Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If morality is self-grounding, the postulation of God adds no justificatory work and reduces to a psychological rather than rational necessity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Moral self-grounding remains unexplained: why should abstract logical truths motivate action or bind rational agents?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
God's role as moral foundation may provide justification for moral *realism* itself, not just individual moral facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing 'psychological necessity' from 'rational necessity' assumes a false dichotomy—human rationality is intrinsically psychological.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
If moral truths are logically necessary (like math), they require no external grounding, making God explanatorily redundant.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Appeals to God's will to justify morality face the Euthyphro dilemma: are acts good because God commands them or vice versa?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Psychological comfort from belief in God as moral guarantor differs fundamentally from rational justification of moral facts.
?
How convincing is this?
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.