Welcome to raZe the roof, where worldviews get tested through winsome dialogue. This is our fifth episode of our seven-part series based on Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments: A Stone Reader. Christian co-hosts Joe Miller and Leroy Hill sit down with atheist guest Richard Suttles—known as the Fallen Ape-Theist—to tackle Amia Srinivasan’s challenge to Free-Market Moralists which she believes lead to tackle Amia Srinivasan’s challenge to what she considers the immorality of the free-market. So, in a system that denies God, can atheism navigate economic justice?
Questions for Free-Market Moralists by Amia Srinivasm in the NY Times
Amia Srinivasan, Does anyone have the right to sex?, London Review of Book, Vol. 40 No. 6 · 22 March 2018.
Fore more about our discussion of Social Contract Theory, check out Racism Rebranded as Social Justice is Still Racism: God’s Call to Sacrificial and Sanctified Justice.
Amia Srinivasan is a philosopher, public intellectual, and author whose work focuses on political philosophy, epistemology, feminist theory, ethics, and social criticism. Born in Bahrain to Indian parents, she studied philosophy at Yale University before earning both a BPhil and DPhil in philosophy at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar. Since 2020, she has served as the Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at University of Oxford and a fellow of All Souls College, becoming the first woman of non-European descent to hold that chair. Her first book, The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-first Century, was published in 2021.
Center for Cultural Apologetics
Atheist Ethics in 7 Arguments
·
Jan 31
In this 7-episode series of raZe the roof you’ll enjoy this spirited debate between two Christians—Leroy Hill and Joe Miller—and an atheist provocateur known as the Fallen-Ape Theist. With convictions clearly stated and assumptions openly challenged, the show explores theology, philosophy, culture, and ethics without caricature or retreat.
Richard’s critique is not simply that Christians disagree with one another. Rather, his argument is that Christian disagreement demonstrates that appeals to an objective standard (God and/or Scripture) ultimately function no differently in practice than his Walnut Grove ethic. In other words, he argues that because Christians still have to interpret and enforce their understanding of God’s will, what actually governs society is the merely community’s consensus (the Christian song) about what God requires.
We can summarize Richard’s two key claim as follows:
Epistemological claim: We don’t have direct access to God’s objective standard; we only have human interpretations of it.
Practical claim: Since those interpretations differ, what actually governs behavior is whichever interpretation the community embraces.
One way Richard’s argument might be framed is using this syllogism:
Premise 1: If an objective moral standard truly governs a community, members of that community should be able to identify and apply it consistently.
Premise 2: Christians disagree about what God’s objective moral standard requires.
Conclusion: Therefore, Christians do not actually operate from an objective moral standard; in practice, they rely on community consensus just as everyone else does.
In short, Richard’s view is that Christians and secular communities are essentially doing the same thing:
Christians say, “Jesus says...”
Richard says, “Our community values...”
In both cases, the community creates the social contract and enforces the norm.
Paid subscribers are invited to interact with Joe by sharing your answers in the comments sections below.
Richard argues that because Christians disagree about God’s will, Christian morality is ultimately no different than his Walnut Grove ethic. What assumption is he making about the relationship between disagreement and objective truth?
How does the Christian response distinguish between discovering a moral standard and creating a moral standard? Why is that distinction important?
Does the fact that Christians interpret Scripture differently mean that morality is determined by consensus? Why or why not?
Can you think of another area (science, history, law, or medicine) where people disagree about the truth without concluding that no objective truth exists? How does that analogy help explain the Christian response?
According to the Christian worldview, what gives morality its authority: the agreement of the community, the enforcement of the community, or God’s character? How does this differ from Richard’s Walnut Grove ethic?
Economic Justice: The moral question of how wealth, opportunity, and resources ought to be distributed within society.
Free Market: An economic system where voluntary exchange between individuals largely determines prices, production, and distribution with minimal government intervention.
Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership, voluntary exchange, market competition, and the protection of property rights.
Socialism: An economic system that places greater emphasis on collective ownership or state management of economic resources to achieve greater equality.
John Rawls: A political philosopher who argued that justice should prioritize fairness by organizing society to benefit its least advantaged members.
Robert Nozick: A political philosopher who argued that justice is rooted in individual liberty, private property, and voluntary exchange rather than equal outcomes.
Libertarianism: A political philosophy emphasizing individual freedom, strong property rights, and minimal government interference.
Original Position: Rawls’ thought experiment asking what principles of justice people would choose if they did not know their future place in society.
Veil of Ignorance: Rawls’ principle that justice is best determined by imagining you do not know your future social status, wealth, abilities, or opportunities.
Social Contract Theory: The belief that society is organized through an implicit agreement among individuals regarding rights, responsibilities, and the authority of government.
Consent: Voluntary agreement between individuals. The discussion explores whether consent alone is sufficient to make an action morally right.
Coercion: The use of force, pressure, or circumstances that remove genuine freedom of choice.
Property Rights: The moral and legal claim individuals have over possessions they legitimately acquire.
Collective Good: The welfare of society as a whole, sometimes viewed as taking precedence over individual rights and freedoms.
Human Flourishing: A condition in which people are able to develop, thrive, and live meaningful, productive, and virtuous lives.
Worldview: The foundational beliefs through which a person understands reality, morality, purpose, and justice.
Objective Morality: Moral truths that exist independently of individual opinions, cultural preferences, or social consensus.
Moral Relativism: The belief that moral standards are determined by individuals or societies rather than objective truth.
Common Sense Morality: Srinivasan’s appeal to intuitive moral judgments shaped by lived experience and social circumstances.
Critical Theory: A family of philosophical approaches that interpret society primarily through power structures, oppression, and systemic inequality.
Standpoint Theory: The belief that a person’s social position significantly shapes how they understand truth, justice, and morality.
Individual Autonomy: The ability and right of individuals to govern their own decisions and actions.
Justice: Giving people what is morally due according to a particular ethical framework.
Human Dignity: The inherent worth of every person. The discussion contrasts dignity grounded in God with dignity grounded in social agreement.
Christian Worldview: The belief that justice, morality, and human dignity are grounded in God’s character and revealed through Jesus Christ.
Atheist Ethics: Ethical systems developed without appealing to God, instead grounding morality in human reason, social contracts, or human flourishing.
Transcendent Standard: A moral authority that exists outside humanity and provides an objective basis for determining right and wrong.
Walnut Grove Analogy: Richard Suttles’ illustration of a healthy community built on mutual responsibility, neighborly care, and local accountability rather than centralized authority.
Human Nature: A worldview’s understanding of what people are fundamentally like and how that shapes society, morality, and economics.
Moral Foundation: The ultimate source or authority that determines why something is right or wrong.
Answer the following questions in two to three sentences based on the episode content.
What is the primary difference between Rawls’ and Nozick’s understanding of justice?
Why does Anna Srinivasan believe free-market capitalism creates moral problems?
How does Rawls define fairness differently than Nozick?
Why is consent an important concept in libertarian ethics?
What criticisms does Srinivasan raise against voluntary exchange?
Can economics ever be morally neutral?
Does every economic system rest upon deeper moral assumptions?
Why does the panel argue that debates about economics are ultimately worldview debates?
What role does human nature play in designing economic systems?
How does a Christian worldview differ from an atheistic worldview in defining justice?
Is consent sufficient to determine whether something is morally right?
Can a voluntary agreement still be exploitative?
Should society prioritize individual liberty or collective welfare?
What is the relationship between freedom and responsibility?
Does equality of outcomes necessarily produce justice?
What responsibilities should government have in addressing economic inequality?
What dangers arise when too much authority is given to the state?
What dangers arise when government intervention is minimized?
How much inequality should a just society tolerate?
Should governments redistribute wealth? Why or why not?
How does the biblical concept of stewardship differ from government redistribution?
What does Scripture teach about caring for the poor?
How does the doctrine that humans are made in God’s image affect economic ethics?
Why is Christ presented as the ultimate center of justice rather than the state or the market?
How does the Christian understanding of sin shape expectations about economic systems?
Is there such a thing as a perfectly just economic system?
Can human flourishing be defined apart from God?
What makes a moral standard objective rather than subjective?
Is a social contract enough to sustain justice over multiple generations?
What ultimately gives moral authority to laws?
How should Christians evaluate modern debates over socialism and capitalism?
What principles should Christians use when thinking about economic policy?
How can believers promote justice without placing ultimate hope in political systems?
What responsibilities do individuals have toward their local communities?
How should Christians balance personal freedom with generosity toward others?
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.