Objections to Objectivism – Part 2: More Popular Objections
In this post I will examine three more populuar arguments against ethical objectivism from Russ Landau’s textbook The Fundamentals of Ethics (hereafter: FOE). I will present Landau’s criticisms of these arguments, and I will also present a few of my own criticisms. Objection 4: Moral Objectivity Supports Dogmatism 1. If there are objective moral standards, then … Objections to Objectivism – Part 2: More Popular Objections
Objections to Objectivism – Part 1: Three Popular Objections
I have many textbooks, handbooks, and readers on ethics, so I didn’t really need to buy another introduction to ethics this weekend. But I glanced through Russ Landau’s textbook The Fundamentals of Ethics (hereafter: FOE) and the third and final section of his book caught my attention: “Part Three: The Status of Morality”. In Part Three, … Objections to Objectivism – Part 1: Three Popular Objections
Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 9: The Supreme Moral Lawgiver
In Phase 1 of his case for the existence of God (in When Skeptics Ask, hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler argues for the existence of a “supreme moral Lawgiver”. The argument goes like this (see WSA, p. 22): Geisler’s Moral Argument 32. There is an objective moral law. 33. Moral laws imply a moral lawgiver. THEREFORE: … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 9: The Supreme Moral Lawgiver
Are Atheism and Moral Realism Logically Incompatible?
I am a regular reader of Victor Reppert’s blog, Dangerous Idea. In the combox for one of his recent posts, Steve Hays claimed that atheism and moral realism are logically incompatible. I wrote a lengthy reply to Hays in the combox and have decided to republish it here. Before I republish my comments, I will make one … Are Atheism and Moral Realism Logically Incompatible?
Moral Arguments for God and Coining a Name for a Common but Fallacious Objection
In response to Wintery Knight’s recent blog post on the plausibility of objective morality on atheism, I posted a comment in the combox on his site. The comment consisted solely of a link to my YouTube video, “Naturalism, Theism, and Moral Ontology: A Reply to William Lane Craig.” In response to that link, WK wrote … Moral Arguments for God and Coining a Name for a Common but Fallacious Objection
Naturalism, Theism, and Moral Ontology: A Reply to William Lane Craig
(Reposting since this seems to be so popular. So far as I am aware, neither WLC nor anyone else has responded to this.)Abstract: This paper considers William Lane Craig’s metaethical argument for God’s existence. Roughly, the argument is that the existence of objective moral values provides strong evidence for God’s existence. I consider one by one … Naturalism, Theism, and Moral Ontology: A Reply to William Lane Craig
Preliminary Remarks Concerning Euthyphro-style Ojections to the Divine Command Theory
This post is meant to set the stage for a follow-up post in which I will argue that the Euthyphro Dilemma provides a definitive (or as close to definitive as we can reasonably expect to get) objection to divine command metaethics (even the modern so-called modified divine command theories associated with Robert Adams, Edward Wierenga, … Preliminary Remarks Concerning Euthyphro-style Ojections to the Divine Command Theory
Biological vs. Philosophical Perspectives on Morality
(Redated post originally published on 18 October 2011) (This is from my archives and is undated; I’m guessing I wrote this about a decade ago. I think it is still relevant, as evidenced by Jerry Coyne’s article about explaining morality.) I recently updated one of the official FAQs for the *.atheism newsgroups. (For interested parties, … Biological vs. Philosophical Perspectives on Morality
Jerry Coyne on Goodness without God
(Originally published on 17 October 2011) Jerry Coyne recently wrote an op-ed in USA Today entitled, “As Atheists Know, You Can Be Good Without God.” Christian philosopher Matt Flanagan wrote an excellent critique, not of Coyne’s claim that nonbelievers can be good without God (which Flanagan grants), but of pretty much everything else Coyne wrote … Jerry Coyne on Goodness without God
Darwinian Morality and Rape?
(Redated post last published on 3 November 2011) According to Nancy Pearcey and biologist Jeffrey Schloss (see here), Darwinian evolution implies there is nothing ethically wrong with rape. Why? Pearcey argues that Darwinian evolution and moral realism are logically incompatible: In the words of sociobiology’s founder, E.O. Wilson, “the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will”; … Darwinian Morality and Rape?