MandM header image 5

Entries Tagged as 'William Lane Craig'

Can a Divine Command Theory Ground the Objectivity of Morality? Michael Huemer on Observer Independence: Part One

September 12th, 2021 Comments Off on Can a Divine Command Theory Ground the Objectivity of Morality? Michael Huemer on Observer Independence: Part One

In a previous post  I criticized David Brink’s argument that a divine command theory cannot vindicate the objectivity of morality. Brink argued: [1] Our commitment to morality presupposes that moral requirements are objective [2] Moral requirements are objective just in case facts about what is right or wrong obtain independently of the moral beliefs or […]

Tags:   · · · · ·

The Psychopath Objection to Divine Command Theory: Presentation

December 15th, 2020 Comments Off on The Psychopath Objection to Divine Command Theory: Presentation

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHhmuqBW6Dw”>dialogue

Last year, I presented a talk entitled “The Psychopath Objection to Divine Command Theory: Another Reply to Erik Wielenberg” to the New Zealand Association of Philosophers conference in Auckland. This was a follow up to interaction I have had with the work of Erik Wielenberg. In 2017 I wrote a critical response to Wielenberg’s book Robust […]

Tags:   · · · ·

The Psychopath Objection to Divine Command Theory: Another Response to Erik Wielenberg (part one)

September 3rd, 2019 Comments Off on The Psychopath Objection to Divine Command Theory: Another Response to Erik Wielenberg (part one)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iVyVJAMiOY.

Recently, Erik Wielenberg has developed a novel objection to divine command meta-ethics (DCM). DCM “has the implausible implication that psychopaths have no moral obligations and hence their evil acts, no matter how evil, are morally permissible” (Wielenberg (2008), 1). Wielenberg develops this argument in response to some criticisms of his earlier work. One of the […]

Tags:   · · · · · ·

“Robust Ethics and the Autonomy Thesis” Now Online

April 3rd, 2018 Comments Off on “Robust Ethics and the Autonomy Thesis” Now Online

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iVyVJAMiOY”>William

Recently, Philosophia Christi published Matt’s article “Robust Ethics and the Autonomy Thesis: A reply to Erik Wielenberg”. This article consisted of some critical commentary and responses to Erik Wielenberg’s book Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism. Since then Matt’s article has received a little bit of unexpected attention. One of my arguments […]

Tags:   · · · · · ·

Erik Wielenberg and the Autonomy Thesis: Part Three Standard Objections to the Autonomy Thesis, Human Rights and Dignity without God

March 25th, 2017 1 Comment

In my last post I looked at Erik Wielenberg’s response to the objection that, in the absence of God, people lack compelling reasons to comply with morality’s demands.  A second objection Wielenberg briefly addresses is that without certain theological doctrines, one cannot provide a plausible basis for human rights and dignity.  Wielenberg, here again, takes Craig […]

Tags:   · · · · · · ·

Erik Wielenberg and the Autonomy Thesis: Part Two Standard Objections to the Autonomy Thesis, Reasons to be Moral Without God

March 20th, 2017 3 Comments

The autonomy thesis contends that there can be moral requirements to φ regardless of whether God commands, desires, or wills that people φ. In his monograph, Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism,[1] Erik Wielenberg offers arguably one of the most sophisticated defences of the autonomy thesis to date. Wielenberg argues three […]

Tags:   · · · · ·

Jerry Coyne on Deception and the Omission of Facts

October 21st, 2014 4 Comments

In 2011 I wrote a criticism of Jerry Coyne’s USA Today article, “As  atheists know, you can be good without God.” My critique, “When Scientists make bad Ethicists,” attracted some attention motivating Coyne to write a response. I wrote a following up piece the next year, “Jerry Coyne on God and Morality Revisited,” my conclusions were not […]

Tags:   · · · ·