Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

How Philosophers ArgueAnalysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argument

How Philosophers Argue: Analysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argument [Segment IV of the debate is relatively long (Turns 92 to 136) but by far the easiest to follow for a lay public. It handles the argument from moral experience to God’s existence. Very soon a big gap opens between fundamentally different conceptions of human moral life: Copleston defends a variety of the natural law tradition with some Kantian overtones, whereas Russell argues from a science-inspired mixture of emotivism, utilitarianism, and behaviourism. Although noticeable points of contact appear now and then, none of the debaters take advantage of them and so the debate on the moral argument is as inconclusive as that on the metaphysical argument.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

How Philosophers ArgueAnalysis of Segment IV: Discussion of Copleston’s Moral Argument

Part of the Argumentation Library Book Series (volume 41)
Leal, Fernando; Marraud, Hubert
How Philosophers Argue — Feb 21, 2022
Download PDF
47 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/how-philosophers-argue-analysis-of-segment-iv-discussion-of-copleston-ZqDGE7qB0E

References (10)

Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
ISBN
978-3-030-85367-9
Pages
219 –266
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-85368-6_7
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[Segment IV of the debate is relatively long (Turns 92 to 136) but by far the easiest to follow for a lay public. It handles the argument from moral experience to God’s existence. Very soon a big gap opens between fundamentally different conceptions of human moral life: Copleston defends a variety of the natural law tradition with some Kantian overtones, whereas Russell argues from a science-inspired mixture of emotivism, utilitarianism, and behaviourism. Although noticeable points of contact appear now and then, none of the debaters take advantage of them and so the debate on the moral argument is as inconclusive as that on the metaphysical argument.]

Published: Feb 21, 2022

There are no references for this article.