LINK: Joel Marks on Atheism, Amorality, and Animals
Philosopher Joel Marks, of “Confessions of an Ex-Moralist” Fame, recently wrote another essay for the New York Times on his amoralism and concern for the treatment of animals. LINK Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
LINK: Rosalind Carey’s Review of Michael Martin’s ATHEISM, MORALITY, AND MEANING
LINK Related articles: here, here, here, and here Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
Why Are Members of the Clergy Assumed to be Moral Experts?
At (site now discontinued), I found a set of lecture notes entitled “Why religion is irrelevant to ethics”. Here is a quotation I particularly liked: Why are members of the clergy (who presumably are experts in the theology of their particular sect) assumed to be experts in ethics? Why put them on ethics ommissions rather … Why Are Members of the Clergy Assumed to be Moral Experts?
LINK: Two Sites Related to Darwinian Ethics
While web browsing, I stumbled across two sites related to nontheistic and/or Darwinian ethics. Pretty much anyone interested in The Secular Outpost will probably be interested in both of these sites and for the same reasons.1. The website for the late James Rachels. For those of you who do not know who James Rachels was, … LINK: Two Sites Related to Darwinian Ethics
LINK: Confessions of an Ex-Moralist
The New York Times recently published an essay by philosopher Joel Marks, entitled, “Confessions of an Ex-Moralist,” in which he describes his decision to eliminate “all moral concepts and language from [his] thinking, feeling and actions.” If you haven’t already seen this, it’s an enjoyable read. LINK Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
Alexander Pruss’s Simple Argument against Divine Command Theories
Here is Pruss’s argument: 1.Even if God didn’t forbid it, torturing the innocent would be wrong. 2.(Premise) Necessarily, torturing the innocent is wrong. 3.(Premise) Possibly, God does not forbid torturing the innocent.4.(Premise) If divine command theory is true, then it is the case that: necessarily, something is wrong if and only if it is forbidden … Alexander Pruss’s Simple Argument against Divine Command Theories
Son of Naturalism and Norms
First, apologies if I am boring the hell out of everyone but a few of us fanatics with yet another sequel on naturalism and norms. It is just that I think the issues are very important, and I have gotten such terrific feedback on these points, that I am going to post a couple more … Son of Naturalism and Norms
Naturalism and Norms (Postscript)
Philip K asks some very probing and incisive questions about ethical naturalism (EN) in his comment on my post “Naturalism and Norms.” These questions raise issues too large and too important to be addressed in the very limited space of a comment box, so I am making a new post. He puts two questions to … Naturalism and Norms (Postscript)
Naturalism and Norms
My recent exchange with Taner on ethical naturalism (EN) prompted a good bit of stimulating comment and criticism. I’ve been out of town for a couple of weeks and away from blogging, so I have not been able to reply to each comment as it arrived. Rather than attempt to do so now, I would like … Naturalism and Norms
Wanchick’s moral argument
I probably should have posted this directly here rather than on my own blog, but I’ve offered up a critique of Wanchick’s moral argument in his Internet Infidels debate with Richard Carrier at The Lippard Blog. I believe that not only does Wanchick mainly proceed through the mere assertion of dubious premises, but that at … Wanchick’s moral argument