The problem is that philosophy is not a monolith; so it might not be all that easy to decide who is "degrading" it. — Janus

Poorly worded on my part. I meant only to note that many many politicians will degrade a position by calling it "philosophical' or 'in theory' or words to that effect/affect.

...you can't force philosophy on people. — Janus

Nor need we force anything on anyone...

Governmental policy is all about what ought and/or ought not be done. Politics is all about government. All political positions on the role of government are inherently philosophical. Thus, whenever a politician(or anyone really for that matter) openly degrades philosophy, they ought very well be taken to task.

What can be done is provide the American public with an accurate timeline of events showing which policies resulted in unwanted consequences for Americans overall, and which politicians voted for those policies, as a means to produce a well informed electorate.

Sure, that's an idea, an ideal, but I don't think it reflects the reality... — Janus

Hence, the need for philosophical style approaches to the matter...

... people simply have whatever influence they have acquired via their social relations. If they are acting within the law, then who's going to take their power and influence, whatever it's level might be, away from them?

That's another question altogether.

However, if the issues of not caring about those over whom an individual wields such power are clearly presented as such and supported by what's actually happened, is happening, or what the individual wants to happen, then in a democratic form of government, the citizens remove those people from power by virtue of voting against them or voting for people who will remove such people from power, should they not be elected officials, but some other private individual offering a public good or service in the American marketplace.

Of course, free and fair elections are totally dependent upon a well informed electorate, and that seems to be a major problem nowadays.

Seems to me that the social contract is something that arose on it's own, through reasoned reflection upon the causal role that individuals have in a society. It is the acknowledgment of one's own power to effect/affect others. Individual behaviour has demonstrable and often predictable effects/affects upon others. It is in light of that that either the individual ought care about those whose lives and/or livelihoods they effect/affect, or such an individual ought not have such power.

I'm being reminded of Thomas Paine here: Power over people is acquired in but one of two ways. It is either usurped or it is granted by consent.

The social contract seems to me to have everything to do with that kind of power.

Are you going around again? — Banno

Nah. I asked, and later clarified what I was asking for. An argument meeting that criterion has not yet been put forth. So, I've not much else to say regarding that...

Bart has fallen back to ad homs — Banno

Yeah, that seems to be the go to response just before being drectly faced with a problem in the reasoning. There's probably not much left to discuss on that matter.

Euthyphro poses yet another problem for divine command notions, of which Bartricks seems to be arguing along such llines of persuasion....

I presented the argument — Bartricks

You mean this one?

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is an existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

That argument is not an example which has "all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God" as a logical conclusion. That's what I asked for.

The sheer number of falsehoods stated by you about what I've said here is astounding. Those false accusations seem to be increasing as time goes on. No surprise really.

Thanks.

I'm quite pleased with progress in real life. Looking forward to retirement.

:wink:

I have not even touched upon euthyphro...

There are moral norms and values throughout the world that stand in direct contradiction to one another. If the one is true, then the other is false, and vice versa. In light of that, if all moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God, then God is self-contradictory, or else not all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God.

Okay. So either you will not or cannot support that claim by arguing for it as a conclusion. Neither is acceptable here. The claim assumes exactly what's in question, whether or not God is necessary for being good. In addition, Im forced to conclude that you have not reached your beliefs via reasoned conclusions, as you said earlier. Rather, you assume exactly what needs argued for, as can be seen below in two contradictory but otherwise logically equal(valid) arguments...


If it is the case that all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God, and being good requires following moral norms and prescriptions, then God is necessary for being good.

If it is not the case that all moral norms and values are prescriptions and values of God, and being good requires following moral norms and prescriptions, then God is not necessary for being good.

Your failure to offer it voluntarily after our exchange here today is not a good sign.

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

One more try...

Do you have an argument in which the above claim is a logical conclusion?

Irrelevant quibbling...

There are arguments against the God of Abraham that do not apply to other beliefs in/of God. Hence, my question informed me that those arguments may not be applicable to Bartricks. It's not mysterious. Fairly simple really.

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

Perhaps it best to start over...

Do you have an argument for the claim quoted above?

Are all moral norms and values imperatives of Reason? — creativesoul

All moral norms are imperatives of Reason if one means by a norm 'an imperative' — Bartricks

Well, I'm asking what you are arguing here.

Are all moral norms imperatives of Reason?

