tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post8890920986775938557..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Ethical naturalism and Value Systems: Euthyphro Dilemma (final 3 of 3)Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71949139754604512262018-07-13T13:10:06.009-07:002018-07-13T13:10:06.009-07:00That's correct. It's in contrast to Joe th...That's correct. It's in contrast to Joe though who presumes that the truth of moral propositions depend on God (whereas Swinburne thinks there are possible worlds where there are moral truths but God fails to exist).<br /><br /><b>That's the crux of why I don't accept Swinburne, I accept Plantinga, God has to exist in all possible worlds if he exists in one possible world, and if he is God.<br /><br />Certainty true of Tillich's view as well.God can't be the ground of being in one world and not the ground of being in all worlds</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-68553995785226486292018-07-13T11:20:37.607-07:002018-07-13T11:20:37.607-07:00"Not my own position, but that's my under..."Not my own position, but that's my understanding of Swinburne. It may be that his views have changed since the publications my summary here is based upon. I could probably find sources if someone wanted that."<br /><br />That's correct. It's in contrast to Joe though who presumes that the truth of moral propositions depend on God (whereas Swinburne thinks there are possible worlds where there are moral truths but God fails to exist). Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-59702612590143221882018-07-07T22:39:25.197-07:002018-07-07T22:39:25.197-07:00I'm not assuming God would act capriciously. Y...I'm not assuming God would act capriciously. You said that you think we knkow when we have hold of a capricious exercise of an ethical axiom. That has to do with our KNOWLEDGE, not with God himself. There's no reason to think we could understand the moral reasoning of an infinite mind. It has to be an act of faith to affirm that God's acts are always the most loving possible.<br /><br /><b>True but he can tell us. Jesus modeled God for us.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-79194160698284377572018-07-07T10:51:26.624-07:002018-07-07T10:51:26.624-07:00I'm not assuming God would act capriciously. Y...I'm not assuming God would act capriciously. You said that you think we knkow when we have hold of a capricious exercise of an ethical axiom. That has to do with our KNOWLEDGE, not with God himself. There's no reason to think we could understand the moral reasoning of an infinite mind. It has to be an act of faith to affirm that God's acts are always the most loving possible.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-33768366512585296052018-07-06T13:18:23.251-07:002018-07-06T13:18:23.251-07:00that's just begging the question. you have no ...that's just begging the question. you have no reason to think that God could act capriciously if you accept anything b the Christian view of god. Just because <br />god is beyond our understanding is no reason to assume that he doesn't live up to ordinary standards of the good.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4752735070633879142018-07-06T11:38:32.370-07:002018-07-06T11:38:32.370-07:00Not with an infinite mind.Not with an infinite mind.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67395474248350929242018-07-06T04:44:27.339-07:002018-07-06T04:44:27.339-07:00aside from the perennial oceanic question like why...aside from the perennial oceanic question like why does God allow pain,I think we know when we have hold of a capricious excise for an ethical axiom. Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90200594975358750342018-07-05T19:31:11.004-07:002018-07-05T19:31:11.004-07:00I know. I meant that from our limited human perspe...I know. I meant that from our limited human perspective, we cannot know the difference. It has to be an act of faith that rejects DCT and sides with love. And nothing that could ever conceivably happen, even a thousand Holocausts, could ever count against it.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-87621882640581630172018-07-05T07:31:40.899-07:002018-07-05T07:31:40.899-07:00the real difference is with my view God is worthy ...the real difference is with my view God is worthy of worship with DCT morality is meaningless.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-31403387394017936352018-07-05T07:29:18.988-07:002018-07-05T07:29:18.988-07:00why should we assume that God gives capricious com...why should we assume that God gives capricious commands just because he might get away with giving them? The real difference is DCT asserts that capricious commands are just as moral. My idea assumes that God is motivated by love not caprice. I assume Capricorns commands would violate God's perfection.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-37373269008582083602018-07-05T06:58:45.049-07:002018-07-05T06:58:45.049-07:00But given God's omniscience, couldn't any ...But given God's omniscience, couldn't any seemingly capricious command of God be justified as having been motivated out of love? IOW, practically speaking, I don't see the difference between your interpretation and DCT.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69168450242053322842018-07-04T23:53:17.280-07:002018-07-04T23:53:17.280-07:00God does make certain commands, to disobey then is...God does make certain commands, to disobey then is violating an ethical norm..<br />God's sanction of certain values is grounding those values(axioms) in God's command. But unlike DCT God's command is not arbitrary but is based upon love, in accordance with his character.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-87798557638003022022018-07-04T17:58:07.765-07:002018-07-04T17:58:07.765-07:00Yes, I agree, but like I said, I think that's ...Yes, I agree, but like I said, I think that's a somewhat different issue.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-48785071521139133672018-07-04T12:20:21.133-07:002018-07-04T12:20:21.133-07:00But if God is not the cause or the reason why acti...But if God is not the cause or the reason why actions are right or wrong, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that God is the grounding of (moral) axioms. God would be the reason why there are creatures capable of morality, but I see that as a slightly different matter.