William Lane Craig unmasked.

[robvalue]

People often get confused because "morality" can be approached from so many different angles.

It can be used as a scientific way of studying behavior. Essentially, that's what it is, it's explaining why we act the way we do. This is a study of a species as a whole.

Or we can look at the societal norms of a culture.

Or we can look at the moral values held by an individual, and their personal struggle with developing them.

These are all very different, and talking about them all at once is bound to cause confusion. But the "morality" of an action is simply a value judgement, and you need a sentient being to make such a judgement. We could agree ways of making the judgement, like we do with length and such, but there would be no point as such uniformity doesn't have the same practicality.

---

And yeah, while I think WLC is correct to call out this idea of immorality = intentional harm being objective, I find his own position even more absurd.

For one thing, "harm" is an incredibly ill-defined concept anyway, and so the interpretation is still totally subjective.