Yes, that is another valid criticism of DCT. Even if it were true, we have no reliable means of knowing. A DCT proponent would probably say we do, through divine revelation, but that puts them in the same boat as before with “A” imo. Divine revelation must be shown to be reliable first, and it hasnt.

If DCT means Divine Command Theory, then your objection of Aleph Numbers' not answering your proposition is false. Because all one needs to do to destroy your DCT is to not believe in the divine. Then the DCT falls apart immediately. — god must be atheist

That IS my objection to his argument, thats what I’ve been saying. DCT defines and then assumes a god as one of its premises. Thats why someone like Craig has to combine it with Kalams Cosmological argument.
And again, its not MY DCT. Im just explaining it because Aleph doesnt get it (and therefore doesnt understand how his argument fails) and neither do you as evidenced by your next quote here:

B. is that even the DCT is not objective. It was designed by someone, or thought up, or invented, to the faithful, by god. So it does not rest on some general, a priori unassailable logic or truth, it is arbitrary. Arbitrary, by god, for sure, (to the religious), but still arbitrary. — god must be atheist

DCT defines moral perfection as part of gods “essential nature”. Its not something god came up with its something that he is, perfectly good. Its not arbitrary because it never changes, it would be like saying a human having legs is arbitrary. Which isnt a problem really, as you so cleverly and originally pointed out in “A” above. It doesnt matter because there is no good reason to believe such a god exists.

Lol, i heard you the first time. We’re done here.

Ya, I wasnt intending to operate from a universal standard for ethics. Ive meant it to be about any given societies standard. All thats required is a standard by which people are morally judged, or their moral measure taken.
So to your point about it not being about ethics anymore but law/politics. I think we both recognise that distinction, however Im not referencing laws here. Im still referencing the ethics of the group/community, whatever they may be. Law is about whats best for society, and morality is about whats best according to a moral standard.
I agree that you could have unjust laws and imperfect ethics in a group, but thats not what Im asking about. Im asking about how the balance of moral/immoral works, regardless of what the individual standards that are in place may be. Its about how people are judged morally according to any given moral standard, not whether or not the standard is just or not. Thats a separate topic.
I understand its not always clear where the overlap between law and ethics is, so examples Ive used might have been confusing, for that I apologise.

Why would I do that? So you can ignore what I said and restate your position?
This is what I mean by not arguing in good faith. You aren’t engaging with what Im saying, Im not sure you’ve really answered anything Ive posed to you. This time, you ignored my post and instead posed a new line of argument. (By trying to use DCT, with you as the divine commander). Can you see how thats going to come across as disingenuous?
I stated why I thought your argument falls flat, cuz it ignores a premiss of DCT, and you didnt respond to it. If you think Im wrong about that, then show me how, or why.

Lol, now youre getting it. The big hint is in the title of the theory: Divine Command Theory...not Divine Command if the Commands Seem Reasonable Theory.
Like I said to Streetlight, its not MY theory. All Im saying is your argument is already accounted for in DCT, your criticism doesn't follow logically from the main DCT premiss. Thats why DCT is so widely respected (as with Craig, its main mouthpiece) among theistic apologists, they already firmly, desperately believe the premiss. Also why its do unimpressive to everyone else.

What? Thats how gods are defined in DCT. Its NOT my theory Im just repeating it.

Quite frankly, Dingo, I don't understand half of what you say, and I have not been arguing in bad faith. I did indeed address you because you failed to understand the simple point that just because god commands something doesn't mean that it is not arbitrary. — Aleph Numbers

If you do not understand half of what I say, how can you make the claim I didnt understand your simple point? I think you are the one lacking understanding here, by your own admission. Ill keep it as simple as possible.
If gods moral commands are defined as non-arbitrary, as they are in Divine Command theory, then your argument fall completely flat.
Your only option then is to attack the premiss of gods definition under DCT. You have only done this by referencing your own standards of morality based on reason. It should end there, with a choice between which of the two moral foundations seems more plausible, but you keep trying to muscle in your argument against DCT which as I pointed put, fails.
Now, if there is anything in there you do not understand, we should elucidate it before you reject it. If you understand and disagree, then directly address where Ive gone wrong.

