(1) There are no moral facts or truths.
(2) There exists divine imperatives and statements of the divine will/desire.
(3) God has annexed various effects (whether by promise, providence, or creational constitution) to various actions.
(4) “Good” can be reduced to whatever satisfies one’s subjective desires.
(5) The referent of “good” in (4) is relatively stable and homogenous enough because of how God made humanity to generally desire the same set of objects, although because of sin they obviously sometimes do not to their own destruction.
(6) Axiological language can be reduced to instrumentalist/prudential means-ends reasoning, e.g. if you want X goodies, you need to do B acts because God promised X upon B, etc.
(7) All language concerning righteousness can be reduced to obedience to divine commands.
( 8 ) There is no deductive answer to someone who chooses and desires death to say that that’s “not good”, that is, you cannot give deductive reasons for why death is not good nor should not be desired. You can only rhetorically persuade that person not to desire death by appealing to other things that person does desire which would contradict the desire for death. One cannot “jump out” of the universe of desire to reason towards a rational basis for desiring.
(9) The only response to the obstinately willful is to just give them what they want, not argue them out of it.
(10) If God does not exists, all things are permissible.
See this paper for a much more in depth justification for this.
One thought on “Ten Propositions of Theistic Moral Nihilism”
(4) (5) and (8) are false. Things are said to be good because God made man to desire them, not because men actually do desire them. Otherwise we would have no basis for moral disagreement and no grounds for moral disgust. Hence the deductive response to the man who desires death is not only that death leads to hell (and therefore death is against the natural man’s higher goal of avoiding suffering), but that he *ought* to desire *righteousness itself*, obedience to God, regardless of what he currently desires. In other words, this schema ignores the fact that salvation results in the re-orientation of corrupt desires toward the love of God and Christ and the Law, which are not loved solely for their instrumental goods in attaining things already desired by the natural man, although they do. Otherwise, I agree with all of this. Platonic transcendentals delenda est.