The atheist philosopher Erik Wielenberg presents an objection to the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's moral argument for God's existence.
Here's some of my own context for Wielenberg's argument:
Here's Wielenberg's presentation of his objection:
And here's the first part of a discussion of Wielenberg's objection:
Here's some of my own context for Wielenberg's argument:
Take questions of the form:
If this process is not going to go on infinitely, then the process is going to have to stop with some answer to which question 1 is not a pertinent response. For example, in the mammal example above, one can say that:
Now, the above line of reasoning also applies to morality. For example, one can have the following moral version of question 1:
Now, here's where William Lane Craig makes his objection: he claims that atheists cannot appeal to brute moral facts. Instead, atheists are required to provide a further explanation for moral facts, by appealing to something else. But as Erik Wielenberg notes, this is special pleading on Craig's part, since Craig himself appeals to brute moral facts. He would have to appeal to such brute facts, unless he wanted to fall into the trap of the infinite pattern I discussed above, where versions of question 1 pop up over and over and... So there's an inconsistency in Craig's defense of his moral argument: he appeals to brute moral facts, yet says that one cannot appeal to brute moral facts.
1 : "Why is X Y?",
"Why are Xs Y?",
"In virtue of what is X Y?",
etc.
For example: "Why are Xs Y?",
"In virtue of what is X Y?",
etc.
"Why is that animal a mammal?"
One can answer this question by appealing to another factor. For instance, by saying that: 2 : "A mammal is an organism with features F, that animal has features F, and therefore that animal is a mammal."
Of course, someone might object to 2, by asking another version of question 1. For example, by asking:3: "Why are things with features F mammals?"
At which point the pattern can begin again: one can appeal to a new claim 4 to answer 3, in response to 4 someone will then ask a revised version of question 1, one can then appeal to a new claim 5 to answer this revise question,... and so on.If this process is not going to go on infinitely, then the process is going to have to stop with some answer to which question 1 is not a pertinent response. For example, in the mammal example above, one can say that:
"Being a mammal is identical to being an organism with features F, and we know that through examining primae facie examples of mammals, to figure out what those examples have in common."
Of course, in response someone might still choose to bring up a version of question 1. But at that point, their question is irrelevant, since there question has been addressed. It's a fact that:6: Being a mammal is identical to being an organism with features F
one has explained how one knows that 6 is a fact, and no further explanation is required. One need not appeal to anything else in order to explain why 6 is true. Thus 6 is a brute fact.Now, the above line of reasoning also applies to morality. For example, one can have the following moral version of question 1:
"Why is that action morally good?"
And a utilitarian might respond:7 : "A morally good action is an action promotes the well-being of sentient life, that action promotes the welfare of sentient life, and therefore that action is morally good."
And if, in response to 7, someone responds with the following version of question 1:8: "Why are actions that promote the well-being of sentient life morally good?"
the utilitarian can respond:"Being morally good is identical to promoting the well-being of sentient life, and we know that through examining primae facie examples of moral good acts, to figure out what those examples have in common."
According to this utilitarian, it's a fact that:9: Being morally good is identical to promoting the well-being of sentient life
they have explained how they know that 9 is a fact, and no further explanation is required. They need not appeal to anything else in order to explain why 9 is true. Thus 9 is a brute moral fact.Now, here's where William Lane Craig makes his objection: he claims that atheists cannot appeal to brute moral facts. Instead, atheists are required to provide a further explanation for moral facts, by appealing to something else. But as Erik Wielenberg notes, this is special pleading on Craig's part, since Craig himself appeals to brute moral facts. He would have to appeal to such brute facts, unless he wanted to fall into the trap of the infinite pattern I discussed above, where versions of question 1 pop up over and over and... So there's an inconsistency in Craig's defense of his moral argument: he appeals to brute moral facts, yet says that one cannot appeal to brute moral facts.
Here's Wielenberg's presentation of his objection:
"An Inconsistency in Craig's Defence of the Moral Argument"
http://dpuadweb.depauw.edu/ewielenbe...WIELENBERG.pdf
http://dpuadweb.depauw.edu/ewielenbe...WIELENBERG.pdf
And here's the first part of a discussion of Wielenberg's objection:
Comment