↪neomac
It is deductively valid. It'd be stupid not to notice. — Bartricks

Seriously?! Pls, formalise your argument as it is so we can laugh harder at your stupid claim.

@SwampMan
Your counterargument looks more as a strawman wrt the DCT argument you have proposed:

• It’s not evident that that DCT argument is committed to such a claim of yours: “A common way to think about God, both in philosophy and religion, is as the greatest possible being. A being which we can not even imagine anything to be better than.” Even if this assumption sounds plausible (due to our background knowledge), depending on how it is properly unpacked it may lead to different consequences.
• It’s not evident that all the “good characteristics” attributed to God by the definition “God is the greatest possible being” are so judged wrt a moral standard (is omniscience, omnipotence or being eternal morally good?) while the DCT argument seems focused on standards for moral evaluation.
• It would be more consistent with the DCT argument to explicitly claim “those properties are only morally good because God wants them” instead of “those properties are only good because God possesses them”.

It's deductively valid. It has already been formulated. If you don't know that it is deductively valid it's because you don't know what that means.

If you don't know that it is deductively valid it's because you don't know what that means. — Bartricks

Indeed I have literally no clue what "deductively valid" means to you. But in logic, "deductively valid" has a very specific meaning, not whatever stupid claim comes to your mind. So pls, formalise your argument and show to the world the deductive validity of your argument according to your stupid claim.

I did wonder why omniscience and some other omni's and also God appeared in your conclusion, @Bartricks . I looked for them and Him in the premisses without success. I also wondered whether all moral imperatives come from reason and whether sentiment might also play a role. Now I wonder whether I can wonder these things publicly without being outed as a genocidal maniac or an utter fool. I shall try my luck anyway and jump off the merry-go-round if it gets too scary.

Something's off about deducing the divine command theory. It's like arguing that arguments are no good. Sawing off the branch on which you've plonked your booty. If you trust your rationality enough to prove to yourself that divine command theory is correct, shouldn't you also be rational on the matter of ethics? Just sayin'. May be it's just me.

Tell me what it means, logic virgin.

By 4 the game is up. That is, once it is established that Reason is a person, then divine command theory is true (for Reason would be a god).
But if you want to know why the person of Reason would have the three omni properties, it's because she will be the source of all the laws of logic, and the source of all justifications, and the source of all moral value. As the source of the laws of logic she will be the arbiter of what is and isn't possible and thus will be capable of doing anything. As the arbiter of justifications she will be all knowing for her will constitutively determines whether a proposition is justified; and as the source of moral value she will be morally perfect as she will value herself.

can you formalise your argument or not, logic pimp?

You don't sound like someone who knows what they are talking about.

Do you agree that this is deductively valid:

1. If p, then q
2. p
3. Therefore q

go on.

no, answer the question. I want to know the level of arrogantium ignorantium thickium I am dealing with. Is that argument form valid?

Is that argument form valid? — Bartricks

Yep, what's next?

What's next is the sinking feeling that you are massively out of your depth followed by humiliation and an about turn in which you reject my case 'because'it is valid. That's my bet anyway.

You accept, then, that this is valid:

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason, then they all have a single source: Reason
2. Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason
3. Therefore moral imperatives have a single source: Reason

And you accept as well that this is valid:

1. If something is issuing imperatives, then it is a mind
2. Reason issues imperatives
3. Therefore Reason is a mind

And you accept as well that this is valid:

1. If Reason is a mind, then Reason is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (God)
2. Reason is a mind
3. Therefore, Reason is God.

And you accept that this is valid:

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason, then they are imperatives of God
2. Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason
3. Therefore moral imperatives are imperatives of God

Or you don't as you don't know what you are talking about. Slink off, that's my advice.

I wouldn't blame SwampMan for not responding here; Bart's nonsense has hijacked the thread. — Banno

It may shock you to hear this, but I'm a bit cranky sometimes. On the other hand, three discussions with only a single post beyond the OPs is a bit much.

What's next is the sinking feeling that you are massively out of your depth followed by humiliation — Bartricks

Sure ma’am.

First let me stress my initial claim:

It's the most stupid claim I've read so far in this thread to consider this argument (as it is) deductively valid. — neomac

What you have just now provided is a list of 4 deductions that do not correspond at all to the formalisation of the argument you provided (as it is) which consisted in 5 propositions (where the 4th one seemed a conclusion from the first 3 premises):

1. Moral imperatives are imperatives of reason
2. Imperatives of reason have a single source: Reason
3. Only a mind issues imperatives
4. Therefore, moral imperatives are the imperatives of a single mind
5. The single mind whose imperatives are the imperatives of reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (God). — Bartricks

This argument, as it is, is deductively invalid. And it’s stupid to claim otherwise. You needed a sequence of 4 deductions to make it look acceptable. So now the audience has 8 possible premises to question (instead of 3 or 4) when assessing the soundness of your DCT argument. Which also means that it would have been intellectually more honest to provide this argument from the start.

BTW the first 2 premises of your Bartrickstein argument seemed to distinguish between “reason” and “Reason”:
1. Moral imperatives are imperatives of reason
2. Imperatives of reason have a single source: Reason

So you should still adjust your first deduction accordingly.

Haha, you really don't know your stuff. Undergrad are we? The first argument is obviously deductively valid. I laid it out as a series of syllogisms just so that you could see this. And you do not have 8 premises to question. Christ! You have 4. Think about it.

Now, each argument was deductively valid, yes?
And they are also sound. Deal.

"But you made a typo in your first premise, so I win and your argument is stupid and dumb and just so stupid. So there."

Haha, you really don't know your stuff. Undergrad are we? — Bartricks

Indeed there is lots I could learn from your intellectual dishonesty. But no, sorry, not interested.

