Test 4: Whatever Happened to Good and Evil

What is the book’s overall goal?

• Eliminate all good reasons to accept moral skepticism.

• Defend ethical objectivism against all major objections.

If the book succeeds, what should a rational person conclude?

Reject moral skepticism and accept ethical objectivism.

What does Part III of the book do?

Presents objections to ethical objectivism and evaluates whether objectivism can reply.

What is the objection in Chapter 15?

• Objective moral laws require a divine lawmaker.

• God does not exist.

• Therefore, objective morality does not exist.

What hidden premise does the atheist rely on?

“All laws require a lawmaker.”

Why must the atheist reject this premise?

Atheists already believe in laws with no lawmaker (physics, chemistry, biology, math, logic).

Why is rejecting logical laws a problem for the atheist?

They couldn’t use logic to make arguments at all.

What happens to the objection once the atheist rejects the deep premise?

The objection collapses.

Why must the theist also reject “all laws require a lawmaker”?

It would make morality depend on God’s will → arbitrary → divine whim.

What classic problem does this relate to?

The Euthyphro dilemma.

What are the two sides of the Euthyphro dilemma?

• God loves the good because it is good (truth independent of God).

• Something is good because God loves it (arbitrary morality).

What view does the author endorse?

• God is omniscient and knows objective moral truths.

• Morality depends on Divine knowledge, not Divine will.

Why does God reveal objective moral truths?

Humans cannot reliably discover all moral truths alone; God is benevolent.

What do both atheists and theists ultimately agree on?

Objective laws do NOT require a lawmaker.

What is ontology?

The study of what exists (being).

What is Occam’s Razor (OR test)?

An ontological claim is true only if it is scientifically necessary.
If unnecessary → reject it.

What types of things FAIL the OR test?

Things not needed for scientific explanation (trolls, mermaids, Santa).

What types of things PASS the OR test?

Things required by science (gravity, natural selection, emotions).

What is the OR objection to ethical objectivism?

• EO must pass the OR test.

• EO fails it (science doesn’t need moral truths).

• EO is false.

If OR is the only test, what follows?

EO fails → moral skepticism wins.

What saving move does the author make?

Introduces a second ontological test — justification.

What does Occam’s Razor test for?

Scientific explanation.

What does morality involve instead of explanation?

Justification — what you ought to believe or do.

Why can’t the skeptic reject justificatory truths?

Their own arguments rely on objective normative principles of reasoning (“If X and Y, you ought to believe Z”).

Why does EO pass the justification test?

Because moral truths are justificatory, not explanatory; they don’t need to be part of science.

What’s the next move the skeptic makes after losing the OR objection?

Moves to epistemological skepticism: “Even if moral truths exist, we cannot know them.”

What issue do Chapters 18–19 focus on?

The challenge that some truths may be unknowable, which threatens moral knowledge.

What is the traditional definition of knowledge?

Justified True Belief (JTB).

What is the skeptic’s key assumption in the regress argument?

That all justification requires appealing to an independent belief.

What happens if every belief needs another belief to justify it?

It creates an infinite regress where no belief is ever fully justified.

What is the main conclusion of the regress argument?

Knowledge is impossible.

How does the regress argument threaten moral objectivism?

If no knowledge is possible, then moral knowledge is impossible too.

What is the first step in the objectivist’s response?

Return to the traditional JTB definition of knowledge.

What is the second step in the objectivist’s response?

Reject the skeptic’s assumption about justification.

According to objectivists, why is the skeptic’s assumption false?

Because some beliefs can be justified without appealing to an independent belief.

What are the two ways beliefs can be justified without regress?

(1) Reliable belief-producing processes
(2) Self-evident truths

What is a reliable belief-producing process?

A cognitive system (like vision, hearing, memory) that typically forms true beliefs.

Why can beliefs from reliable processes count as knowledge?

Because they are justified by the reliability of the process, not by another belief.

What is a self-evident belief?

A belief that is justified simply by understanding it, needing no further support.

Give an example of a self-evident truth.

“Everything is identical to itself.”

How do self-evident truths stop regress?

They don’t require outside justification—they justify themselves.

Why does the regress argument ultimately fail?

Because it assumes all beliefs require independent justification, which is false.

What overall conclusion does the objectivist reach?

Knowledge is possible, and therefore moral knowledge is still possible.