, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 309–330 | Cite as

Necessary Moral Truths and Theistic Metaethics

  • John DanaherEmail author


Theistic metaethics usually places one key restriction on the explanation of moral facts, namely: every moral fact must ultimately be explained by some fact about God. But the widely held belief that moral truths are necessary truths seems to undermine this claim. If a moral truth is necessary, then it seems like it neither needs nor has an explanation. Or so the objection typically goes. Recently, two proponents of theistic metaethics — William Lane Craig and Mark Murphy — have argued that this objection is flawed. They claim that even if a truth is necessary, it does not follow that it neither needs nor has an explanation. In this article, I challenge Craig and Murphy’s reasoning on three main grounds. First, I argue that the counterexamples they use to undermine the necessary truth objection to theistic metaethics are flawed. While they may provide some support for the notion that necessary truths can be explained, they do not provide support for the notion that necessary moral truths can be explained. Second, I argue that the principles of explanation that Murphy and Craig use to support theistic metaethics are either question-begging (in the case of Murphy) or improperly motivated (in the case of Craig). And third, I provide a general defence of the claim that necessary moral truths neither need nor have an explanation.


Metaethics Necessary truths Theism Explanation William Lane Craig Mark Murphy 



The author would like to thank Felipe Leon, Justin Schieber and four anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous draft.


  1. Blackburn, S. (1993). Morals and modals. In S. Blackburn (Ed.), Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  2. Cameron, R. (2010). The grounds of necessity. Philosophy Compass, 5, 348–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craig. (1997). The indispensability of theological metaethical foundations for morality. Foundations, 5, 9–12. available at (accessed 4/09/12).Google Scholar
  4. Craig, W. L. (2003). A reply to objections. In S. Wallace (Ed.), Does God exist? The Craig-Flew debate. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable faith: Christian truth and apologetics (3rd ed.). Wheaton: Crossway.Google Scholar
  6. Craig, W. L. (2009). This most gruesome of guests. In R. Garcia & N. King (Eds.), Is goodness without God good enough? New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  7. Hale, B. (2002). The source of necessity. Noûs, 36, 299–319. doi: 10.1111/1468-0068.36.s16.11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hanks, P. (2008). A dilemma about necessity. Erkenntis, 68, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koons, J. (2012). Can God’s goodness save the divine command theory from euthyphro? European Journal of Philosophy, 4, 177–195.Google Scholar
  10. Lipton, P. (2004). What good is an explanation? In J. Cornwall (Ed.), Understanding explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Morris, T., & Menzel, C. (1986). Aboslute creation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 23, 353–362.Google Scholar
  12. Morriston, W. (2012). God and the ontological foundation of morality. Religious Studies, 48, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murphy, M. (2009). Theism, atheism and the explanation of moral value. In R. Garcia & N. King (Eds.), Is goodness without God good enough? New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Murphy, M. (2011). God and moral law. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  15. Philipse, H. (2012). God in the age of science? A critique of religious reason. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Plantinga, A. (2010). Naturalism, theism, obligation and supervenience. Faith and Philosophy, 27, 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pleasants, N. (2008). Wittgenstein, ethics and basic moral certainty. Inquiry, 51, 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rahimi, S. (2008). Swinburne on the euthyphro dilemma: can supervenience save him? Forum Philosophicum, 13, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schroeder, M. (2005). Realism and reduction: The quest for robustness. Philosophers’ Imprint, 5(1). Available at, accessed 18/04/12.
  20. Wielenberg, E. (2005). Value and virtue in a godless universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wielenberg, E. (2009). In defence of non-natural non-theistic moral realism. Faith and Philosophy, 26, 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wittgenstein, L. (1979). On certainty (E. Anscombe & G. H. von Wright, Trans.). Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawKeele UniversityNewcastle-Under-LymeUK

Personalised recommendations