In a previous post I criticized David Brink’s argument that a divine command theory cannot vindicate the objectivity of morality. Brink argued: [1] Our commitment to morality presupposes that moral requirements are objective [2] Moral requirements are objective just in case facts about what is right or wrong obtain independently of the moral beliefs or […]
Entries Tagged as 'David Brink'
Can a Divine Command Theory Ground the Objectivity of Morality? Michael Huemer on Observer Independence: Part One
September 12th, 2021 Comments Off on Can a Divine Command Theory Ground the Objectivity of Morality? Michael Huemer on Observer Independence: Part One
Tags: David Brink · Divine Command Theory · Elizabeth Tropman · Michael Huemer · Objectivism · William Lane Craig
Can a Divine command theory account for the objectivity of moral requirements? Brink and Appraiser Independence.
August 24th, 2021 Comments Off on Can a Divine command theory account for the objectivity of moral requirements? Brink and Appraiser Independence.
David Brink has objected to a divine command theory of ethics by contending such theories cannot vindicate the objectivity of ethics. Brink begins by defending a particular conception of the objectivity of ethics and then argues that a divine command theory fails to meet that conception. Brink writes: Our commitment to the objectivity of ethics […]
Tags: Chris Meyers · David Brink · Objectivism
Does the Dualism of Practical Reason assume Egoism?
July 30th, 2021 Comments Off on Does the Dualism of Practical Reason assume Egoism?
Recently, I have been examining the question, “If there is no God, why be good?” As I interpret it, this expresses an argument about the “dualism of practical reason” made by Henry Sidgwick and John Gay. This argument had three steps. First, unless we assume that it is always in our long-term self-interest to follow […]
Tags: David Brink · Divine Command Theory · Dualism of Practical Reason · Henry Sidgwick · John Gay · Stephen Layman · Walter Sinnott-Armstrong · Why be Moral?
Sunday Study: Inerrancy and Biblical Authority
January 18th, 2010 46 Comments
Recently Glenn Peoples and Dominic Bnonn Tennant had an interesting exchange over the issue of biblical inerrancy, the doctrine, that the bible contains no errors. In his post, Errantly Assuming Inerrancy in History, Peoples makes this interesting comment, While there has always been a clear expression of the view that what Scripture teaches is correct, […]
Tags: David Brink · Dominic Bnonn Tennant · Glenn Peoples · Inerrancy · Michael Tooley · Sunday Study
An Eye for an Eye and Turning the Other Cheek
March 3rd, 2009 11 Comments
In The Autonomy of Ethics David Brink complains that “tradition and scripture may speak but in conflicting ways”;[1] in a endnote he cites a single example, Inconsistency is at stake, for example, when we juxtapose the Old Testament doctrine of an “eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:23, 24; Leviticus 24:19, 20; and Deuteronomy 19:21) and […]
Tags: David Brink · David Daube · eye for an eye · Lex Talionis · turn the other cheek
Brink on Dialectical Equilibrium
February 5th, 2009 2 Comments
In my last two posts, I have criticised David Brink’s appeal to scripture in order to argue against the appeal to divine commands in ethics. Brink anticpates the kind of argument I have offered and states, A common theistic response to these interpretative puzzles is to endorse the interpretation of tradition and scripture that yields […]
Tags: David Brink · Ethics · Faith and Reason · God and Morality · Hermeneutics
Capital Punishment in the Old Testament: 2
January 27th, 2009 20 Comments
In Capital Punishment in the Old Testament: 1 I suggested that the capital sanctions found in The Torah in most cases were not intended to be carried out, that instead there operated an implicit assumption that a person who committed a serious crime had forfeited their life and hence was to pay a ransom as […]
Tags: Capital Punishment · David Brink · David Instone Brewer · Ethics · Gordon Wenham · Hermeneutics · Old Testament Ethics · Theology
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.
