The metaethical assumptions of arguments from evil

The aim of this paper is to analyze the metaethical assumptions of arguments from evil (AE). In the first part of the paper, I discuss the main conceptual ingredients of AE: di­vine attributes and the concepts of gratuitous and horrendous evil. Then, I argue that AE are incompatible with metaethical antirealism because their premises might be true in the relevant sense only on realistic assumptions. I further argue that metaethical naturalism makes AE circular and metaethical supernaturalism renders them incoherent. The only form of realism that seems compatible with the arguments from evil, as I argue, is non­naturalism. In the second part of the paper, I argue that although coherentism might be used to construe arguments from evil, it makes such arguments dialectically weak be­cause it seems more rational for a theist to deny the reality of gratuitous and horren­dous evil then to deny the reality of God. I further show that moral intuitionism might explain why the denial of these kinds of evil might be difficult for theists. In the third part of the paper, I argue that the arguments from evil presuppose an external relation between moral judgements and motives as well as an indefeasible necessary relation between reasons and motives in God.

Moral Progress: Improvement of Moral Concepts, Refinements of Moral Motivation

In their recent book Buchanan and Powell claim that there is moral progress. Their analysis focuses on increasing inclusiveness, yet they also suggest other dimensions as possible indicators-improvements in the concept of morality and refinements in moral motivation. In the following I present empirical data on changes in moral understanding that occurred during the second half of the 20th century in Germany. These changes concern an increasing delimitation of the moral realm, the rise of an ethics of responsibility, the displacement of an orientation to super ego dictates by a more ego-syntonic type of moral motivation. This research largely follows the ‘cognitivist’ paradigm which I start off defending against Haidt’s counter proposal of moral intuitionism. Feasible explanatory factors for the changes documented are put forward-processes of secularization and changes in socialization styles-and their interpretation as indicators of moral progress is discussed. The paper ends with brief speculations concerning possible reasons for current moral regressions.

Prichard, Harold Arthur (1871–1947)

One of the most influential Oxford philosophers of the twentieth century, Prichard was White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy there from 1928 to 1937. His work combines epistemological realism and moral intuitionism. From 1906 onwards Prichard was active with the Oxford realists, who held, against idealists, that reality exists independently of mind, that knowledge is of reality, and that common-sense realism is correct. In ethics, he was the leader of the Oxford intuitionists who held, against utilitarianism, that common-sense morality is correct, its duties are known non-inferentially, and are an irreducible plurality of distinct kinds of act. His philosophical style displays concentration on specific problems, carefully using ordinary language to make precise distinctions in the absence of general theory. He influenced Oxford’s next generation of Austin, Ryle, Hart and Berlin, who attended his classes and, occasionally, his ‘philosophers’ teas’.