pattern.  Ancient cultures were vastly different (some sacrificed children, some had slaves, some were warrior castes). Over millennia, the world has slowly converged on specific values: Human Rights, equality, and the reduction of unnecessary suffering.

Realists argue that this convergence is best explained by the fact that we are slowly discovering the same moral facts, just as we discovered the same physics facts.

One of the most powerful formulations of this argument comes from philosopher Peter Singer.  Singer observes that moral progress almost always follows a specific direction: the expansion of the circle of moral concern.

• Primitive: "Only me and my kin matter."
• Tribe: "Only my tribe matters; strangers can be killed."
• Nation: "Only my countrymen matter."
• Humanity: "All humans matter (Universal Declaration of Human Rights)."
• Future: "Animals and future generations matter."

If morality were just random cultural "drift," we might expect the circle to shrink sometimes and expand others randomly. The fact that it consistently widens suggests a directional discovery process: we are realizing that the boundaries we drew were arbitrary errors.

4. Defense Against Skeptics

Skeptics (Anti-Realists/Evolutionary Debunkers) try to debunk this argument by saying we didn't abolish slavery because it was "objectively wrong." We abolished it because free markets were more efficient, or because cooperation helped us survive better. "Progress" is just "better adaptation," not moral truth.

However, this ignores the reasons people actually gave. When the British ended the slave trade, they did so at massive economic cost to themselves. It wasn't efficient; it was expensive. The people fighting for it didn't say, "This is inefficient." They said, "This is evil."

If we explain away progress as just "economic adaptation," we have to believe that every great moral reformer (Gandhi, King, Wilberforce) was deluded about their own motivations. Realism takes their insights seriously.

Skeptic's also argue that Realists are just biased - *You think the present is "better" because you live in it. If the Nazis had won, they would call their world "progress.*

But, we can objectively demonstrate incoherence in past moralities. The American Founders wrote "*All men are created equal*" but owned slaves. This is a logical contradiction.

Progress happened because we fixed the contradiction (we realized "All men" must include Black men, and women).

The Nazis were objectively wrong because their ideology relied on false scientific claims (e.g., that Jews were biologically inferior). Real moral progress is often the result of better reasoning and removing logical contradictions, which is an objective process.

The Argument from Moral Progress is the Realist's strongest emotional and historical weapon. It forces the skeptic into an uncomfortable corner:

To deny Moral Realism, you must be willing to look at the Holocaust, Slavery, and Apartheid and say, "*We didn't solve these because they were truly wrong; we just changed our minds, and our current view is no more 'true' than the views of the slaveholders.*"

If morality were just subjective taste (like preferring chocolate to vanilla), we couldn't say abolishing slavery was "better"—only "different." We would have to admit that a slave-owning society is just as valid as a free one, merely "different flavors."

Our strong intuition that we have improved as a species implies there is a standard (a "moral yardstick") we are measuring ourselves against. Realism is the only view that allows for the concept of genuine progress  Most people find that conclusion impossible to live with, which drives them back toward Realism.

5. The "Euthyphro" Defense (Independence)

The "Euthyphro" Defense is a crucial strategic move by Moral Realists. It borrows its name from one of Plato’s most famous dialogues, the Euthyphro, to argue that Moral Realism is the only ethical framework that prevents morality from becoming a tool of tyranny.

This defense essentially argues that if you reject objective, independent moral facts, you accidentally embrace a world where "Might Makes Right."

1. The Original Dilemma (Plato)

To understand the defense, you first need the context of the dilemma Plato presented in the Euthyphro. Socrates asks Euthyphro a deceptively simple question about the nature of "piety" (or "the good"):

"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

This creates a fork in the road for how we define Goodness:

Horn 1 (Independence/Realism): Goodness is independent. God (or society/law) loves it because it is already good.

Horn 2 (Voluntarism/Subjectivism): Goodness is dependent. It becomes good simply because God (or society/law) decides it is.

The Realist argues that if you choose the second option (that morality is created by a mind, whether God's or the Majority's), you destroy the meaning of morality itself.

