Document Type : Research Paper

Author

• Bahram Alizadeh

Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Kharazmi University, Tehran. Iran.

Abstract

C. Stephen Layman has argued that (1) In every actual case one has most reason to do what is morally required. (2) If there is no God and no life after death, then there are cases in which morality requires that one make a great sacrifice that confers relatively modest benefits. (3) If (2), then one does not have most reason to do what is morally required. According to Layman, these three non–question-begging theses about the moral order are defensible, and that they support theism over naturalism (given that the naturalism accepts that morality is always overriding).In this paper, the central claims of his argument are examined under the following two thesis (As he himself has offered this division); the Reasons Thesis and the Conditional Thesis. Layman does not seem to have much trouble defending the Reasons Thesis, but the Conditional Thesis has problems that challenge the correctness of his argument.  

Keywords

• moral argument
• moral reason
• God
• life after death
• Kant
• Layman