Your original question was: “Can we pay off moral debt?” and I realize that the question is one of principle and not concerned with the exact measurement of each act of charity or transgression. The problem is not about subjective/objective, but that a debt to an unspecified collective doesn’t make sense. How could there be a debt to mankind? The idea of repayment necessitates some unity of feeling on the part of the creditor. Someone feels a loss and a repayment somehow relieves the pain. That unity of feeling obviously doesn’t exist in mankind. — Congau

Well now you’ve gone the complete opposite of the individual, all of mankind.
Two things. Its not an unspecified collective. It can be a specific one. A city, a town, a community within a city or town and whatever standards that group agrees on...and also its not about paying off the debt or accruing it to a specific person, Thats a separate judgement I would say. Its about the moral debt to the community. Stealing from that community and balancing it out with service to that community.

If we still judge the moral value of a person according to how we think his good and bad deeds add up, that doesn’t include any notion of debt since we only assess the achievements and shortcoming of the moral agent. If a student gets some excellent grades and some lousy ones, we call him a medium level student, but there is no preconceived assumption that overall grades are always ok if they balance in the middle. Grades should be as good as possible and so should a person’s moral standing. There’s nothing inherently ok about being average. It’s just that we don’t find it fair to judge a person too hard if he’s no worse than most people. — Congau

Is there something inherently not ok about being average? (Just curious)
Anyway,
We judge the student on the balance of his good and bad grades. That may come out medium, low or still excellent. Thats exactly what Im suggesting about taking someones moral measure.
So its not about aiming for average, but surpassing a minimum standard to qualify as a good person. This standard can actually be very high or very low, whatever the group or community has accepted/adopted.

Since your name change, I'm picking up a defiant vibe. Maybe change your name again and return to the Eeyore thing you had going for a while. It was just as annoying, but the spinelessness kept you out of harm's way. — Hanover

Wait, who is he?

Ouch. Just caught up on some of his gems from the sex ethics thread. His Weinstein stuff was fairly gross. The aforementioned
misogyny. Good riddance.

And no it's not a joke. He had already been warned for religious misogyny etc. — Baden

Ya, his winking emojis dont convince me either. So much for his claims of practicing a peaceful religion.
So from what I gather you exercise banning because of people not heeding your warnings more than shitty behaviour. Is that right?

What kinda extremism? Don’t get me wrong, no big loss imo but I only read ignorant, repetitive religious stuff. None of it was extreme that I saw. Whats he say?

You’ve given me a lot to think about, thanks. :up:

↪DingoJones I can't give you a conclusive answer to that. In myself, and almost every living thing I meet, I observe a strong affinity with life. Any attempts to quantify that objectively would be futile. It is an intuition. — Tzeentch

I see. So your morality is intuition based?

Life and death are natural, and on their own neither moral nor immoral. Perhaps it would be better to say all premature death is tragic. But then again, when an elder dies naturally of old age it may cause grief in their relatives, and is that not tragic? — Tzeentch

I should have asked before...how are you using “tragedy” here? If death and tragedy are both natural, how can an abortion be morally wrong on the basis of a tragic loss of life?

The matter of morality, at least, becomes more clear when a human decides to voluntarily end life prematurely, whether that be by stomping on a bug that did them no harm, or chopping down a tree for no reason, or killing an unwanted fetus. — Tzeentch

Thats the really tough bit, what reasons count as good ones?

Ok, so the distinction is moral agency.
Ok, so back to all loss of life being tragic. Why is that? If its a part of life as you say, then its not under the province of moral agency is it?

Ok, so Im just wondering why you are not more focused on the greater loss of life of bacteria or plants. You implied it has to do with them not being eligible for moral judgement while in the case of abortion you can do so with the mother at least. Is that right?

Of course, yes, and by participating in the abortion thread you are showing where your focus is, or is that not the case?
Just to be clear, Im being sincere and not trying to trap you or use your words against you. Your perspective interests me and it seems youve put some thought into its consistency, so Im inquiring in good faith. (Which is not to say I wont disagree at some point)

Well he expressly stated that he isnt doing harm to anyones autonomy, and that people are free to be immoral. I think that covers him, but of course I could be missing something too. Its a fine line maybe, but it seems valid to me.

Ah, I see. So would it be fair to say the answer to my question is that you are focusing on abortion because it is there that moral judgements can be made and that this isnt the case with bacteria?

He is casting a moral judgement, not a prescription for what a women should be allowed or not allowed to do.

Lol, missed that comment. You aren’t stupid, as evidence I submit that you recognised your...oversight there, and further Id suggest this makes you a good, rational, critical thinker.

Well said.

I saw that yes.

Why arent you advocating for all the tragic loss of plant life? Bugs? Bacteria? Many magnitudes more bacteria die that all other life combined, so you are ignoring the greatest tragic loss of life in favour of focusing on the many magnitudes less tragic loss of life that are the abortion numbers. Why is that?

Well defining terms is always a good place to start, especially when there is serious contention on those terms.
Personally, Im happy to go with whatever definitions for the sake of discussion. Im arguing here because people are specifically referencing academic usage, and its pretty clear what that is imo.

Im not really sure what you mean by most of that, but it has a dismissive tone to it. I take it that we’re done here?

It's peer reviewed and says gods commands under divine command theory would be arbitrary. I think this can end that argument. But perhaps you have more criticisms? — Aleph Numbers

Yes, its arbitrary from the perspective of someone who rejects the premiss of divine command theory, thats what Im saying. You didnt actually address anything I said in my last two posts, you’ve just again reinforced your initial thought. I call that arguing in bad faith, it shows you are not interested in discussion, which requires that you provide counter points to my points not just restating or reinforcing your own initial ones.
Maybe ive misunderstood, I thought you were arguing that divine command theory was internally inconsistent. Above you reference why it doesnt hold up to external reasoning. Which is it? Do you understand the difference? (Not trying to be condescending, for what its worth)

This semantic game has nothing to do with the use of "atheist". The word atheist does not appear in the conversation in your own text. It would be the same if you replaced the name "atheist" with "agnostic". It is not a reason to prefer one or the other. — David Mo

I was explaining the evolution of the word in philosophical academia, and not positing it as a reason to prefer one over the other. Im not trying to get people to use an academic definition, Im relaying what that definition is. You disagree that academia uses the word that way. I mean, i learned that in an academic setting, and from professors who attended a range of universities including Stanford and Oxford, and by both theist and atheist scholars both. Its possible Ive been misinformed but Im pretty doubtful.

I insist, academic. I would like to know who taught you that "atheist" means "lack of belief". How many relevant experts do you know who do that in the academic world? This is not a trick question. I'm interested to know. — David Mo

The only people who I know in academia who do not, are Christian apologists.

Note how Antony Flew, who is cited as the leading representative of defining atheism in terms of belief, does not use this term in his latest book There is God. Instead he uses "a-theism" as a synonym for "agnostic" (p. 53). — David Mo

He did define it that way, and wrote about it but he does not represent all of academia. Its controversial, because he changed his views from atheism. He was an intelligent design guy, so I do not accept him as the final authority on the word. Finding one or a few dissenting opinions in academia doesnt make your case, it doesnt change the general consensus in academia which is what Im referencing.
Im not sure what to tell you, googling and referencing an encyclopaedia of philosophy is not a substitute for a formal education. Flew was one of the philosophers we studied, and your reference material doesnt tell you the whole story, as Im talking about the centuries of argumentation that resulted in the current academic definitions. Your single point references do not move me, Im sorry to say.
Again, Im not particularly attached to the academic definition, im not a dogmatic person enslaved to what experts say and am open to discussing different ways of defining atheism but if you want to know what the generally accepted definition of atheism is in academia, Ive given you the answer. (As far as I know, which of course you are free to dismiss as me being misinformed, or lying or whatever you like.)

