That's only pointing to more conceptual confusion. I think we can confidently conclude from human experience since Plato that not all pious person is just, and that not all just person is pious. — Olivier5
He made them, supposedly. Don't try and use these tools on Him. — Olivier5
If you are suggesting that we cannot provide reasonable answers to what God does or allows to happen, then I agree. — Fooloso4
Most of us though, have a pretty accurate conception of what constitutes right and wrong. — Apollodorus
By Socrates' argument and your own example we can say what it is not. — Fooloso4
Or do you think God or the gods love what is wrong? — Fooloso4
So what is the right thing to do about global warming? — Olivier5
is stuff good because it is loved by god, or is it loved by god because it is good? — Banno
The answer is both/ and not either/or. — Janus
as well asThe central question of the dialogue is about men not gods. — Fooloso4
what does Craig's identity (God himself = the paradigm of goodness) mean for people doing the right thing — jorndoe
It is not so simple. It is not a matter of ethical principles but of whether particular acts are just or unjust. In a healthy society it is not enough that a sufficient number, (what number?),do something in order for it to be permissible. If we agree that murder is wrong, are we then wrong or is it both right and wrong if some group shouts "death to the infidels" and starts killing people? They consider themselves to be pious followers doing the will of their god, for which they will be rewarded. — Fooloso4
no religions today (except some radical, politically motivated sects, proclaim "death to the infidels" and almost all moderate people, both religious and non-religious, think that is wrong. — Janus
And the reply was
The answer is both/ and not either/or. — Janus
Roughly speaking Janus seems to think that because what is beloved by god is what is good, because the two are extensionally equivalent, the dichotomy dissolves. But I think this a slight treatment of the dialogue. It wraps the discussion in comforting bandages of abstraction — Banno
Roughly speaking this objection is nebulous and unargued. Can't you do better than that? — Janus
The dialogue ends in aporia. The considerations of the straight-thinkers have been shown to be irrelevant, indeed antithetical, to the task at hand: defending Socrates against the charge of impiety. — Banno
This is a rather cold case, and one could argue that Socrates himself didn't do such a great job at this task.the task at hand: defending Socrates against the charge of impiety. — Banno
and that he is simply chosing from the long list of crimes attributed to the gods one that will help him justify his shameful intention. — Olivier5
The kind of people who uses pious rhetoric to justify killing their father. — Olivier5
That's a strawman argument; no religions today (except some radical, politically motivated sects, proclaim "death to the infidels" and almost all moderate people, both religious and non-religious, think that is wrong. — Janus
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.