WHY MARRY GOD AND MORALITY?
Objective morality is declaring that moral truths that are true independent of human opinion. But what grounds or makes it true? Many say it is either God-grounded, God is the source of moral truths, or it grounds itself. If it is self-grounded then it exists as true independent of God.
People may fear morality if it is just human opinion. It can lead to justifying anything.
But, consider this argument.
Premise 1: If morality is objective, it exists independently of whether humans recognize it.
Premise 2: Whether morality is grounded in God or is self-grounded, its objective truth is not contingent on who applies or enforces it.
Premise 3: Delegation is the act of giving humans authority to recognize, enforce, or interpret objective moral truths. Delegation does not alter the truth of those moral truths.
Premise 4: Therefore, even if God grounds morality (or it grounds itself), this does not prevent God or the source from delegating moral authority to humans.
Conclusion: Grounding morality in God (or having it self-grounded) is compatible with human moral agency; delegation preserves the objectivity of morality while allowing humans to participate in its application.
This means a person who claims to somehow know they have been delegated has to be respected. We must make way for them and may even agree with them.
So we have failed to avoid morality being what man says. If objective morality is then delegated to man, that is a worry. But there is also the problem of its content. It is known that even if morality is fact and truth, that does not mean we can accurately discern it. Similarly, objective morality remains true even when humans are delegated the role of enforcing, interpreting, or acting according to it.
Objective morality fails to keep man out of deciding what moral values are valid and what moral rules are best. Delegating would be dangerous for it would put morality in the hands of the allegedly most capable persons - it leads to fascism.
ANALOGY
Think of a king who owns the law of the land. The law exists independently of each citizen’s obedience. If the king delegates authority to judges, the law remains valid—it’s just that humans are now empowered to enforce it.
CAN IT DELEGATE?
Objective morality has two sides:
Authority side: It tells us what we ought to do. This is the side that can, in principle, delegate responsibility to humans.
Values side: It tells us what is good or bad, independent of enforcement or authority.
When morality is grounded objectively (for instance, in some universal truths or natural law), in principle it can be delegated to humans to interpret or implement. That is, humans can act as agents who apply moral principles, make judgments, and enforce moral norms.
However, if morality is only a set of values without any conscious, authoritative aspect—merely guidelines or preferences—it cannot delegate authority, because values themselves do not make decisions or exercise judgment. They are inert; they exist only as descriptors of what might be good or bad.
That does not matter. Wheat does not delegate itself to be our food so we impose on it. We treat values as if they can delegate even if they don't and that would be morally acceptable.
It is logical to hold that its authority can be delegated.
We conclude again that objective morality cannot be put beyond the control of man.
FORCED CHOICE
Forced choice scenario:
1 Forget objective morals value side.
2 Forget objective morals authority side.
If a situation forces a choice, the “authority” aspect becomes irrelevant. It can be literally forgotten. All that matters is the values - considering the authority is about protecting the values anyway.
Practical implication:
In such a scenario, you shift from asking “What should I do according to moral authority?” to asking “Which option better reflects the objective values?” Authority takes a back seat; values alone guide the decision.
In short: authority matters when we have freedom to act, but in forced choices, only the values themselves matter.
Values are what absolutely matter.
God is effectively seen by some as somehow one and the same with moral values - and the moral authority to command those values.
God would be more than values. In fact if we thought of the values, not him, that would be acceptable. A God whose authority means nothing when it comes to a choice between values and authority is not a God at all.
FINALLY
The thing that mostly frightens those who care about morality is people changing moral principles and actions to suit themselves. It is not clear that the idea of a God who enforces morality is really any help. If you say morality grounds itself or should be assumed to - you may say that as long as you detect that morality is grounded it does not really matter how.
APPENDIX
Take love. What if it needs and wants no justification? It should not. Objective morality is seen as a commanding force while love should be from the heart. If love is that great, how could it be moral to try and turn it into a command?