Religion vs. Lifestyle

[feplus]

@dondon

I posted eight links to prominent Continental philosophers and their writings on a range of subjects. If you read those and are not satisfied, I am happy to provide more.

I am pleased to hear you have embraced religion and developed a speaking-terms relationship with your creator.

[Chiki]

But this was not Chiki's argument. Chiki claimed that the Euthyphro Dilemma posed a unique challenge to DCT. As my thorough and sourced post prior to this one demonstrates, that is simply not the case.

1. The Dilemma is not a problem to tDCT, since proponents of that view grant that God's will is sufficient.

2. The Dilemma is not a problem to mDCT, since proponents of that view reject the Dilemma as a false dichotomy.

....This is why I don't want to reply to you. I don't see the point in repeating myself over and over again. You need to understand why ED is actually a problem for DCT.

Balcerzak already pointed this out correctly. ED is a problem for DCT because as Socrates points out, it leads to arbitrary morality, and the justification of things like genocide.

Granting that "God's will" is sufficient is a HUGE problem for DCT:

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/christian-ethics/divine-command-theory/the-arbitrariness-problem/

A page titled quite literally the arbitrariness problem. What more can I say?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

This is in the Euthyphro's Dilemma section, explaining why ED is a problem for DCT:

Hence, the advocate of a Divine Command Theory of ethics faces a dilemma: morality either rests on arbitrary foundations, or God is not the source of ethics and is subject to an external moral law, both of which allegedly compromise his supreme moral and metaphysical status.

When you take God's will to be sufficient, actions like genocide and so on become completely morally justifiable. You're actually making light of genocide being morally acceptable, but this is a big deal. This is why people take ED so seriously. Because it works.

And then Robert Adams comes along. He agrees with me by seeing that ED is a serious problem for DCT, so he comes up with a modified version of it:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/#H4

The fact that the modified DCT exists is proof of the fact that ED is a serious problem for DCT. The theory was modified because of ED. Therefore, if anything, you've just given me an argument in favor of the fact that ED is a serious problem for DCT. From the IEP page again:

Robert Adams (1987) has offered a modified version of the Divine Command Theory, which a defender of the theory can appropriate in response to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Adams argues that a modified divine command theorist “wants to say...that an act is wrong if and only if it is contrary to God’s will or commands (assuming God loves us)” (121).

All we can conclude now is that ED is a serious problem for the DCT, and the only reason it is not a problem for modified DCT is because the modified DCT was made because ED was such a huge problem for DCT. I think I've proven the usefulness of ED, I think if you don't accept it at this point you're just being stubborn.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

While I appreciate your willingness to continue the conversation (and without hostility this time), your reply misunderstands my position again.

"The God-wills-Good horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is a concern only to those who want to preserve moral intuitions- for instance, that genocide is wrong... [this] conclusion is not contradictory, but unpalatable to some. Some, not all."

The above is what I wrote in previous posts. Now let me quote passages from your first two links:

If divine command theory is true, it seems, then what is good and what bad depends on nothing more than God’s whims. Whims, though, even God’s whims, are not an adequate foundation for morality... This strikes many as problematic.

One possible response to the Euthyphro Dilemma is to simply accept that if God does command cruelty, then inflicting it upon others would be morally obligatory.

I am not "making light of genocide" because I do not buy into tDCT. But observe how my quote is almost identical in content to the link quotes. You have quipped about how "easy" it must be to receive a bachelor's in philosophy, how I obviously went to a "garbage" Continental program, and other nasty things, but you've made the case for my own competence very well here. I am on the same page as professional philosophers wrt DCT.

You claim that "ED is a problem for DCT because as Socrates points out, it leads to arbitrary morality, and the justification of things like genocide." As your links have reinforced, this is incorrect. It is only a problem for those who wish to keep morality non-arbitrary and hold on to shared values. (In other words, "The God-wills-Good horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is a concern only to those who want to preserve moral intuitions.")

