It is widely assumed that theism is superior to metaphysical naturalism in explaining moral phenomena, especially with regard to the practical aspect of morality. In this article, I will firstly clarify what this practical aspect amounts to and present two challenges against metaphysical naturalism, by John Mackie and Richard Joyce. Then, I will critically engage with two main attempts to argue for the superiority of theism over metaphysical naturalism: One of them is the appeal to the existence of afterlife, and the other is Robert Merrihew Adams? divine command metaethics. I will argue that both are problematic for different reasons. Relying on the main aspects of Adams? metaethical framework, I will advance my proposal to maintain the practical aspect of morality which lends theism superiority over metaphysical naturalism, and then follow with certain implications of the proposal for theistic metaethics.

人们普遍认为，有神论在解释道德现象方面优于形而上学的自然主义，特别是在道德的实践方面。在这篇文章中，我将首先阐明这个实践方面的含义，并提出约翰麦基和理查德乔伊斯对形而上学自然主义的两个挑战。然后，我将批判性地讨论有神论优于形而上学自然主义的两个主要尝试：一个是对来世存在的呼吁，另一个是罗伯特·梅里休·亚当斯？神命元伦理学。我会争辩说，由于不同的原因，两者都有问题。依靠亚当斯的主要方面？形而上学的框架，我将提出我的建议，以保持道德的实践方面，这使有神论优于形而上学的自然主义，