<br /><br /><b>BUI thin he is, not by inventing morality but by putting into us the likability to love and standing behind moral obligation </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-76709798691274454272018-07-04T12:18:03.319-07:002018-07-04T12:18:03.319-07:00Thank you Steve,I appreciate that information. I r...Thank you Steve,I appreciate that information. I really don't buy that view, it seems there's a prior value underneath gratitude to benefactors. What would make us value keeping obligations at all? I can't see what other God would do it.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49450381252552126892018-07-04T11:31:04.227-07:002018-07-04T11:31:04.227-07:00Haven't read this whole article, or even all t...Haven't read this whole article, or even all the comments, but Swinburne doesn't think that ALL morality is independent of God. He thinks that God is a source of moral obligations, but not the foundation of morality. For example, he thinks that we should honour our benefactors, and that God is one such benefactor, and therefore that we should honour God. So there is a moral obligation which wouldn't exist in the absence of God. But, on this view, there would still be moral obligations if God didn't exist.<br /><br />Not my own position, but that's my understanding of Swinburne. It may be that his views have changed since the publications my summary here is based upon. I could probably find sources if someone wanted that.Steve Lovellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04707435716956109694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58143360009847784192018-07-04T10:53:43.419-07:002018-07-04T10:53:43.419-07:00But if God is not the cause or the reason why acti...But if God is not the cause or the reason why actions are right or wrong, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that God is the grounding of (moral) axioms. God would be the reason why there are creatures capable of morality, but I see that as a slightly different matter.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14181996147905889282018-07-02T14:45:18.296-07:002018-07-02T14:45:18.296-07:00(God's) eternal, he created everything there a...(God's) eternal, he created everything there are no fates to counterbalance God's will against. So why would there be a question about why God commands what he does? Clearly God commands certain things because they are in line with the good, The good is in concert with God's will because it stems from his character.<br /><br />Did God create the traits of his character, and if so, with what? Did he create numbers?<br /><br /><b>I think we are saying either the same thing or closely related things. when I say God created everything Obviously i mean all continent things not himself, not his nature,God is the reason for morality he is the ultimate grounding of axioms but he is not directly the cause of moral motions or of moral acts.He did not invent morality.<br /><br />We are created in God's image, with consciousness,mind (aka spirit) and the ability to love, We use the nature God gave us to develop morel motions, axioms and mores.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69964908514228252342018-07-02T12:40:35.595-07:002018-07-02T12:40:35.595-07:00(God's) eternal, he created everything there a...<i>(God's) eternal, he created everything there are no fates to counterbalance God's will against. So why would there be a question about why God commands what he does? Clearly God commands certain things because they are in line with the good, The good is in concert with God's will because it stems from his character.</i><br /><br />Did God create the traits of his character, and if so, with what? Did he create numbers?7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60239920938703526532018-07-02T12:13:17.884-07:002018-07-02T12:13:17.884-07:00Yes, I'm a theist who thinks that not all mora...Yes, I'm a theist who thinks that not all moral truths depend upon God. God instantiates the good but he's not the basis of it. The good or embodying the good is part of God's nature, but God didn't create his nature. God made and makes it possible for there to be murder but God is not the reason that murder is wrong.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-88237916588353646222018-07-02T09:43:34.850-07:002018-07-02T09:43:34.850-07:00Eric had a post that was a double of the first one...Eric had a post that was a double of the first one so I zapped it,I guess he was caught out by the moderation.I think I might undo that soon. People don't like it. Blogger doesn;t give you a message saying moderation is on.Design flaw.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-64644078306861046602018-07-02T09:37:55.886-07:002018-07-02T09:37:55.886-07:00Eric Sotnak said...
"This dilemma is aimed at...Eric Sotnak said...<br />"This dilemma is aimed at the assumption that the only form of Christian ethics is divine command theory"<br /><br />Well, no. That's not a fair characterization of the Euthyphro dilemma at all. The Euthyphro dilemma is based on the question of what it is that confers rightness (or perhaps goodness) on actions. It might be possible to read Plato's doctrine of Forms back into the Euthyphro (depending on where you think Socrates ends and Plato begins) and ask whether divine authority can plausibly explain rightness, or whether there is some Form participation in which leads the gods to approve of some actions and not others. Is divine approval or disapproval capricious? That is the core of the Euthyphro dilemma.<br /><br /><b>Good point Eric,I wrote this thing about five years ago so I don't remember all that I packed into it. I think what I should have said is that the ED as invented by Soc dealt with a different concept of God.The modern atheists thinkers I;ve seen,which granted not that many academics see, to expect the Christian will defend divine command. Were I writing it today I would say it much differently.</b><br /><br />I am unpersuaded that contemporary efforts to rehabilitate Divine Command Theory avoid the substance of the Euthyphro dilemma. If we say that God's loving nature constrains his commands, we can still ask whether there is anything on the side of the action that imposes such a constraint, or not. I think it is clear that something must, otherwise the answer is that God approves of (or commands) the actions that he does because he is loving, but we are left with no answer the the question of why a loving God approves of some actions but not others.