The Moral Argument From Epistemic Realism to Moral Realism

The moral argument gois like this, if god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. And so the only question is whether or not the premises are true. We could take the anti realist position and simply state that there are no objective moral values and duties. Or we can reject premise too - which is more plausible? Cameron: I think the vast majority of people who have thought about this seriously would say that there are some objective moralvalues and duties. Some things are genuinely morally evil. It's yourself asil get over it to the moral needlest.