Oh and thanks for the PM. Your response showed up this time, the first one anyway.

I think you have them in the right order. Science is by far the best means of gaining knowledge about the world, followed by philosophy which shares a core trait (reason/rationality) with science but lacks the extraordinarily effective method of science. Religion is by far the least effective means of gaining knowledge about the world, so much so that I wouldnt bother mentioning it as a means at all. It actually has a history of the opposite, of preventing and obscuring knowledge about the world.

7
Furthermore what other than reason or observation would moral facts obtain from (If not of course from god)? I think that that one is just a given. — Aleph Numbers

Well, any other objective source I suppose, right? You do not buy any of those other objective sources I imagine but many do and to refute those systems of morality you again must address the premiss, the objective source those systems are built upon.

I'm trying to show why Dennis Prager's worldview is not as consistent or based on sound reasoning as one might think. I just don't see how you can think that something being good merely because god commands it is not subjective. How one might go about determining moral facts in god's absence is irrelevant mostly as this has little to do with their existence. But in order for the commands to be not arbitrary they must have been derived from something that exists independent of god. . — Aleph Numbers

Pragers world view? Divine command theory you mean? Its not just Pragers view, its widespread amongst christian apologists.
Objective morality is one of the traits god possesses by definition, so when they refer to moral facts its consistent with their definition of god and the existence of that god is a premiss for the argument.
The problem I see with your argument is that you are framing using conclusions about morality and reason that are not included in the premises of the divine command theory.
Its the same as if you were making an argument based on secular reasoning, and someone tried counter arguing with “its not reason, god did It”. Id be pointing out to them that god isnt included in the premises of a secular reason argument.
There are good counter arguments against divine command theory, but I dont think the one youre making is valid. The strength of divine command theory is that its internally consistent, you have to attack the premises.

Ok, thats one notion. Whats the other, and what “both ways? The notions are the ways? And what do you mean by “negative arising in life”?
Sorry, Im having trouble with your terminology. Its not evident to me what you mean by them.

Sorry, you lost me on that one. Which notions both at once? What “both ways”?

For some reason Im mot getting alerts when you respond to me.

Anyway, your making assertions, not arguments. Also, are you trying to argue for morality from reason, or argue why divine command theory is wrong. From my perspective you aren’t making clear distinctions and its seems muddled to me.

Well yes. If a person chooses to entertain this concept, then responsibility and accountability become absurd to nourish. — Wallows

Again I disagree. I see no reason why those things cant be separated by the concept.

Yes, but do take it upon yourself to analyze the deeper truth here. If one has rationally preemptively understood death, then there is nothing that can be further taken away from such a being, or not? — Wallows

Not really, that would only be the case if the person only has thier life that can be taken away. Many people have more to lose than their life.

Well ya, thats what determinism is. Thats its defining feature.

Im not sure Id wax so poetic about it, but yes, suicide can be a perfectly rational, logical choice. People are always trying to project their own views about lifes sacredness and worth onto others, but I think you are right in observing that suicide isnt always and only the decision of the mentally ill or terminally suffering.
I respect a persons right to decide when to die, or to suicide. Thats a bit of personal sovereignty I think is the least we can grant somebody. Its really the first and last bastion of true freedom. Forcing someone to live when theyd rather die is a horribly arrogant and patronising thing to do, a sort of torture even and its especially egregious when its motivated by that persons own fragile sense of mortality or selfish desire to hang in to their loved one.

Well you are just stating that moral facts can only come from reason. Divine Command theory states that moral facts can only come from divine command.
You haven’t provided a counter-argument, but an alternate theory....that moral facts come from reason. You offered the OP as though you found something internally inconsistent about divine command theory but I don’t think it is...divine command theory is consistent with the premiss that there is a divine, perfectly good creator.
It seems to me that in order to refute divine command theory you have to deal with the all important premiss it is based upon: that there is a perfectly good creator of the universe, god. Without that premiss, divine command theory completely fails.