<br /><br /><b>Jesus seemed to imply that the motivation was really important. So if you hate you are a murderer.To me that says think about the motive that leads to murder. I doubt that God gives a body of ethical axioms that focus upon actions. The 10 commandments have an even spread of actions and motives,don't covet,don't steal.</b><br /><br />For example, a loving-God Divine Command Theorist must answer both "Why does God forbid theft?" and "why did God command the slaughter of the Midianites?" by saying, "Because God is loving." Absent any account of how, exactly, each command conforms to a loving nature, loving-God DCT is no less hollow than traditional DCT.<br /><br /><b>Well the first problem there is a discussion abut the nature of the Bible.Remember what is said about Fletcher;s discussion of justice as a form of love, No i don;t slaughter is a form of love,but the Prohibition on theft might be.</b><br /><br />8:11 AM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85754741215634425282018-07-02T09:11:27.212-07:002018-07-02T09:11:27.212-07:00Of interest, the very book you're citing says ...Of interest, the very book you're citing says that Swinburne rejects that any moral truth depends on God, so the very book you're citing contradicts you on this point.<br /><br /><b>Fool that I am I tend to find myself in disagreement with Swinburne more than I am in agreement,I think that may be because my theological background is more shaped by the Germans. Be that as it may,I am really interested in his reasons. Can you furnish me a quote?</b><br /><br /><br /> As I have stressed in the past; don't speak for all theists since not all theists share your views. Some theists would accept Anthony's independence thesis regarding God and morality, and plenty of theists accept Platonism with respect to propositions, sets, possible worlds, relations, etc. <br /><br /><b>I don't understand why you think I've done that But if it's because I say the ED doesn't apply to he Christian God I stand by that. There are basic credal statements that all Christianity must agree to a priori, Christian identity is determined by those doctrines. The Christian God is eternal, necessary (as meaning not continent creator of all things,and the source of love.</b><br /><br />"Antony shifts form the Greek to the God of the Christian tradition with no justification"<br /><br />Joe, Louise Anthony explicitly says the following:<br /><br />"Translated into contemporary terms, the question Socrates is asking is this: Are morally good actions morally good simply in virtue of God's favoring them? Or does God favor them because they are - independently of his favoring them - morally good? It's a question I'd like to put directly to Dr.Craig"<br /><br /><b>I contend it's a meaningless question when asked of Christian God. God doesn't favor a pre set collection of actions, God gives us a motive for our acts: love. We try to act on that motive, when we do then we have acted morally,When we violate that motivation we have failed to act morally,</b><br /><br />Anthony's quote above comes after; 1. Anthony saying she is responding to Bill Craig's moral argument (so she is talking about Bill Craig's variety of monotheism), 2. A brief history of the Euthyphro dilemma as originally found in Plato's story. <br /><br /><b>sorry you are doing my argument not Craig's.The Original ED of Socrates was based upon gods that were more superhoere than divine, they were contingent, they were not creators, and they were not necessary being. Moreover they did not love in an agaopic sense.For the record The names to conjure with in my ethical universe are Joseph Fletcher, Reinhold Niebuhr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer,and Fred Schleiermacher, Albert Schweitzer.</b><br /><br />The quote comes directly after Anthony explained the Euthyphro story and what all the Greek terms meant. If anyone acted without justification, it is actually you for attacking Anthony without reading her quote in context from the original source. <br /><br /><b>I fail to see how, you have said nothing that even hints as the concerns I voiced,</b><br /><br />My advice: Don't search for ways to attack opponents for all you do is look desperate and biased. <br /><br /><b>rooting for the home team hu? Remember it's not a war, but it might be a ball game.</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-55948712436492956942018-07-02T08:27:59.613-07:002018-07-02T08:27:59.613-07:00Not all Christians think that God is the basis of ...Not all Christians think that God is the basis of morality, and not all Christians think that literally everything depends on God.<br /><br /><b>Anyone who does not believe that everything depends upon God for it's existence and who calls himself a Christian is confused theologically.But i don't believe that God directly "invented" morality or assigned people a code of conduct. Perhaps you missed this discussion the previous post where 7 said:</b><br /><br />7th Stooge said...<br />"God doesn't make things right or wrong. He instantiates right and wrong. I agree with you that God is the reason why things like murder are possible, but I don't think he is the reason why murder is wrong. He cannot create the idea of purpose because purpose is part of his nature. He can create and be the reason for the existence of purposeful creatures."<br /><br />I said:<br /><br /><b>"I agree,good is based upon God's character,in love,not because at some point in time he said "I think I'll invent being good" That still takes the thunder out of the <br />eutheprho thing."<br /><br />So this argument is about the logical consequences of belief in the kind of God Christianity posits in relation to the ED.God is not contingent. He's eternal, he created everything there are no fates to counterbalance God's will against. So why would there be a question about why God commands what he does? Clearly God commands certain things because they are in line with the good, The good is in concert with God's will because it stems from his character,</b><br /><br /> Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-12774412531414952652018-07-02T08:12:22.898-07:002018-07-02T08:12:22.898-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Eric Sotnakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162425851889399481noreply@blogger.com