The Arbitrariness Problem

If morality is merely "what the powerful say it is" (Horn 2), then the rules are arbitrary. If the majority commanded us to torture innocent children for fun, would that become morally good?

If you say "Yes," you have admitted that morality has no actual content; it’s just blind obedience. "Good" loses its meaning and just means "what I was told to do."

Realists say, "No, even if God commanded that, it would still be wrong." This proves there is a standard of Right and Wrong above the commander. This standard is the "Moral Fact" (Realism).

If Moral Realism is false, then morality is likely a construct of society.

Imagine a totalitarian government passes a law that legalizes genocide against a minority group. The majority of society supports it.

The Non-Realist Dilemma: If morality is defined by "society's agreement" or "the law," then by definition, the genocide is now morally right in that country. A non-realist has no platform to stand on and say, "This law is wrong." They can only say, "I personally don't like it."

The Realist Defense: Realism allows you to say: "The Law says X, and Society agrees with X, but X is objectively WRONG." This separates Power from Rightness. It gives the dissenter (the Martin Luther King Jr., the Sophie Scholl) the metaphysical ground to stand against the entire world and declare the world mistaken.

Who defines "Good"?	Consequence
The Subject / The State	"Might Makes Right." If the Nazis win and brainwash everyone, they become "morally right."
Reality Itself	"Right Makes Might." Even if the Nazis win, they are objectively wrong. Truth exists independently of power.

Finally, Moral Realism offers the most robust defense against authoritarianism.

If morality is created by minds (Subjectivism) or by society (Relativism), then the majority is always right. If 51% of a society votes to exterminate a minority, and morality is defined by that society, then the extermination is "morally right" by definition.

Moral Realism provides the only coherent ground to stand up and say, "The King is wrong," "The Law is wrong". It's the only philosophical shield that protects minorities and dissenters from the tyranny of the majority opinion.

Summary of the Defense

Argument	The Defense in a Nutshell
Companions in Guilt	If you deny moral facts, you must deny Math and Logic too.
Epistemic Norms	Science relies on "oughts" (rules of reasoning). If "oughts" aren't real, Science collapses.
Moral Progress	We have improved (e.g., ending slavery). Progress requires an objective standard to measure against.
Euthyphro	if you reject objective, independent moral facts, you accidentally embrace a world where "Might Makes Right."

The Problem of Evil: Solved for Christians; A Major Problem for Atheists

Problem of Evil Formulated

Many atheists are fond of using the argument from evil to debunk the notion of God. It goes something like this:

• If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), He could stop evil.
• If God is all-loving (omni-benevolent), He would stop evil if He could.
• Therefore, if an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God existed, evil would not.
• Evil exists; therefore, an omnipotent, omni-benevolent God does not.

Another variation of the argument was put forward by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, centuries before the time of Christ:

• Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. 
• Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. 
• Is he both able and willing? Then whence evil? 
• Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
• 
  

The Problem of Evil for Christians

Logically, this argument misunderstands what's meant by God's omnipotence. Omnipotence means that God cannot possibly be more powerful than He currently is. His power is perfect. But within these traditional confines, we acknowledge that God cannot do the logically impossible. He cannot, for example, will what is contrary to His Will. Why? Because that's a contradiction.

Herein lies the easiest answer to the problem of evil:

• God gives us free will, because free will is inherently good.
• Free will entails the possibility of doing what is contrary to God's will (i.e. evil).
• God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil
• Thus, evil exists, because of man's actions, rather than because of God.

The easiest answer expanded:

The Bible makes it clear that evil is something God neither intended nor created. Rather, moral evil is a necessary possibility. If we are truly free, then we are free to choose something other than God’s will—that is, we can choose moral evil. Scripture points out that there are consequences for defying the will of God—personal, communal, physical, and spiritual.

The existence of evil is often presented as an enormous problem for those who believe in God, mostly because it's based on a False Dilemma Fallacy God must either not allow any evil or God - as the Christians define Him - doesn't exist.  In reality, these assumptions miss the actual means by which Scripture resolves the problem of evil.

