Ima Supernaturalist argues that supernaturalism must be true -- since God is the only plausible source of objective moral duties. Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
Ima Supernaturalist argues that supernaturalism must be true -- since God is the only plausible source of objective moral duties. Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
To say that moral duties need a source assumes that "A ought to be done" means something of the form "X legislates A." But why accept this?
Maybe basic moral truths (like the logical truth "x=x") are true in themselves, and not true because someone made them true. Then they wouldn't need a "source."
Ima Supernaturalist argues that supernaturalism must be true -- since God is the only plausible source of objective moral duties. Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
This may be true, but it's irrelevant to the current argument.
Ima is arguing that morality must be based on God's will because God is the only plausible source of objective moral duties.
Ima Supernaturalist argues that supernaturalism must be true -- since God is the only plausible source of objective moral duties. Which of these is the best objection to her argument?
This may be true, but it's irrelevant to the current argument.
Ima is arguing that morality must be based on God's will because God is the only plausible source of objective moral duties.