Luke Nix’s Concerns About Atheistic Moral Absolutism

Luke Nix thinks that a satisfying sort of morality requires God. Without God, morality would be a matter of opinion, mere consensus, or cultural customs. Such an unsatisfying sort of morality is “relativism” or a form of “moral anti-realism.” He thinks a satisfying morality should be in some sense “absolute” (of a moral realist variety).¹ We both mainly agree what a satisfying morality should look like. It shouldn’t be relativistic or a form of anti-realism. However, I don’t agree that God is required for moral realism. I have already responded to his argument in “An Argument Against Atheistic Moral Realism.” However, my response doesn’t answer all his concerns. I had a discussion with him on his blog and I found out many of his concerns. I wasn’t able to post my reply on his website (perhaps because of my use of html), so I will post it here.

An Argument Against Atheistic Moral Realism

Luke Nix argues that atheistic moral realism (the view that there are moral facts) is impossible because atheistic evolution wouldn’t make it possible to know the truth about anything other than the empirical (observable) world. I will defend atheistic moral realism and object to his argument by saying that (a) atheism does not necessarily require empiricism and (b) empirical moral realism can be consistent.

Questions For Atheistic Moral Realists Answered

The Thinking Christian, Tom Gilson, thinks moral realism requires God, and says that the following questions are somehow a problem for atheistic moral realists (mainly concerning a potential eternal moral reality.) I will respond to the questions using my own perspective, but atheists and theists alike will disagree about how to best answer them:

Ethical Realism is Now on Twitter and Facebook

You can find Ethical Realism at twitter using the following URL: http://twitter.com/#!/ethicalrealism

You can find Ethical Realism on Facebook by using the following URL: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ethical-Realism/108132484137

Why Jared Loughner Does Not Deserve The Death Penalty for the Arizona Shootings. Capital Punishment is Immoral.

I love the idea of revenge and I hate what Jared Loughner has done. I would like to see him suffer. I can understand those who want to avenge horrific crimes and I don’t think vengeance is necessarily “murder.”¹ However, I don’t think vengeance should be legal and I think the death penalty should be illegal.

Top 10 Posts on Ethical Realism from 2010

I am confident that many of my essays will be helpful to others, but you probably want to cut to the chase and read what is most important and interesting. This is what I think qualifies as most important and interesting that I posted last year.

A Powerful Idea: Philosophical Lobbying

I have added a page concerning philosophical lobbying. I think this is relevant to the philosophy campaign and being a moral human being in general. We need to put our reasoning to use. One way to do that is to try to make a difference in politics. One of the most effective ways to make a difference in politics is lobbying. I call philosophical lobbying “philobbying.”