Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Kane vs. Hippler in St. Paul, MN

This debate centered on the question of whether Christian or Humanist ethics provide a better account of obligatory moral claims.  Both debaters ultimately fail to make an affirmative case, however, both of them do a fairly good job of tearing down the other’s case.  The conclusion must be that if there is such a thing as obligatory moral claims, you shouldn’t try to get at them from the worldviews presented herein this discussion.  That said, it was a fairly worthwhile and enjoyable debate, with plenty of genuine back and forth.

Unbeliever rating: 3.5 stars

Believer rating: 3.5 stars

Overall rating: 3.5 stars




No comments: