Skip to content

Topics Thinkers Changes ContributorsLoading account…

Carmelics

A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

Navigate

Topics
Search
Recent Changes
Contribute
How It Works
Glossary
Thinkers
Contributors
About
Statistics
Terms
Privacy

Database

Statements: —
Perspectives: —
Topics: —

Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

Made within

DC&

Austin

Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

Appealing to divine will replaces the epistemological que... — Carmelics

History Edit See Inverse

Part of a larger discussion

Supports→The view that genocide is wrong because it is contrary to God's will does not provide an answer to the moral skeptic

Appealing to divine will replaces the epistemological question—how do we know genocide is wrong?—with an equally contested theological question about God's existence and knowable commands.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

?

1.Moral realism requires grounding moral facts somewhere; divine will is no harder to justify than brute moral facts or evolutionary accounts.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Secular frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology) are equally contested; shifting debates doesn't solve the underlying disagreement.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Divine command theory at least offers a unified source for obligation; secular alternatives fragment across incompatible metaethical theories.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

1 perspective

Reason against

?

1.We can know genocide is wrong through reason and empathy about suffering—capacities independent of theological claims about contested deities.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Divine will is less epistemically accessible than observable harm; we have direct access to genocide's effects but not God's commands.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.Many theists and atheists agree genocide is wrong; their moral consensus doesn't require resolving disagreement about God's existence first.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Strongest counterpoint

Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

Key Terms

Appealing to(The statement says appealing to divine will (using God's commands as justification) replaces a different kind of question): Using something as evidence or justification for why something is true or right.
Divine will(as used in theology and philosophy of God): God's ability to make choices and decisions; what God wants or chooses to do.
Theological(describing Cantor's view of the absolute infinite): Relating to God or religion, and questions about the nature of God and the divine.
epistemology(Contrasted with purely descriptive scientific inquiry): A normative enterprise that tells us how we ought to reason from evidence and how we ought to justify our beliefs, as distinct from merely describing how we do reason or justify beliefs

Connections

2 topics

Natural Theology1 linked Skepticism1 linked

Related

Divine command theory at least offers a unified source for obligation; secular a...Divine will is less epistemically accessible than observable harm; we have direc...Many theists and atheists agree genocide is wrong; their moral consensus doesn't...Moral realism requires grounding moral facts somewhere; divine will is no harder...

+3 moreShow less

Secular frameworks (utilitarianism, deontology) are equally contested; shifting ...The view that genocide is wrong because it is contrary to God's will does not pr...

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 2 (1 for, 1 against)
Edits: 1 edit

We can know genocide is wrong through reason and empathy about suffering—capacit...