We finish up this chapter with the discussion of Dr. Stokes’ critique of values when it comes to morality. If naturalism is true, there seems to be a lot of issues that result in understanding what values are and therefore what moral imperatives are. This is a lead up to his main argument of why the Christian God offers a better alternative to naturalism in making sense of moral reality.
We once again slow down to cover an important part of Dr. Mitch Stokes’ argument. We want to be clear in our presentation of his arguments. While a non-careful reader could see Stokes going down the route of making a post-modernist argument this chapter and the next really set up his entire point of the need to ground morality in God and not in the case of naturalism.
In Chapter 15 we go over Dr. Stoke’s critique of Sam Harris’ well-being theory for objective morality. It does appear that what Harris claims is objective is just another subjective standard.
In this second part of chapter 14, we continue to look at Sam Harris’ attempt to use well-being as an objective grounds for morality. We look at well-being from a standpoint of whether it’s a moral good or more of a prudential good (a good thing to do rather than being good in and of itself).
