Prezi

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in the manual

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Objective Morality

No description
by Bre Kerchner on 3 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Objective Morality

Side B Craig's Religion-Based Morality NO Craig's argument 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective Moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists. Sinnott-Armstrong's View YES Sinnott-Armstrong's Response S-A rejects premise 1, and accepts premise 2.
-Morality can be objective, even though people's views about it are subjective. (like science)
-"What makes rape immoral?" The fact that it hurts the victim.
-What is immoral about causing harm? It is just wrong.
-The notion of justice does not exist apart from people If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist? Side A Moral Realism Moral Realism Moral facts exist
They are part of the fabric of the universe
They exist independently of our thoughts about them
They have objective validity
They do not need societal approval

Moral Principles
Can be evaluated as right or wrong
You can think about a situation and determine what is the right thing and what is the wrong thing

Moral Facts
Exist in reality
Beyond what we can observe with our senses Moral Relativism 1. There are a lot of disputes about what is right and wrong across people and societies (descriptive moral relativism)

2. The truth or falsity of moral judgements is not absolute. There is no absolute right or wrong (meta-ethical moral relativism)

1 is not the same as 2
What would it mean for 1 to right and 2 to be wrong? Question How does Craig defend 1? How does Craig defend 2? Premise 2 We know objective values exist because we clearly apprehend some of them.
"describe moral situations in which we clearly see right and wrong: torturing a child, incest, rape, ethnic cleansing," etc

Introduced notion of a moral handicap (like a color-blind person) Premise 2 the alternative is "incomprehensible"
-What does it mean for a moral value like 'justice' to just exist?
-How would the existence of 'justice' obligate me to do anything?
-Crazy coincidence that evolution would result in beings that understand moral facts.
-What makes rape wrong if not God? A Further Problem with Craig The Euthyphro Problem A quick note about relativism Not all moral codes are equal. Can have acts that are right or wrong according to a group or society. If you join that group or society, you are to follow those rules. But none of them are objectively true.
See the full transcript