The first argument is obviously deductively valid. — Bartricks

Let me stress it once more (from the abyss of my public humiliation you are so sadly fantasizing about): as it is, your first argument is obviously deductively invalid and it's utterly stupid to claim otherwise. You wouldn't need a sequence of 4 deductions, if it was valid as it was.

Here are the 8 premises that one can question:
1. If moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason reason, then they all have a single source: Reason
2. Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason reason

1. If something is issuing imperatives, then it is a mind
2. Reason issues imperatives

1. If Reason is a mind, then Reason is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (God)
2. Reason is a mind

1. If moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason, then they are imperatives of God
2. Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason

Now, each argument was deductively valid, yes? — Bartricks

Yep

And they are also sound. Deal. — Bartricks

Nope.

"But you made a typo in your first premise, so I win and your argument is stupid and dumb and just so stupid. So there." — Bartricks

Don't worry, your stupid claim still remains the one I pointed out for the reasons I explained. Typos can be excused, of course, I'm not intellectually dishonest as you are proving to be the more you talk, but it was still worth mentioning it for clarity.

No, it is valid. As you would know if you knew how to argue properly and hadn't just done a little undergrad course on logic. And no, you can only question 4 of the premises. The others follow from those premises. Didn't you notice? It's called a sorites. I and 2 of the first argument are open to question, as are the first premises of the next two. That's all. And those, a better reasoner would have noticed, are equivalent to the premises in the original deductively valid argument the validity if which you were unable to recognize. Now, you've got nothing philosophical to contribute, have you? Like a poorly house trained dog I have rubbed your nose in it. Now it is time for you to go outside in shame. Unless, that is, you have some kind of argument to make. Thus far you have made none at all, just Barticks baited - which didn't go so well, did it? Now, argue something or go. And note, bolding false assertions does not an argument make.

Again, who would one bother posting here, with Bart's nonsense? It seems to me that your anger is misdirected.

I see he's hooked poor @neomac.

1.Moral imperatives are imperatives of reason
2. Imperatives of reason have a single source: Reason
3. Only a mind issues imperatives
4. Therefore, moral imperatives are the imperatives of a single mind
5. The single mind whose imperatives are the imperatives of reason will be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (God). — Bartricks

1. Arguable. Emotions and irrationality may also play a role.
2. The word "source" seems ambiguous here. Mostly seems okay.
3. Seems okay.
4. "Single mind" is a non-sequitur and suggests an agenda.
5. Non-sequitur.

Argue something Banno, SEE. That stands for Stanford Encyclopedia Educated.

Again, who would one bother posting here, with Bart's nonsense? It seems to me that your anger is misdirected. — Banno

You seem to be just using me as a passive-aggressive way to attack Bartricks. Knock yourself out.

Undergrad are we? — Bartricks

SEE. That stands for Stanford Encyclopedia Educated. — Bartricks

PhD in philosophy are you? From where? what was your dissertation on?

1. If Reason is a mind, then Reason is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (God)
2. Reason is a mind — Bartricks

1.??? (outlandish)
2. Obviously false. Reason is a faculty. Reason isn't a mind.

One at a time.

1. Arguable. Emotions and irrationality may also play a role. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That doesn't make sense as a response to "Moral imperatives are imperatives of Reason". Do you mean that moral imperatives are imperatives of emotion? What does that mean? How does an emotion - a feeling - issue an imperative?

It is uncontroversial that moral norms are norms of Reason. Moral reasons are called moral reasons precisely because they are just among the different sorts of reason that Reason issues. Aesthetic reasons, instrumental reasons, epistemic reasons and moral reasons.

So 1 is uncontroversial and you've said nothing to challenge it - indeed, nothing that even manages coherently to address it.

No, the word 'reason' is ambiguous and can refer to a) normative reasons (you have reason to eat healthily) b) causes or explanations of things (explanatory reasons), c)motivations, d) a faculty, e) the source of normative reasons.

Now, when we talk about imperatives of Reason, the 'of' bit refers to the source of the imperatives - to Reason in the 'e' sense of the term. It does not refer to the faculty of reason. The faculty of reason is the means by which we are aware of the imperatives and other issuances of Reason. That's why it is called a 'faculty' of reason and not a 'source' of reasons. Note, if there's a faculty - and you admit that there is a faculty of reason - then there's that of which the faculty gives us some awareness or impression. Those impressions or awarenesses are 'of' the imperatives of Reason. And among them are the imperatives of morality. That's why we use our reason to gain insight into what's right and wrong. And those imperatives are imperatives of Reason. They're not imperatives the faculty is issuing. That's bonkers. Faculties do not issue imperatives. Plus that would mean that whatever your faculty told you you had reason to do, you'd have reason to do - it'd be impossible for the faculty to give you a false impression. Yet it does so all the time. Yours, for instance, is telling you I am not very good at arguing, yes? That's a false impression.

PhD in philosophy are you? From where? what was your dissertation on? — Fooloso4

Skeptical are we? How would my telling you those things do anything to reduce your skepticism? Anyone could just make up such answers.

Here's a more reliable test: try and refute my argument.

You seem to be just using me as a passive-aggressive way to attack Bartricks. Knock yourself out. — T Clark

If you like. It's just that you seem to be annoyed at a newbie for not responding, when their thread has been hijacked - you are upset a the wrong thing.

The variation on the Euthyphro dilemma in the actual OP might have had some merit as a topic. @SwampMan's argument is one of those that sets limits on the way god can be understood. Perhaps everything that happens has to be for the greater good in order to keep the notion of god consistent. That might be an interesting line to pursue. - at what point would the state of the world be so poor as to demand one drop faith in god?

But instead we have Bart's theatrics.

It is uncontroversial that moral norms are norms of Reason. — Bartricks

There seems to be some controversy.