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 Moral objectivity can be established on purely naturalist grounds (e.g., Railton's reductive naturalism, Parfit's non-naturalism) without invoking theism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Naturalism cannot bridge the explanatory gap between descriptive facts about nature and normative moral facts about 'ought'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Reductive naturalism makes moral facts causally inert or collapses them into non-moral properties, undercutting objectivity claims.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Non-naturalist objectivity (like Parfit's) abandons naturalism's explanatory advantage, so the claim conflates two different positions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral facts can reduce to natural facts about well-being, preferences, or flourishing without requiring supernatural foundations.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Theism fails to explain morality: the Euthyphro dilemma shows divine command doesn't ground objectivity or necessity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scientific and metaphysical parsimony favors naturalist explanations over theistic ones when both adequately ground morality.
      ?

      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.