Objectively Wrong! An Aristotelian Response to William Lane Craig's Moral Argument for God's Existence

Abstract

In this paper, I present a much-neglected Aristotelian response to William Lane Craig’s popular moral argument for God’s existence. I argue that a striking concession in Craig’s work, when taken together with an Aristotelian understanding of morality, simply implies that the objectivity of moral values and duties is in principle independent of the existence of God. I end up by addressing the most promising theistic comeback to this Aristotelian response (an evolutionary debunking argument) and consider how an Aristotelian naturalist could respond. This, in turn, marks the way for the moral argument moving forward.