As befits a perfect being, God prohibits some actions precisely because they are evil. — spirit-salamander
Francisco Suárez (1548—1617) would argue "that for a law to be genuine law and not just law in name it must be grounded in the legislative act of a superior[.]" — spirit-salamander
And this is a very common mistake. — G E Moore, Chapter IV: Metaphysical Ethics.§ 76
↪SwampMan I am a divine command theorist. I arrived at the view after reflecting on the following argument:
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).
What mistake have I made? — Bartricks
"Had God commanded us to murder and steal, then doing so would have been obligatory and good."
So this is what B subscribes to. — spirit-salamander
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. — Bartricks
BTW since he is using quantifiers (e.g."single source", "single mind"), his argument may look even messier if you put it into a predicative logic form, instead of a propositional logic form. — neomac
But you are adding an additional premise, namely that there is only one mind. — Bartricks
Adding that premise would not challenge the conclusion that divine command theory is true, it would just mean that you yourself are God.
Yet of course, you have good evidence that you are not God, for you do not appear to be omnipotent, omniscient or omnibenevolent. Moral norms, and the norms of Reason more generally, do not seem to be emanating from you. So the additional premise seems unjustified.
The solipsist version of idealism you refer to is not characteristic of idealism per se. Idealism doesn't imply solipsism.
But that premise solves the question of where moral imperatives come from: t — RogueAI
It is very counter-intuitive. However, it doesn't seem impossible that a god could choose to experience things in a very limited way. — RogueAI
The original argument is patently obviously valid. — Bartricks
Indeed the logical form of this argument (as it is) is something like:
If m then r
If r then s
If i then n
—————
p
q — neomac
1. A person who doesn't know how to formalize an argument can't possibly have a PhD in philosophy.
2. Bartricks doesn't know how to formalize his argument.
3. Bartricks can't possibly have a PhD in philosophy. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Indeed the logical form of this argument (as it is) is something like:
If m then r
If r then s
If i then n
—————
p
q
— neomac — ZzzoneiroCosm
You're mistaking being able to formalize an argument with being good at arguing. — Bartricks
Anyone can make noise, but you have to be able to read music to make tunes. That's why the Beatles failed at it so spectacularly. — Bartricks
And in case you haven't noticed, that's what I is. — Bartricks
Oh, and Paul McCartney does have a PhD in music. You lose. — Bartricks
You're actually horrible at arguing. — ZzzoneiroCosm
You're deluded. Your ego has blinded you. Take care. — ZzzoneiroCosm
McCartney is also a knight: another honorary title — ZzzoneiroCosm
You're all ego and delusion and I hope you find a way through the fog. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Divine command theory is basically dumping the (hard) work of reasoning for yourself on to an authority figure, here God. — Agent Smith
So far no one has located an error in my reasoning. — Bartricks
God, as having created our universe, seems to have fashioned it in a way that evil is permissible. What does that tell you about divine command theory? — Agent Smith
Therefore, we are not innocent. — Bartricks
Therefore we are not creations of God. — Bartricks
Have fun! — ZzzoneiroCosm
This 'criticism' is one that can be made of any analysis of morality. — Bartricks
Plus my view can deal with it in a way that no other view can. — Bartricks
But before I do that — Bartricks
there is nothing in God or outside of Him (no reason, no principle whatsoever) that would prohibit murder per se except His total arbitrariness, which, however, from our point of view, is total randomness. I don't see why God should be in any respect better than Hitler. — spirit-salamander
absurd to suggest that there are no actions such that they are too evil for God to command or even just to permit[?] — spirit-salamander
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.