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 view that genocide is wrong because it is contrary to God's will does not provide an answer to the moral skeptic

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.For the appeal to God's will to be non-arbitrary, God's prohibition must be grounded in the independent wrongness of genocide
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If God's prohibition is grounded in the independent wrongness of genocide, then moral wrongness is conceptually prior to and separate from God's will
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An appeal to God's will that presupposes independent moral wrongness cannot serve as a foundation for moral knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Moral skeptics demand foundations that are epistemically independent of the very moral intuitions they doubt, not merely restatements of those intuitions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Divine command theory, on any voluntarist reading from Ockham to Adams, grounds wrongness in God's will rather than deriving God's will from prior wrongness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Yet the skeptic can simply ask why God's will generates obligations, pushing the regress back one level without resolution—the arbitrariness problem remains undefeated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Plausible responses to moral skepticism must provide non-question-begging epistemic access to moral facts, not merely relocate their source.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Appealing to divine will replaces the epistemological question—how do we know genocide is wrong?—with an equally contested theological question about God's existence and knowable commands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A proposed foundation that introduces greater epistemic uncertainty than the original moral claim fails to satisfy the skeptic's demand for justification, as Flew's 'No-see-um' critique of natural theology implies.
      ?

      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.