Those who have followed my recent discussions of Walter Sinnott-Armstrong’s writings on God and Morality. Might be interested in this review of Armstrong’s book “Morality without God” by Mark Murphy in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Mark is a lecturer in moral philosophy at Georgetown University. He is is one of the leading critics of divine command ethics writing today.
Interestingly, there is some overlap in his comments and mine, particularly the issues regarding “social obligations” and how moral obligations constitute reasons for action.
Enjoy
Tags: Divine Command Theory · God and Morality · Mark Murphy · Walter Sinnott-Armstrong3 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
So if Jesus and God are one, as the Gospel of John tells us, doesn’t that mean that Jesus impregnated his own mother?
Turn your philosophical gibbersh on that one, boys!
Actually thats got nothing to do with the topic of this post at all. It appears you want to change the subject.
But second, I think you need to do a little bit of research into the doctrine of the trinity, if you understood even the very basics of this doctrine you’d see that what you say is complete nonsense.
With respect, insulting comments based on complete ignorance of Christianity, do not impress anyone but ignorant people.
We stand for what the topis is. Well, moral philosophy characteristically sees moral standards as reasons. That anaction would be kind or just or in some way morally admirable is supposedto give us a reason for performing it. And surely there is something rightabout the thought that moral standards imply reasons for conforming tothem. For we offer the morality of an action as a relevant consideration inpractical argument – a consideration to support that action’s performance.