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
    The two components of a moral argument — defending moral ... — Carmelics
    Home/Natural Theology
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The two components of a moral argument — defending moral realism and arguing for a theistic explanation — cannot be accomplished simultaneously.

    Natural Theology
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The theist must first defend the reality of morality against subjectivists, constructivists, and moral nihilists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Only after establishing moral realism can the theist argue that morality thus understood requires or is most plausibly explained by theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Theistic metaethics can simultaneously ground moral realism and explain it, as in Adams's 'Finite and Infinite Goods' where God's nature just is the good.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If moral facts are constituted by divine nature rather than divine will, the explanatory and ontological tasks collapse into a single unified account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A constitutive grounding relation makes the 'first defend, then explain' sequential model a false picture of how foundational theories work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.C.S. Lewis's argument from moral experience moves simultaneously from the phenomenology of moral obligation to its best explanation in theism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Inference to the best explanation permits joint evaluation of a hypothesis's explanatory power and the reality of the explanandum without strict sequencing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument commits a pragmatic fallacy by confusing the rhetorical order of persuasion with the logical structure of abductive justification.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Natural Theology

    Related

    A constitutive grounding relation makes the 'first defend, then explain' sequent...C.S. Lewis's argument from moral experience moves simultaneously from the phenom...If moral facts are constituted by divine nature rather than divine will, the exp...Inference to the best explanation permits joint evaluation of a hypothesis's exp...
    +4 moreShow less
    Only after establishing moral realism can the theist argue that morality thus un...The supporting argument commits a pragmatic fallacy by confusing the rhetorical ...The theist must first defend the reality of morality against subjectivists, cons...Theistic metaethics can simultaneously ground moral realism and explain it, as i...

    Similar

    Only after establishing moral realism can the theist argue that morali...83%An argument that rests on realist premises is not a complete alternati...83%The proponent of a moral argument must defend the reality and objectiv...82%A similar problem applies to theistic moral pragmatic arguments insofa...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: moral-arguments-god
    View source passageHide passage
    It is easy to see then that the proponent of a moral argument has a complex task: She must defend the reality and objectivity of the feature of morality appealed to, but also defend the claim that this feature can be best explained by God. The second part of the task may require not only demonstrating the strengths of a theistic explanation, but pointing out weaknesses in rival secular explanations as well. Both parts of the task are essential, but it is worth noting that the two components cann
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit