His argument rests on the idea that any appeal to right and wrong is an appeal to absolute right and wrong, but if I create a character that is a killer, that character is still just as evil even if killing is only determined to be wrong by human consensus.
Regardless of whether this is true, protagonists and antagonists that blur the line between good and evil can be equally compelling. Therefore, no appeal to absolute morality is need.
Also, his argument says that good fiction requires an appeal to Judeo-Christian worldview, which if you follow his argument means that good fiction requires an ethical dilemma which I stated previously it does not. Good fiction can be about personal growth or overcoming adversity. It does not require a moral dilemma.
Regardless of whether this is true, protagonists and antagonists that blur the line between good and evil can be equally compelling. Therefore, no appeal to absolute morality is need.
Also, his argument says that good fiction requires an appeal to Judeo-Christian worldview, which if you follow his argument means that good fiction requires an ethical dilemma which I stated previously it does not. Good fiction can be about personal growth or overcoming adversity. It does not require a moral dilemma.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
