Over at ENV, Michael Egnor fails logic once again.
When asked to “defend the reality of objectively real morals” he does nothing of the sort, but instead launches into a recursive appeal from consequences:
"If moral law is real, then genocide and rape are really wrong, in themselves, no matter what anyone thinks. But if 1) moral law is real, then there must be 2) a lawgiver.
That’s the problem for moral relativists. They don’t want to admit 2, so they deny 1.
It’s a simple matter. The literature may be interesting, but it’s just simple logic really."
Yes, it is simple logic. Dislike for the consequences of a proposition does not make that proposition false. So why can’t Egnor see that his own ‘argument’ has exactly the same flaw?