Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2013, 01:27 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 01:31 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 12:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. The definitions of good and evil are irrelevant. "A lack of good" is no better or no different, and is not the point. (And BTW, a negative is every bit a part of Reality as the positive, even if you DEFINE something to be that. The POINT is not the definition, but that they are NOT THAT SAME THING). Even if "god is the *ultimate judge*, there exists a standard against which the *judgement* is made. There is no "judgement" if it's not *judged against* a standard. The word "judge" has a meaning. If not, they can't use that word. It has a real meaning. It's there is no standard there is no judgement, just capricious invention. Either the word "judge" has a meaning or it does not. The word cannot be used, with an invented special meaning. The only alternative is that there IS no "standard" and it's "divine whim", or "capricious divine irrationality". That is not a moral system. Moral caprice is not goodness. That's the point of the dilemma.

Where is the standard that says Moral caprice is not goodness? I mean you've obviously made a judgment about moral caprice and I'm hoping the standard by which you made that judgment is not some whim....cause.....that would make you a bit of a hypocrite.

Show me some stone tablets or gold plates or something....but you better have a standard that is beyond your whims otherwise your point loses its potency.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 01:39 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 01:46 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 01:27 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 12:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No. The definitions of good and evil are irrelevant. "A lack of good" is no better or no different, and is not the point. (And BTW, a negative is every bit a part of Reality as the positive, even if you DEFINE something to be that. The POINT is not the definition, but that they are NOT THAT SAME THING). Even if "god is the *ultimate judge*, there exists a standard against which the *judgement* is made. There is no "judgement" if it's not *judged against* a standard. The word "judge" has a meaning. If not, they can't use that word. It has a real meaning. It's there is no standard there is no judgement, just capricious invention. Either the word "judge" has a meaning or it does not. The word cannot be used, with an invented special meaning. The only alternative is that there IS no "standard" and it's "divine whim", or "capricious divine irrationality". That is not a moral system. Moral caprice is not goodness. That's the point of the dilemma.

Where is the standard that says Moral caprice is not goodness? I mean you've obviously made a judgment about moral caprice and I'm hoping the standard by which you made that judgment is not some whim....cause.....that would make you a bit of a hypocrite.

Show me some stone tablets or gold plates or something....but you better have a standard that is beyond your whims otherwise your point loses its potency.

We're not talking about MY "judgements". Do try to follow along, and pay attention, Blowjob.
Nice try. Sigh. You're the theist. If your deity is "good", the dilemma stands. Is your deity evil ? So then, ... moral caprice is what your deity is all about ?
I made no judgement. I said if those words have a meaning, then .... I did not say there was such a standard.

You are obviously no Catholic, (as I recall you've claimed).
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/tex...earch&s=SS
Go to your Catechism, and search for "goodness of god". There's what you have claimed you believe is your standard, unless you were lying. It's your deity's judgements, not mine that are the problem. (But thanks for confusing me with a god. Tongue ), or attempting your usual deflection, (if intentionality can even be ascribed to your rantings).

I don't have to show you anything. If the words "good" and "evil" are NOT THE SAME thing, even an idiot like you can see the problem. I don't need a standard. All I need is two words, and the question, "Are they the same ?" Any fool then asks, "From whence arises the difference ?"

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-10-2013, 02:05 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 01:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We're not talking about MY "judgements". Do try to follow along, and pay attention, Blowjob.
Nice try. Sigh. You're the theist. If your deity is "good", the dilemma stands. Is your deity evil ? So then, ... moral caprice is what your deity is all about ?
I made no judgement. I said if those words have a meaning, then .... I did not say there was such a standard.

You are obviously no Catholic, (as I recall you've claimed).
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/tex...earch&s=SS
Go to your Catechism, and search for "goodness of god". There's what you have claimed you believe is your standard, unless you were lying. It's your deity's judgements, not mine that are the problem. (But thanks for confusing me with a god. Tongue ), or attempting your usual deflection, (if intentionality can even be ascribed to your rantings).

I don't have to show you anything. If the words "good" and "evil" are NOT THE SAME thing, even an idiot like you can see the problem. I don't need a standard. All I need is two words, and the question, "Are they the same ?" Any fool then asks, "From whence arises the difference ?"

