Abstract

C. Stephen Layman has argued that In every actual case one has most reason to do what is morally required. If there is no God and no life after death, then there are cases in which morality requires that one make a great sacrifice that confers relatively modest benefits. If, then one does not have most reason to do what is morally required. According to Layman, these three non–question-begging theses about the moral order are defensible, and that they support theism over naturalism.In this paper, the central claims of his argument are examined under the following two thesis ; the Reasons Thesis and the Conditional Thesis. Layman does not seem to have much trouble defending the Reasons Thesis, but the Conditional Thesis has problems that challenge the correctness of his argument.