This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Siblings:
8 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. Arif Ahmed (2013). From Game Theoretical Accounts of Cooperation to Meta-Ethical Choices. Studies in Christian Ethics 26 (2):176-183.
    This paper argues briefly that game theory in general, and evolutionary game theory in particular, are (1) ethically neutral (2) theologically irrelevant. By ‘game theory’ I mean the abstract mathematical theory of interacting agents that are ‘rational’ in the sense of the von Neumann-Morgenstern axioms. By ‘evolutionary game theory’ I mean the attempt to explain observed features of actual populations on an interpretation of game theory that equates utility with evolutionary fitness.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. C. Stephen Evans (2013). God and Moral Obligation. Oxford University Press.
    God and moral obligations -- What is a divine command theory of moral obligation? -- The relation of divine command theory to natural law and virtue ethics -- Objections to divine command theory -- Alternatives to a divine command theory -- Conclusions: The inescapability of moral obligations.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3. Christian Miller (2016). In Defense of a Supernatural Foundation to Morality: Reply to Shermer. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences:91-96.
    In my original paper, I claimed that our moral obligations are real, objective, and grounded in the supernatural. In particular, I endorsed the claim that God's will is the basis or source of our moral obligations, where “God” is to be understood as the theistic being who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, who created the universe, and who is still actively involved in the universe after creating it. In his critical article, Michael Shermer has raised a number of important challenges (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Christian Miller (2016). Morality is Real, Objective, and Supernatural. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences:74-82.
    This paper is part of a six paper exchange with Michael Shermer. Section one explains how “God” is meant to be understood. Section two then introduces the position that morality depends in some way upon God. Section three turns to some of the leading arguments for this view. Finally, we will conclude with the most powerful challenge to this approach, namely what has come to be called the Euthyphro Dilemma.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Christian Miller (2016). On Shermer On Morality. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences:63-68.
    This paper is part of a six paper exchange with Michael Shermer. This is my critical commentary on Michael Shermer's paper “Morality is real, objective, and natural.” Shermer and I agree that morality is both real and objective. Here I raise serious reservations about both Shermer's account of where morality comes from and his account of what morality tells us to do. His approach to the foundations of morality would allow some very disturbing behaviors to count as moral, and his (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Wes Morriston (2012). God and the Ontological Foundation of Morality. Religious Studies 48 (1):15 - 34.
    In recent years, William Lane Craig has vigorously championed a moral argument for God's existence. The backbone of Craig's argument is the claim that only God can provide a ' sound foundation in reality' for morality. The present article has three principal aims. The first is to interpret and clarify the account of the ontological foundation of morality proposed by Craig. The second is to press home an important objection to that account. The third is to expose the weakness of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  7. Angus Ritchie (2012). From Morality to Metaphysics: The Theistic Implications of Our Ethical Commitments. Oxford University Press.
    Part I: The 'explanatory gap'. 1. Why take morality to be objective? -- 2. The gap opens: evolution and our capacity for moral knowledge -- Part II: Secular responses. 3. Alternatives to realism: Simon Blackburn and Allan Gibbard -- 4. Procedures and reasons: Tim Scanlon and Christine Korsgaard -- 5. Natural goodness: Philippa Foot's moral objectivism -- 6. Natural goodness and 'second nature': John McDowell and David Wiggin -- Part III: Theism. 7. From goodness to God: closing the explanatory gap (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Nicholas Unwin (2008). Divine Hoorays: Some Parallels Between Expressivism and Religious Ethics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 77 (3):659-684.
    Divine law theories of metaethics claim that moral rightness is grounded in God’s commands, wishes and so forth. Expressivist theories, by contrast, claim that to call something morally right is to express our own attitudes, not to report on God’s. Ostensibly, such views are incompatible. However, we shall argue that a rapprochement is possible and beneficial to both sides. Expressivists need to explain the difference between reporting and expressing an attitude, and to address the Frege-Geach problem. Divine law theorists need (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography