Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading 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

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Basing moral knowledge on knowledge of God's will is viciously circular

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Either God forbids genocide because genocide is wrong, or genocide is wrong because God forbids it
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If genocide is wrong because God forbids it, then God's will is arbitrary or lacks an appropriate moral basis
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Believers who regard God as supremely moral must reject the view that God's will is arbitrary or lacks a moral basis
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.To verify that God's commands constitute genuine moral knowledge, we must already possess independent moral criteria to evaluate God's goodness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This independent moral criterion—used to confirm God is good rather than a deceiver—logically precedes and is epistemically prior to any divine command.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the divine command theorist cannot escape Cudworth's 1731 charge: moral knowledge grounds theological knowledge, not the reverse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Alston's response that God's nature constitutes a non-arbitrary moral standard merely relocates the circularity: we must know God's nature is good before using it as a standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any access to God's nature as a moral standard requires prior moral concepts through which that nature is recognized as praiseworthy rather than merely powerful.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.