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?
It’s not one, but two cases of “I don’t like the implications [sic] it’s false.”
Egnor is (falsely) characterising the position of moral relativists as being ‘I don’t like the implications of moral law being real (there is a lawgiver), so it isn’t real’
Egnor’s own implied position is ‘I don’t like the implications of moral law not existing (moral law is just opinion, it reduces to ‘might is right’), so it does exist’. Certainly there is no other defence of the reality of moral law therein.
Egnor also fails to realise that dismantling an argument doesn’t necessarily render that argument’s conclusion false, or that dismantling some-one else’s position does nothing to advance his own - both of which are also simple logic. But maybe that’s because he’s an ID supporter, and the latter is their entire strategy.
I don’t like his strident tone, and I do not endorse it.
The questions he asks are important and valid. Even if you think atheists have good answers for them, the grounding for moral behavior in atheism is a legitimate challenge, and something that many of us wonder about (even as we appreciate most atheists are very moral).
There is no grounding for moral behaviour in atheism. None. There can’t possibly be, because atheism is a rejection of others’ worldviews, not a worldview itself.
Grounding morality in atheism would be akin to grounding sociology in solipsism, or grounding aerodynamics in not believing in Santa Claus.
Egnor, as usual, makes a demanding good conclusion. if there is no lawgiver then all laws about right and wrong can only be based on human contracts. Even if we all agree murder is wrong its still just a agreement amongst us. its not a moral law aside from human beings opinions. In fact it makes Murder being wrong still just a democratic prevailing as somewhere someone disagrees with it.
Yup moral relativists are forced to say all morality is just based on opinions of people and so a majority rule or a accepted minority rule.
The grounding for moral behavior in Christianity is an equally legitimate challenge. More generally, God is not a useful ground of morality. And we don’t need Plato to tell us that. I figured that out myself before I every heard of Euthyphro, and I assume that many others have too.