Freewill defined

What is critical to free will is not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. Sometimes philosophers call this agent causation. The agent himself is the cause of his actions. His decisions are differentiated from random events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

He created us with the freedom to choose our actions, and then extended forgiveness to us. Forgiveness, the release of the condemned from punishment is the Christian answer to the problem of evil. Forgiveness is also different from excusing evil—it acknowledges that there is wrong to be made right. The Bible describes evil as something God allowed, but never condoned, for the sake of our free will. 

Objection - What about freewill in heaven - why didn't God jusat create heaven in the first place.  

Reply: Well, I'd argue that  God did create "heaven" first. The Garden of Eden was heaven-like. The problem was that Adam nor Eve never chose to be there or chose to follow God over evil. And apparently God sees real value in freely making morally significant choices - choosing to in follow or disobey God,

In heaven the saved will be elevated to a better state of being eternally than they are currently (Rom 8:18, 2 Cor. 4:17), and once glorified, will no longer have a sin nature throughout eternity (Rev. 21:4,27). The term "born again" from John 3:3 to describe our new relationship with God. Paul talks about the "new man" (Eph 4) and tells us "If any man is in Christ he is a new creation, all things have passed away, behold all has become new" (2 Cor. 5:17)

In heaven we will simply choose not to sin. 

The sanctification of Christians is a continual, lifelong process. It involves both a relational component (separation from participating in and being influenced by evil) and a moral component (growth in holiness or moral purity in attitudes, thoughts, and actions). Our wills will be becoming more aligned with God's will as we continue in our walk. We can never be perfect on this side of eternity, but we can strive to become more like Jesus through the process of sanctification. There will be no CINO's (Christian In Name Only) in heaven.

Glorification is when believers will share in God’s glory as resurrected bodies in the new heaven and new earth. It will remove us from the presence of sin forever. In our eternal home in heaven, we no longer have a sinful nature. Plus, there will be no temptation to lure people to sin, no devil to deceive us.

Jesus Christ, even though He didn't sin, still had free will.  One of the more clear Bible passages that demonstrates such is John 10:17-18. "I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again." 

One can also point to the temptation in the wilderness in Matt 4 as evidence that Jesus had freedom to do what He pleased. What he chose was not to sin. Thus, the notion of an all-loving God is consistent with abundant free will, and free will is consistent with the presence of evil. But it does not necessitate the existence or practice of evil.

Back to the argument...

You may disagree with that solution—you may not see why free will is better than God forcing us to perform on command, for example—but it at least shows that there's no logical problem with the simultaneous existence of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God and evil.

So the Problem of Evil is easily solved for the Christian. God has morally sufficient reasons for temporarily allowing evil; after this God will wipe out evil (but not free will) from human existence. Those who chose to follow God will do so, those that did not, will not. 

The Problem of Evil for Atheists

If the atheist says that only subjective morality exists (i.e moral values and principles are based on individual beliefs, opinions, cultural norms, and societal contexts) then it is difficult for the atheists to construct a logically coherent problem of evil as rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide is just one's opinion, they are not necessarily evil. 

Thus, the atheists is barred from intellectually, rationally, logically condemning rape, murder, torture of children for fun, genocide, etc

If the atheist says that objective morality exists (moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations) how then does the atheist ground objective morality in their worldview.

But here's the problem with that: Objective morality is best explained by God. What else can give us moral values or obligations are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?

This doesn't mean that atheists can't be moral people, as Christians teach that objective morality is knowable by all via natural law. 

No good definition of Good? 

The atheist may say that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals; the atheist defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures. But why, given atheism, should we think that the "flourishing of human beings" is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris, as William Lane Craig points out, fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.

Science, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make humans flourish. But why is “human flourishing” a good thing? Why not "rat flourishing" Or "cockroach flourishing"? 

Harris commits the Is/Ought Fallacy - the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way. Example: “That man is a murderer. He should be hung/punished.”  Let's say the former statment is true, but why would the latter statement logically follow? Especially if morality is subjective. Because Harris, and atheists, cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redefines  the word “good” to mean human flourishing. 

Naturalistic Determinism

If one is committed to naturalistic determinism, as most atheists are, then they most likely reject the notion of free will as well. In essence, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions. Richard Dawkins agrees with this when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. Dawkins, pp 133] 

So how can one condemn people for their actions?  Given determinism, one's actions were pre-loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry. According to naturalism all actions are the result of antecedent the physical conditions of matter, acting in accordance to the physical laws. How can their be moral choices? How can there be any choices at all? How can there be logical conclusions? 

Naturalistic Reasoning?

The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make conscious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recognized this fatal flaw. He remarks, 

“A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe. but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.” -  C. S. Lewis. In other words, if atheists are is on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.

While atheists' attempts to affirm objective morality via naturalistic presumptions, they are fatally flawed as they have no rational basis to stand on.

Morality from Evolution?

Darwinian evolution is "descent with modification". This process of natural selection acting on random mutations is the standard view.  If Darwin was right then creatures scratched and clawed their way to survival, killing and eating each other. Natural selection explains sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of morality? 

Kin selection theory an animal engages in self-sacrificial behavior that benefits the genetic fitness of its relatives. For example, a rabbit might cry out a warning to her relatives if it sees a predator coming putting itself at greater risk, or may choose to fight/sacrifice  themselves. This sacrifice, ensures that the family genes will survive and pass on to the next generation.

Reciprocal relationships, aka “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.

Evolution’s Failure to Explain Morality

If Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than roaches, rats, or spiders? Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.

Take the black widow who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Most male animals forcibly copulate with their female counterparts.  Do these creatures commit moral evils? 

If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? Atheists and secular humanists may wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism. 

Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved so human females eats her male counterpart during the mating process or it's the norm for  human males forcibly copulate with their female counterparts. And the atheist and secular humanist would simply nod in agreement. 

Evolution  does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem. 

but they confuse Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology

Atheists, naturalists, and secular humanists may be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even "know" objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.

The fact is humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice, they ought to choose honor, rather than dishonor. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with the Christian worldview.

More specifically, the problem is that is that there's no way to get from statements "how the world is" to "how the world ought to be" without imposing a value system. And to say something is objective good [or evil] you must believe in objective values, binding everyone . It has to be something infinitely more than whatever your personal values might be.

This is a serious problem for atheism, since atheistic naturalism denies any such universally-binding moral laws. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, laid out the problem like this:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values do exist.

Therefore God exists.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that mortality is hardwired into our genes as an evolutionary survival mechanism.  A man might simultaneously be sexually attracted to a non-consenting woman, and conscious that rape is immoral. 

Why, from a strictly biological standpoint, should the man listen to his genetic hard-wiring when it tells him rape is wrong, and not when it gives him an urge to rape? The answer to that question is a moral one, and one that (by definition) can't come from mere evolutionary urges. The urges are the problem, not the solution. You can see this with virtually any sin: man both desires sin, and knows it's wrong. If both the desire and the moral aversion are nothing more than evolutionary conditioning, why listen to the unpleasant one? Why not act like simply another member of the animal kingdom, a world full of rape and theft and killing.

But for that matter, is it morally evil to go against our genetic hard-wiring? If the hard-wiring is nothing more than the result of random chance over millions of years, it's not at all clear why it would be morally evil to disregard it. Your body may also decide to start producing cancer cells, but you feel no moral allegiance to quietly let it have its way. 

And indeed, atheists constantly go against their genetic hard-wiring. For example, I'd venture that most atheists use or have used birth control and don't seem to find this immoral, even though it's transparently contrary to both our genetic hard-wiring, and evolutionary survival mechanisms. They're literally stopping evolution from working: a more direct violation of evolutionary hard-wiring is almost unthinkable (except, perhaps, celibacy).

So, evolution can explain urges we have for or against certain behaviors. But it cannot say which are worth acting upon, some aren't. Nor why. But to know which to obey and which to ignore is a moral question, not a biological one.

