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?
I haven’t read this book, which was published last year. I’m posting this based solely on the description provided here. As someone interested in metaethics generally, I think the book looks very interesting. I’m skeptical, however, of the claim that “were it not for the existence of moral facts, we would not be able to perform … Interesting Book On an Argument for Moral Realism
In his book, Ethical and Religious Thought in Analytic Philosophy of Language, Quentin Smith defends an argument for moral realism which he calls the argument from veridical seeming. In this post, I’m going to sketch a brief objection to (4) based on what I will call “naturalistic evolution.” According to this objection, naturalistic evolution furnishes naturalistic … A Very Rough Sketch of an Objection to Quentin Smith’s Argument for Moral Realism
I am summarizing Smith’s argument here, without comment pro or con, for interested readers. Feel free to debate in the combox. In his history of 20th century moral philosophy, Ethical and Religious Thought, Quentin Smith draws the following distinction between first-level and second-level ethical beliefs: A first-level ethical belief is that something is good or evil … Quentin Smith’s Argument for Moral Realism
Michael Ruse is a philosopher of biology and an atheist who is well-known for his writings about evolution. In various writings, Ruse has argued against moral realism by appealing to (Darwinian) evolution. Instead, he argues, the scientific facts about evolution justify the conclusion that moral error theory is correct. In this post, I want to assess … Michael Ruse’s Argument against Moral Realism and for Error Theory