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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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