Matt Slick has developed this proposition over the years to support his claim of “absolute morals”. As he states in the link:
So let’s respond to the “If it is” and the “If it is not” as Slick explains at his carm.org website:“If it is always wrong, then that supports a universal moral absolute. But how is it possible in a worldview that contains no God and/or does not allow universal moral truths?
“If it is always wrong (to torture babies to death for personal pleasure), then that supports a universal moral absolute. But how is it possible in a worldview that contains no God and/or does not allow universal moral truths?”
Incoherent/does not follow. A well-known Atheist Community Youtube commenter expresses this very well: “If you have to use a very specific example ‘raping babies for mere pleasure’ in order to demonstrate an objective moral standard, the moral standard can't be very objective (at least not in the transcendent, god given morals, kind of way ).” (Shaar roambeams , YT comment on BTWN Show, 8/7/2016)
Reductio Ad Absurdum. Slick is attempting to find something he can claim is universal in that no one can deny it, but in doing so, raises its specificity to an absurdity The immediate question arising is: who would EVER torture babies to death “merely for personal pleasure”? It is the specifier, the "merely for personal pleasure" clause, which takes the proposition to this level.
At his carm.org website, Slick tries to extend this appeal-to-emotion-framed statement to a table of “objective" wrongs:
Notice that they are set up in a table which perfectly reflects the false dilemmas he sets up. He starts with a universal ("always") in the first column, with another universal (for "anyone/everyone") then to the act, and then obscures it with the emotionally-infected false choice "specifier". The second proposition about mothers is obviously a thinly-veiled reference to abortion. The choices make these propositions, again, something that would only be done by a sociopath, someone mentally ill, because of the "personal pleasure" phrasing. The appeal to emotion "specifier" in the last column is meant to remove any compelling rational reason for an exception, but also renders it almost impossibly uncommon (reduces it to an absurdity).
Straw man/Reification. Where does it say that an atheist worldview cannot allow universal moral truths? Matt’s insinuation is that only a theist worldview can support them, I’m assuming because it has a ”morality giver” (which of course is his version of god). In other words, universal moral laws require having a “law giver.”
Altruism and empathy can be used to develop objective, universal moral truths in both a theistic and secular world. Five of them will be discussed later in this post.
Divine Command Theory. Slick tries to get around the DCT quandary in various ways, but it always comes back to the fact that any act his god would command him to perform is morally permissible. This is expressed well in a Personal Challenge by Raymond Bradley in his book “God’s Gravediggers: Why No Diety Exists”—
Consider First Samuel 15:3 in which the Lord commands his people: “Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant."
Now ask yourself three questions:(i) Was "put to death both man and woman, child and Infant" the very word of the Lord whom you believe and worship?(ii) Is it conceivable that your Lord could again issue the same command in our time?(iii) If you did believe you were so commanded by your Lord, could you and would you obey?
If you answer "No" to question (i), you deny the authority of God's so-called word, the Bible. If you answer "No" to question (ii) (perhaps because you think your Lord might have mended his ways), then you deny that God's commands have the kind of universal applicability which is a necessary condition of their being in accord with, let alone the source of, moral truths [Note from Karen: you also deny that God is “changeless” as defined by the Westminster Confessional definition of God]. If you answer "No" to question (iii), you must think that it is sometimes right, or even obligatory, to disobey God. You thereby admit that moral truths are independent of, and may even conflict with, God's dictates. You admit that, as most philosophers since Socrates have long insisted, ethics is autonomous; and that we must, therefore, do our moral thinking for ourselves. But if you answer "Yes" to each question, then I submit that your belief in the God of biblical theism is not just mistaken but morally abhorrent.
My Answer to Slick
Torturing babies “merely for personal pleasure” is an appeal to emotion that entails that one enjoys giving pain, which is sadism. Sexual sadism disorder is the “medical/psychological condition for sexual arousal [i.e., personal pleasure] from inflicting pain/humiliation on unwilling, non-consenting victims.” Babies are by definition “unwilling, non-consenting victims.” So it’s not wrong as indicative of someone who has a psychological disorder who needs to be helped (i.e., with empathy, altruism). The person who is “deriving personal pleasure” may not think it is wrong, because they have a psychological problem—they are “sick” from a mental condition which requires treatment.
