The Philosophy Lab: Recent Episodes
Dr. Christopher Michael Cloos
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.
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 podcast, 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.
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.
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 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.