The atheists/naturalist/secular humanist might argue that objective moral values do not exist. Not everyone has the same moral standards. Our perception of what is right and wrong have changed over the centuries

If this is true, they cannot logically, rationally criticize the Nazis for killing millions of Jews, Or for the Chinese imprisonment of the Uyghurs Or any genocide, rape, murder, etc. 

If objective morality does not exist, the problem of evil breaks down. So when atheists raise the problem of evil, they're already conceding the existence of objective morality.

Objective Evil Exists

We can see that objective morals do, in fact, exist. We don't need to be told that raping, torturing, and killing innocent people are more than just unpleasant or counter-cultural. They're wrong—universally and completely wrong. Even if we were never taught these things growing up, we know these things by nature.

Incredibly, even the most evil societies—even those societies that have most cruelly warped the natural law for their own ends—still profess these universal morals. Nazi Germany, for example, still had laws against murder, and theft, and rape. They didn't have some delusion that those things were somehow morally good: it's sheer fiction to suggest otherwise. Everyone, with the possible exceptions of the  severely mentally handicapped/ill, recognizes these things to be evil, whether or not they've been formally taught these truths.

Conclusion

So is the problem of evil a problem for Christians? Sure. However, there are intellectually satisfying answers for the Christian

Is the problem of evil a problem for atheists? Yes.  If the atheists denies that objective morality exists, then any "problem of evil" argument falls apart.

Thus, in order to complain of the problem of evil, one must acknowledge evil. To acknowledge evil, you must acknowledge objective system morality. But the atheist/naturalist/secular humanist cannot do that. 

Objective universal moral laws is best explained by a Lawgiver capable of dictating behavior for everyone. This Lawgiver is best explained by One who we call God.

Ironically, the Problem of Evil lays the groundwork for establishing that God not only exists, but cares about good and evil. And humans as well, caring enough to die for them. 

God as a source for objective morality - a proposition

Axiology is a branch of philosophy that studies values. Axiology includes questions about the nature of values, how they are classified, and what things have value. It also includes the study of value judgments, especially in ethics. 

To be meaningful, in an objective sense, axiological statements must have the force of obligating a moral agent to either perform a prescribed action or prohibit him from carrying one out.  If that force is not sufficiently authoritative, by what right may any human impose his personal convictions on other humans? 

If moral obligations aren’t grounded in a sufficiently authoritative way, then we are not justified in making absolute moral pronouncements. We have no warrant to say things like, “striving to eliminate poverty is objectively good” or that “racial oppression has and will always be bad, in all places and for all peoples”. Nor would one have any basis to say that "rape is wrong, or that "torturing babies for fun is morally wrong".

Only a transcendent Person who is rightly authorized in and of himself (since he alone is the author of all created things) to hold us accountable for them is justified in making absolute moral pronouncements. 

Objectively binding moral obligations can’t rightfully be imposed from within the human community, regardless of consensus by any arrangement of individuals in that community. They must come from a source external to the community (i.e. not derived from but independent of the community). That source would have an authoritative claim on the community because it would have constituted the community.

 It would also have an immutable nature, without which moral imperatives are subject to change over time. The only qualified candidate, with no conceivable substitute capable of satisfying the requirements for grounding objective morality, is God. Only his character – his intrinsically good nature – establishes the basis for why all people are properly obligated to be good.

Is there any reason to conclude that a prefect God, who created humans for a purpose, could not provide them a morality that is free from bias, individual perspectives, cultural norms, and societal values - i.e. objective morality?

Objection 1: One can be moral without believing in God. 

Reply: I’m not saying one can’t be a good, moral person unless you believe in God. I’m saying that if you accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, yet you can’t provide a coherent explanation for how to derive them, then your view of the world is incoherent.  

And if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral. 

Objection 2: All morality is subjective

Reply: if you do not accept the reality of objectively binding moral values, if morality is simply the subjective realm of desires and preferences that invariably differ from one individual to the next, then one cannot say anything is right or wrong; good or evil; moral or immoral.  

See also: The Problem of Evil: Solved for Christians; A Major Problem for Atheists