It's relevant in discussions involving the God of Abraham. Bartricks doesn't claim such a God, I suppose. So... no sense in pursuing those lines of thought here...

Are all moral norms and values imperatives of Reason?

It was not relevant to the current contention. Hence, I've not pursued it or revisited it except to answer your questions about it.

Are all moral norms and values imperatives of Reason?

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

That is the matter under contention.

One thing at a time. Yes, I would argue against 4 based upon empirical evidence to the contrary. However, that is not my interest here. My interest is in confirming whether or not you've arrived at logical conclusions for the earlier claim you made...

Again...

I'm just asking you to show the argument which logically leads to the claim about all moral norms and values being prescriptions and values of God. — creativesoul

The argument presented today does not suffice. 4 assumes exactly what's in contention. Show me an argument that arrives at that claim via logical conclusion.

That was an aside based upon Bartricks' participation here. I was curious to his belief in/of God.

The substantive matter is the claim he made about all moral norms and prescriptions being morals and prescriptions of God.

Sure to both of those claims, however Bartricks has claimed that God is necessary for moral behaviour(for being good). His line of reasoning is what's under scrutiny here.

I'm not changing the goalposts. I'm correcting your misunderstanding of what I'm asking for. It's clear now, after a bit of confusion. No blame to be placed.

To be clear...

You've claimed that you arrived at your beliefs via reasoned conclusions. I'm just asking you to show the argument which logically leads to the claim about all moral norms and values being prescriptions and values of God. 4 assumes it. I'm looking for that as a conclusion, as a means to confirm your earlier claims that you've arrived at your belief in this matter via reasoned conclusions. Show me.

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is a single existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

...moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God... — Bartricks

There are two different claims you've made here that interest me. The matter of contention is exactly whether or not God is necessary for moral behaviour(being good). The second claim quoted in isolation above is what needs argued for. You made it in earlier in this thread. It is what garnered my attention.

The argument you've offered today, which is also quoted above, assumes exactly what's in question regarding the claim that moral norms and values are the prescriptions and values of God, where God is the single source assumed in 4.

4 assumes exactly what needs argued for. You need to provide an argument for 4, as a conclusion, rather than as a premiss.

Please reread my last post and directly address it.

Is God necessary for being good? That's the matter under contention.

If being good requires following imperatives of Reason, then claiming that all imperatives of Reason have a single source(God) as a premiss assumes exactly what needs argued for.

Do you have an argument in which 4 is not assumed, but rather is the logical conclusion?

The claim that the imperatives of Reason have a single source is the matter of contention. You assume that that is true, which is what we do with premisses. I'm questioning that premiss. Do you have an argument where that premiss is a conclusion, rather than a premiss?

1. Imperatives of Reason exist
2. An existent imperative has an existent mind that is issuing it
3. Therefore the existent imperatives of Reason have an existent mind that is issuing them
4. The imperatives of Reason have a single source
5. Therefore there is a single existent mind whose imperatives are imperatives of Reason — Bartricks

4 assumes what is in contention. Do you agree?

I'm asking to see the argument you refer to. Set it out for me. If not, there's no way to understand what it is that you're talking about. Of course, I do not believe in such a mind(God), and I too have employed reason(critical thinking) as a means to arrive at my denial. Bertrand Russel is one of many from whom I've learned to think about the topic(belief in the God of Abraham).

Earlier, more in line with the OP, you claimed that all moral principles are prescriptions of God, or words to that effect. I'd also like to see an argument where that is the logical conclusion, if you could be so kind to oblige.

Are you denying the current consequences and vestiges leftover from the days of American slavery?

Could you set out this argument?

From what or whom have you acquired such belief(s)? I'm curious to the source from which you learned about an omni-mind(God)?

...I have no difficulty separating belief in God from being religious as I have never been religious yet I believe in God. — Bartricks

You believe in a God that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent... the creator of all things.

Correct?

:brow:

There are some similarities it seems. The differences are there as well. Absolute presuppositions, according to Collingwood, are not propositions though. In fact, they are rather ill defined in this essay, which is another critique I've yet to have gotten into here but have noted it elsewhere.

I mentioned that in my very first post here to Bartricks. It ended with this...



The problem of evil. The Euthyphro problem. Occam's razor.

The holy trinity.

p1. All moral principles guiding human behaviour are prescriptions of God
p2. Some moral principles contradict others
C1. God's prescriptions for behaviour are self contradictory

:lol: