The philosopher Stephen Maitzen has recently argued that the existence of ordinary moral obligations argues against the existence of God:
Maitzen presents and defends the the following premises from the argument (my account of these premises comes from paper 2, with the brackets {} around the page number where the premise appears):
I think the argument is sound. Any other views?
Paper 1: http://philosophy.acadiau.ca/tl_file...itzen_OMIA.pdf
Paper 2: http://philosophy.acadiau.ca/tl_file...aitzen_ABM.pdf
Paper 2: http://philosophy.acadiau.ca/tl_file...aitzen_ABM.pdf
Maitzen presents and defends the the following premises from the argument (my account of these premises comes from paper 2, with the brackets {} around the page number where the premise appears):
(TI or theodical individualism) Necessarily, God permits undeserved, involuntary human suffering only if such suffering ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer.
{108}
1) If God exists and TI is true, then, necessarily, all undeserved, involuntary human suffering ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer.
{111}
2) If, necessarily, all undeserved, involuntary human suffering ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer, then (a) we never have a moral obligation to prevent undeserved, involuntary human suffering or (b) our moral obligation to prevent undeserved, involuntary human suffering derives entirely from God’s commands. {111}
(3) We sometimes have a moral obligation to prevent undeserved, involuntary human suffering, an obligation that does not derive entirely from God’s commands.
{114}
(4) So: It isn’t the case that, necessarily, all undeserved, involuntary human suffering ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer. [From (2), (3)]
{114}
(5) So: God does not exist or TI is false. [From (1), (4)]
{115}
(6) If not even God may treat human beings merely as means, then TI is true.
{116}
(7) Not even God may treat human beings merely as means.
{117}
(8) So: TI is true. [From (6), (7)]
{117}
(9) So: God does not exist. [From (5), (8)]
{117}
{108}
1) If God exists and TI is true, then, necessarily, all undeserved, involuntary human suffering ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer.
{111}
2) If, necessarily, all undeserved, involuntary human suffering ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer, then (a) we never have a moral obligation to prevent undeserved, involuntary human suffering or (b) our moral obligation to prevent undeserved, involuntary human suffering derives entirely from God’s commands. {111}
(3) We sometimes have a moral obligation to prevent undeserved, involuntary human suffering, an obligation that does not derive entirely from God’s commands.
{114}
(4) So: It isn’t the case that, necessarily, all undeserved, involuntary human suffering ultimately produces a net benefit for the sufferer. [From (2), (3)]
{114}
(5) So: God does not exist or TI is false. [From (1), (4)]
{115}
(6) If not even God may treat human beings merely as means, then TI is true.
{116}
(7) Not even God may treat human beings merely as means.
{117}
(8) So: TI is true. [From (6), (7)]
{117}
(9) So: God does not exist. [From (5), (8)]
{117}
I think the argument is sound. Any other views?
Comment