Sounds like when you made the judgment that moral caprice was not goodness, you didn't use a standard other than your whim. I'm not surprised.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 02:08 AM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2013 02:11 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 02:05 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 01:39 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We're not talking about MY "judgements". Do try to follow along, and pay attention, Blowjob.
Nice try. Sigh. You're the theist. If your deity is "good", the dilemma stands. Is your deity evil ? So then, ... moral caprice is what your deity is all about ?
I made no judgement. I said if those words have a meaning, then .... I did not say there was such a standard.

You are obviously no Catholic, (as I recall you've claimed).
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/tex...earch&s=SS
Go to your Catechism, and search for "goodness of god". There's what you have claimed you believe is your standard, unless you were lying. It's your deity's judgements, not mine that are the problem. (But thanks for confusing me with a god. Tongue ), or attempting your usual deflection, (if intentionality can even be ascribed to your rantings).

I don't have to show you anything. If the words "good" and "evil" are NOT THE SAME thing, even an idiot like you can see the problem. I don't need a standard. All I need is two words, and the question, "Are they the same ?" Any fool then asks, "From whence arises the difference ?"

Sounds like when you made the judgment that moral caprice was not goodness, you didn't use a standard other than your whim. I'm not surprised.

Troll.
So your god IS capricious.
That's what I thought.

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
12-10-2013, 02:32 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 02:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Troll.
So your god IS capricious.
That's what I thought.

If He is then He is and I gotta deal with it.

I forgive you for calling me a troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 02:41 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 02:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 02:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Troll.
So your god IS capricious.
That's what I thought.

If He is then He is and I gotta deal with it.

I forgive you for calling me a troll.

I forgive you for forgiving me.

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
12-10-2013, 02:54 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 02:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-10-2013 02:32 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  If He is then He is and I gotta deal with it.

I forgive you for calling me a troll.

I forgive you for forgiving me.

Thanks bro....I need all the forgiveness I can get.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 02:57 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(11-10-2013 06:21 PM)Brickparade Wrote:  It seems to me that, the way we normally talk, “good” (as applied to people) is always some kind of analysis of a person’s actions. Why we would call those actions good is debatable, but it is a person’s actions—and their consequences—that morality is concerned with. When we say that someone is a “good person,” we mean that their actions are good. To say that someone’s nature is good, apart from actions, seems like confusion. I’m not even sure how to make sense of that.

That is incorrect. Deontological systems of ethics are unconcerned with the consequences of an action or inaction. Contract law can be construed as the codification of a deontological conception of morality, as is simple promise keeping. Keeping a promise even if it would hurt me is generally considered honourable, principled and virtuous; I would be regarded "a man of principle". Thus a "good person" can be one that intends to do good by adhering to a fixed set of moral imperatives.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
12-10-2013, 07:05 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(12-10-2013 02:57 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 06:21 PM)Brickparade Wrote:  It seems to me that, the way we normally talk, “good” (as applied to people) is always some kind of analysis of a person’s actions. Why we would call those actions good is debatable, but it is a person’s actions—and their consequences—that morality is concerned with. When we say that someone is a “good person,” we mean that their actions are good. To say that someone’s nature is good, apart from actions, seems like confusion. I’m not even sure how to make sense of that.

That is incorrect. Deontological systems of ethics are unconcerned with the consequences of an action or inaction. Contract law can be construed as the codification of a deontological conception of morality, as is simple promise keeping. Keeping a promise even if it would hurt me is generally considered honourable, principled and virtuous; I would be regarded "a man of principle". Thus a "good person" can be one that intends to do good by adhering to a fixed set of moral imperatives.

Thanks for the perspective. I'll have to think on that.

Is there any way that deontological ethics could make sense of the theist's claim that a person could be "the fullness of goodness itself"? It seems that if "a person is doing something good if they are doing a morally right action," then you'd, of course, have to examine a person's actions, and not their nature. "Goodness" still wouldn't be a property to be found "within a person" (like God), completely divorced from actions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2013, 03:21 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
Don't have time to read the whole thread but, in my opinion, there is no real Euthyphro dilemma since the Euthyphro involved the fact that there were multiple gods often in conflict. Ie this God says this is Good, but this other God says it's bad. If you believe that a single God created all the universe then all morality essentially comes from him since so do all cause and effect. The question would rape be wrong if God said so is basically what happened . He made it painful ect.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: