I am not making the claim, you are. It a sign of a poor argument that you make outlandish claims and then pass the burden of proof to anyone opposing them. — Isaac
Suppose Bartricks is right, and what is good is exactly what is demanded by reason.
Even then, each of us must decide whether to do what is demanded by reason.
So, even then, we must each decide whether to follow the divine command or no.
Hence Divine Command Theory is of no use in helping us decide what to do. — Banno
Suppose Bartricks is right, and what is good is exactly what is demanded by reason.
Even then, each of us must decide whether to do what is demanded by reason.
So, even then, we must each decide whether to follow the divine command or no.
Hence Divine Command Theory is of no use in helping us decide what to do — Banno
And guess what else - atheism and divine command theory are....compatible! Atheism says no gods exist. Divine command theory says that for morality to exist, a god needs to exist. Those are compatible beliefs. Nietzsche and Hobbes held this combination of beliefs. — Bartricks
And, as ever, you just don't understand these positions. Divine command theory is not a theory about what exists. It is a theory about what would need to exist for morality to exist. Hence it is compatible with atheism (which is a theory about what exists). — Bartricks
As to how you might know what Reason prescribes and values - you consult your reason. The faculty designed to give you insight into what Reason prescribes and values. The faculty that, if you would but consult it, will tell you that my arguments are sound. — Bartricks
I think moral values are demonstrably subjective. Here is my simple argument:
1. For something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued.
2. Only a subject can value something
3. Therefore, for something to be morally valuable is for it to be being valued by a subject. — Bartricks
I'm not providing references - this is the internet!! Just look them up if you don't believe me. I mean, Nietzsche is probably the most famous atheist in the world - and he was writing his works precisely in order to prepare people for the realization that as 'God is dead' there are no moral values, just our own - and Hobbes, well, Hobbes was a thoroughgoing materialist who, though he could never say explicitly that he did not believe in any gods (that would literally have cost him his life), was known as the 'beast of Malmesbury' precisely because everyone nevertheless thought (no doubt correctly) that he was an atheist. — Bartricks
Question....just because:
Given herein that the principle of necessity makes explicit that for which contingency is impossible. What is it for any rational agent that it is absolutely impossible not to value, such that it must be valued necessarily? — Mww
the first premise... — Bartricks
the first premise says 'if' my valuings are morally values (so not 'they are' but 'if') then if I value something necessarily it will be morally valuable. — Bartricks
Analogy - if water is made of gold then if I have some water necessarily I have some gold.
Does the one chicken that finds it see it justified to believe that the grain and its nutritional value exist? Yes. — god must be atheist
Together they entail that moral values are not my values. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.