Blog Podcast Free Trolley Problem Guide Login

The Evidential Problem of Evil and Skeptical Theism

The evidential problem of evil claims the God of classical theism doesn't exist. William Rowe argues for this conclusion using an example of a fawn suffering an agonizing death in a forest fire. No good we know of justifies an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good being in permitting the evil of the fawn's intense suffering. Rowe infers inductively that no good at all justifies an omni-God in permitting the fawn's suffering. Then Rowe deduces that such a God doesn't exist.

The skeptical theist claims that the first premise doesn't make probable the second. Just because no good we know of justifies God in permitting the fawn's intense suffering, this doesn't make it likely that no good at all justifies God in permitting the fawn's suffering. Given our limited cognitive capacities in relation to the infinite mind of God, our lack of knowing a good that justifies God in allowing the suffering doesn't mean that no good at all justifies God in permitting it.

Continue Reading...

Moral Objectivity Supports Dogmatism: Why This Isn't So

Dogmatism is a close-minded view. It involves clinging to beliefs and ignoring evidence contrary to what you believe. It is irrational and epistemically unacceptable for this reason.

Yet if moral objectivity holds, then dogmatism seems okay. After all, if you have the correct moral views, you should ignore evidence that would lead you off those views and into error. Taking these claims together, the opponent of moral objectivity concludes that there are no objective moral standards.

In this video, you'll learn why this argument doesn't work. We'll also explore implications of moral objectivity concerning the quest for wisdom.

Continue Reading...

Moral Objectivity Best Captures the Value of Tolerance

Many people reject moral objectivism because it’s thought to support intolerance. Tolerance of a diversity of ideas, values, and people groups is central to a well-functioning democracy. Yet, if moral standards are objectivity true, then some moral standards are better than others. Doesn’t this breed intolerance? Doesn’t this promote repression and domination of people who don’t embrace the correct moral code?

In this video, you’ll learn about the Argument from Tolerance against moral objectivism and why it doesn’t work. You’ll also discover why ethical objectivism best captures the value of tolerance.

Continue Reading...

Equal Rights Imply Equal Plausibility: Why This is False

Given everyone has a right a moral opinion, it doesn't follow that all moral opinions are equally plausible. Yet this is what an argument against moral objectivism claims. In this video, you'll learn about this argument and why it fails. You'll learn why equal rights to moral opinions doesn't imply the equal plausibility of moral opinions.

Listen to the podcast version of this video below.

Continue Reading...

NO Objective Moral Truths: How NOT to Argue for This Claim

Some people claim there are no objective moral truths. This video explores an argument for this conclusion. The premise supporting the conclusion is that there are no objective truths. The proponent of this argument holds that all truth is subjective. Though this is a tempting argument for the moral subjectivist, it's not a good way to go. You'll learn why in this video.

Listen to the podcast version of the video below.

Continue Reading...

The Argument from Absolutism Against Moral Objectivity

A way to argue against morality being objective is to saddle the view with something implausible. If moral objectivity holds, then moral standards must be absolute (i.e. it's never okay to break them). But moral rules are not absolute. So morality is not objective. This is the Argument from Absolutism.

In this video or podcast episode, you'll learn how the Argument from Absolutism works. You'll also learn why the argument fails and why moral objectivity comes out unscathed. Welcome to the first episode in the series "10 Arguments Against Moral Objectivity (And Why They Fail!)."

 

In this first episode, you're going to learn about a challenge to moral objectivity that associates objectivity with absoluteness. That is, if the correct moral standards are objective, then they must be absolute. What does it mean to say they're absolute?

Well, let's take this dog bone. This dog bone is pretty tough to break. If the correct moral standards are this dog bone and they're absolute,...

Continue Reading...

Metaethics - 10 Arguments Against Moral Objectivity (And Why They Fail!)

 

 

Ethical objectivism is the view that there are some objective moral standards. What this means is that moral standards apply to everyone everywhere, whether or not people believe that they do, or whether or not obeying those standards satisfies a person's desires. Moral claims are objectively true when they tell us what these objective standards require of us.

When it comes to the status of ethics or metaethics, there are really three major positions. There is relativism such that the correct moral standards are relative to individuals or cultures. Then there's nihilism, which says that, at the end of the day, there really are no moral standards or they're all false.

And then you have objectivism, which holds that the moral standards are in fact true, but their status doesn't depend on what's going on in our heads. It isn't our opinion of them that makes them true. Now, as you may know, there are problems with relativism and nihilism. You might think that that makes...

Continue Reading...

The Myth of Sisyphus: How to Best Cast Camus' Skeptical Challenge that Life Lacks Meaning

Discover the sharpest way to press Camus's skeptical challenge: You don't know that your life is meaningful. The challenge is best cast as epistemological, not metaphysical.

Camus' challenge is like other skeptical challenges. They bring into your awareness a possibility of error you ignore in everyday life. You believe you do stuff in life that matters and is worthwhile. But, nothing you do is ultimately worthwhile. It will not have a lasting impact. From a cosmic perspective, everything you do will come to nothing. You will eventually die and all your accomplishments will fade. Camus thought this clash between the internal and cosmic perspective captured the meaninglessness of life.

Philosopher Thomas Nagel argued a better way of understanding the absurd is a clash between two internal perspectives. You take seriously your life projects. You believe you're doing things that are worthwhile. But, all that you do is open to doubt. Such doubt undercuts your justification for...

Continue Reading...

Free Masterclass Now Live!

The free masterclass is now live! Get started building a meaningful life you love by registering for the course at the home page: https://www.thephilosophicallife.com/

Click any button on the page to register for the masterclass. Watch it instantly after registration.

The masterclass helps you start building a super meaningful life because it:

- Busts 2 myths that keep people stuck
- Exposes 3 secrets to building a meaningful life you love
- Reveals the ultimate system for living a meaningful life—Mission Massive Meaning

Hope to see you inside the course!
-Christopher

Continue Reading...

Feeling Like The Daily Routine Is Meaningless: How to Fix and Avoid

Living through the Coronavirus pandemic feels like living through Groundhog Day the movie. Bill Murray's character (TV weatherman Phil Connors) got stuck in a time loop. He repeated the same day many times. Coronavirus feels like the same day on repeat.
 
Such monotony makes life feel meaningless. Philosopher Richard Taylor identified the key feature in Albert Camus’ take on the Myth of Sisyphus as a repetitive cycle that never goes anywhere. It only fed back into a loop of the same cycle again, hoisting the stone up the hill.
 
As weatherman Connors asks in the movie, “What would you do if you were stuck in one place, and every day was exactly the same, and nothing that you did mattered?” Well, what would you do?
 
Of course, Phil wanted to quit living the same day over and over again. How he acted going through the day ultimately got him unstuck. Instead of acting like things didn’t matter, Phil began developing his moral character. He...
Continue Reading...
1 2 3
Close

50% Complete

Get Notified When the Workshop Goes Live!

Complete the form below to subscribe. Unsubscribe at any time.