MandM header image 2

Published in Philo: Is Ethical Naturalism more Plausible than Supernaturalism? A Reply to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

July 11th, 2013 by Matt

Jeffery Jay Lowder  has informed me that my article “Is Ethical Naturalism more Plausible than Supernaturalism? A Reply to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong”  was  published in the Spring/Summer 2012 issue of Philo. The abstract is below:

Is Ethical Naturalism more Plausible than Supernaturalism? A Reply to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong“In many of his addresses and debates, William Lane Craig has defended a Divine Command Theory of moral obligation (DCT). In a recent article and subsequent monograph, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has criticized Craig’s position. Armstrong contended that a DCT is subject to several devastating objections and further contended that even if theism is true a particular form of ethical naturalism is a more plausible account of the nature of moral obligations than a DCT is. This paper critiques Armstrong’s argument. I will argue Armstrong’s objections do not refute a DCT and the ethical naturalism he defends is not more plausible than Craig’s ethical supernaturalism.”

You can read “Is Ethical Naturalism more Plausible than Supernaturalism? A Reply to Walter Sinnott-Armstrong” here.

Tags:   · · · · 10 Comments

Leave a Comment

four × = 20

10 responses so far ↓

  • People on that editorial board are dead. Is it really much of achievement getting published in a journal that is edited by dead people?

  • I don’t see where it’s been claimed that this is somehow an achievement, nor do I see the point of your comment.

  • Really, so Dan Dennett, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Tooley, Graham Oppy, Wes Moristion, Timothy O Connor and so on are all dead?

  • Dr. Flannagan — Congratulations on having your paper published! It will be most interesting to see if and how Walter Sinnott-Armstrong responds.

  • Thanks Jeff, my understanding is Philo approached him but he declined due to time deadlines. The paper was challenging to write and I was fortunate to get feedback from John Hare, Trent Dougherty, Eric Weilenberg and Mark Murphy when they visited Auckland in 2011.

  • Congratulations, nice going!

  • Good show, Matt.

    Philo is a heavy metal journal open to hashing out major issues from a lot of different perspectives.

    I noticed that the greatest atheist mind of all time, Kai Nielsen, is on the editorial board. Ironically, his independent moral criterion argument is the only reason I now believe in God. Amazing what happens when one actually reads different perspectives.

    Congratulations and Cheers

  • Hi Matt,

    Richard Carrier has published an article responding in Philo to your article. See:

    Have you read it? And what do you think of it? Any comments would be greatly appreciated.

    - GGDFan777

  • GGDF Fan777

    No I had not seen that article by Carrier. A few months ago Philo had told me they had approached Walter Sinnott-Armstrong to write a response but he declined to do so, and so they might look to get someone else, they did not say who.

    I cant access Philo on the databases I have. But I will try and chase the article done and take a look.

  • Would like to read your article. But not likely to subscribe to Philo for $52@ year anytime soon. Are you content to leave the points you made sequestered there? Or will that article, or anything like it, be available elsewhere?