Downfall of Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2014, 08:55 PM
RE: Downfall of Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma
(01-07-2014 08:38 PM)δοῦλος Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 08:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not exactly. Morality in general evolved that way. What is moral for an individual in a given situation is more complicated. Why don't you say where you think it comes from.

human opinions of course. where else?

There is a number of sets of human opinions. Do you mind being a little more specific?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 09:51 PM
RE: Downfall of Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma
(01-07-2014 08:55 PM)Charis Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 08:38 PM)δοῦλος Wrote:  human opinions of course. where else?

There is a number of sets of human opinions. Do you mind being a little more specific?

Pardon me. I must have been temporarily insane.
Morals come from the left testicle of Jebus. I looked into the matter.
I heard morals came from the gods. I found out exactly where.
I try to be as specific as possible.

Opinions do not support group or individual survival.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
01-07-2014, 11:32 PM
RE: Downfall of Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma
(30-06-2014 02:06 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  So, for all you that don't about this dilemma, it is basically this:
...

Nicely put. That's the best structuring of the dilemma I have seen for a long while.

Thumbsup

(30-06-2014 07:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  ...
If "god commands good things because he is good" the unspoken assumption is that Reality is (and HAS to be) greater than god, (as if there is a "good" at all, and the definition "means anything", then the "not-good", or *other than good* also always existed, as long as the "good" existed. So the good is always extant (concurrently) with god. But that means the "other" also always existed. He couldn't have created what necessarily always had to exist concurrently as his opposite, (or the Reality in which he is REQUIRED to exist). Cool

I'm not sure I followed this.

A command is an ought.

Then you go into is territory with "good" and "not-good" existing.

The argument only works if you start with "god is good" leading to "so, where does not good come from?"

Or did I miss something?


(01-07-2014 08:38 PM)δοῦλος Wrote:  
(01-07-2014 08:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not exactly. Morality in general evolved that way. What is moral for an individual in a given situation is more complicated. Why don't you say where you think it comes from.

human opinions of course. where else?

This is what was pissing me off the most in the JEWalker vs. Dark Phoenix boxing match... the insistence by the former protagonist that subjective morality = opinions.

Or as he so often condescendingly calls it "just opinions".

Subjective infers "of/from the self" which as Bucky points out has a evolutionary "is" basis.
This is as opposed to objective which requires an external baseline / scale / axiology / framework (whatever you want to call it).

Opinion is derived from risk analysis (thought) to reach an "ought".

Meaning that opinion is necessary but not sufficient to reach a moral conclusion.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
05-07-2014, 02:45 AM
RE: Downfall of Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma
There are no such things as "moral ought", only rational oughts.


Moral ought: a moral obligation

Rational ought: a rational obligation

So, you hear the Is-ought issue creeping around a lot. Well, you can't solve it with a moral obligation. At all. But, what if we changed the "is" to an "if?"

Well, now we have IF you want a society based on the improvement of human well being, happiness, health, etc, then you OUGHT to do things that reach that goal. A RATIONAL obligation.

Now, you may ask "so if somebody thinks rape is more important to THEM than a society as described in the above, they have a rational obligation to do".

Well of course. But considering that YOU want a society based on reason, human happiness, health, and well-being, you OUGHT to stop people from doing so. A rational obligation.


I suppose this sounds like moral nihilism where we have no "morality" and only rationality.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 10:25 PM
RE: Downfall of Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma
(30-06-2014 07:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(30-06-2014 02:06 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  So, for all you that don't about this dilemma, it is basically this:

1.) Is something good because God commanded it
2.) or is does God command it because IT is good?

If it is good because God commanded it then morality is arbitrary and they are in the same hole as everyone else. If he commanded it because IT is good then morality is separate from God.

The response to this is a "3rd" dilemma. It is basically "God commands good things because he is the good (good is his nature). But then many questions arise due to this response.

1a.) Is something good because it is Gods nature
1b.) or is it Gods nature because it is good?

Same dilemma, different wording.

Also, the other problem that comes to mind is:

2a.) is if God is bound by his nature then he is not omnipotent
2b.) If God is not bound by his nature then morality is again, arbitrary.

One of my favorites.
I think there's more there than meets the eye. If "god commands good things because he is good" the unspoken assumption is that Reality is (and HAS to be) greater than god, (as if there is a "good" at all, and the definition "means anything", then the "not-good", or *other than good* also always existed, as long as the "good" existed. So the good is always extant (concurrently) with god. But that means the "other" also always existed. He couldn't have created what necessarily always had to exist concurrently as his opposite, (or the Reality in which he is REQUIRED to exist). Cool

SHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! If you prove Gawd wrong, you'll Unmake the World!

[Image: Dogma_buddy_christ.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2014, 10:37 PM (This post was last modified: 05-07-2014 10:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Downfall of Divine Command Theory: The Euthyphro Dilemma
(01-07-2014 11:32 PM)DLJ Wrote:  I'm not sure I followed this.

A command is an ought.

Then you go into is territory with "good" and "not-good" existing.

The argument only works if you start with "god is good" leading to "so, where does not good come from?"

Or did I miss something?

Yes you did.
If there is a definition of *the good", or a need to define what something is as *the good* then the unspoken assumption is, that something other than it, exists.

If not, it's a distinction without a difference, and irrelevant.

"Reality" (entire) would otherwise be sufficient. Neither good nor bad. Preemptively, the god is defined as "good". Why is that necessary ?
If something "ought" to be, (or be done), then there is an unspoken implied reference to "something else" (a standard) involved, and THAT is the question. What is that "something else", and what is the origin of that implied unspoken standard ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: