Shafer-Landau Argument

Words: 1383
Pages: 6
Open Document
Let us set a few things straight. This is an argument to address the claims that God exists in order to create the moral standards, or laws. According to Shafer-Landau, most people believe that if the moral laws are to be considered objective, they must not have arisen from a human being. Because these moral laws are applicable to humans, they would not be objective if they were created by a person. For in the definition of objective, in order for the moral laws to be considered objective they must not be influenced by human ideas or opinions. And thus, God comes into play. Shafer-Landau begins by asserting that in his experience, people tend to follow this line of thought because they believe that all laws must have a lawmaker, or someone who yielded these ideas into existence. And therefore, if there are such things as moral laws, there must hence be a moral law creator. And due to the fact that (as previously proven) these laws must be objective relative to human thought, there must have been a greater being that willed them into existence. Landau believes that all people in some way accept this argument. As the theists believe there is no other way of explaining moral objectivity without the …show more content…
On the other hand, if God does have a reason for loving these moral laws particularly, then it is not God that gives them significance but the reasons he has for loving them. For if good and evil come from a random selection of morals, God could have commanded that rape and assault are all morally good. Yet most people will reject this idea, on the basis that a good God would not choose these things to be morally correct. Yet, this is contradictory, as the Divine Command Theory states that good things come from the command of God, so how can God command himself good? Does God's goodness only come from
Show More

Related Documents: Shafer-Landau Argument

Sympathy Gratification Argument

One popular argument in favour of psychological egoism, the view that all intentional human actions are motivated by self-interest, is what I will call the sympathy gratification argument. It states that those actions seemingly motivated by altruism (e.g. helping the poor and the sick or working for a political cause to benefit all) are in fact motivated by a person’s own sympathy-based desires. After all, we are all social animals with varying degrees of sympathy. Our being social animals means…

Words 961 - Pages 4

Italy: Informal Fallacy Informal Essay

List of fallacies From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For specific popular misconceptions, see List of common misconceptions. A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies. Contents 1 Formal fallacies 1.1 Propositional fallacies 1.2 Quantification fallacies 1.3 Formal syllogistic fallacies…

Words 4737 - Pages 19

Philosophy 241 Lecture Note Essay

desire), and good and evil (worthiness/unworthiness of esteem; good and bad as applied to the will itself, to character, virtues, vices). 3. Meta-ethics (the epistemology and metaphysics of ethics). Philosophy 541 when taught by Prof. Russ Shafer-Landau. The last unit of this course will take us into meta-ethics. Vocabulary: Normative vs descriptive statements: normative statements (or questions) are about what ought or ought not to be or be done or what would be good (or bad), etc.…

Words 7807 - Pages 32