1. The Dilemma is not a problem to tDCT, since proponents of that view grant that God's will is sufficient.

2. The Dilemma is not a problem to mDCT, since proponents of that view reject the Dilemma as a false dichotomy.

So who is the Dilemma a problem for? Neither of the above two positions; the first bites the bullet and the second denies the dichotomy. It is a problem for some, yes. It is a problem for those who are debating the merits of DCT and find the arbitrariness concession unpalatable. It is a problem for those who profess DCT with ignorance (i.e. they do not understand the full implications of the position).

But it is not a problem for DCT itself. "Solutions" to the "problem" are, in every case, ways to reconcile DCT with some other desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness). Which has been precisely my position from the outset of our philosophic adventure. There's a reason I've been quoting myself so often.

I think if you don't accept it at this point you're just being stubborn.

This is exactly how I feel. My last post was thorough, sourced, and lucid; the post I am now responding to only confirms my case.

edit: There are major problems with tDCT. Here is a sample.

1. How to determine what God's whims are.

2. If a determination is made (eg. communication through prayer), how to decide between competing accounts.

3. Retroactive judgment. If God changes his mind and condemns stealing on Tuesday, was it "wrong" to steal on Monday?

4. How to restructure eschatology. Is heaven a realistic goal? Can we realistically strive for it?

5. Whether theism is, from an applied ethics perspective, bankrupt without a stable extrinsic motivation.

None of these have anything to do with ED.

This is why invoking ED whenever DCT comes up is so grating. Real, incisive criticisms are cast aside so we can misrepresent Plato's intentions and pretend DCT is something it's not.

Edited June 16, 2015 by feplus

[Chiki]

I honestly think you just don't have a strong enough understanding of the literature, and how ethicists take seriously certain arguments against what nowadays. Since you won't listen to me, maybe you'll listen to other philosophers who say ED is a very serious problem for DCT:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/

This article lists ED as the first and foremost problem to DCT (he even called it a persistent problem) and he spends almost all of the article discussing ED, because of its importance. I honestly think I'd listen to a tenured professor in analytic philosophy and professional ethicist over you.

Most advocates of Divine Command Theory do not want to be stuck with the implication that cruelty could possibly be morally right, nor do they want to accept the implication that the foundations of morality are arbitrary.

What happens when you bite the bullet?

Even with this proviso, however, many reject this type of response to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

http://moralphilosophy.info/normative-ethics/deontology/divine-command-theory/the-euthyphro-dilemma/

The most common argument against divine command theory is the Euthyphro dilemma.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/theism/divine.html

DCT is wildly implausible for reasons best illustrated by the Euthyphro dilemma

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj/papers/Euthyphro.pdf

The Euthyphro dilemma is often thought to present a fatal problem for the divine command theory (aka theological voluntarism).

The paper has a very nice title: "Can God save DCT from Euthyphro?" LOL.

What I'm seeing here is this: many religious, tenured professors in analytic philosophy are taking Euthyphro's dilemma VERY seriously.. I know who to listen to, and I know who is right: the tenured professors in analytic philosophy. Pretty sure this debate is over now.

Oh and one final remark about continental philosophy. Please don't defend the philosophical contributions of statements like these by Continental philosophers like Derrida (this quote is by Jacques Lacan):

The erectile organ can be equated with the √-1, the symbol of the signification produced above, of the jouissance [ecstasy] it restores–by the coefficient of its statement–to the function of a missing signifier: (-1).

This is generic continental philosophy: purposefully mysterious, obscure, yet empty. Very rarely do continental philosophers have anything to contribute: all they try to do is make art, not proper philosophy. This is honestly why I don't take them seriously and just ignore them and their defenders, like you. It's not worth my time.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Chiki

[dondon151]

I am pleased to hear you have embraced religion and developed a speaking-terms relationship with your creator.

then you can see how this is a problem. i am a divine command theorist of logic, what is correct is only correct if god decrees it so, and he didn't do so, therefore you're incorrect ;-)

i am perfectly fine with DCT advocates biting the bullet. even supposing that the argument is sound, at least no one who is too invested in philosophy will take it seriously.

Edited June 16, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

@Chiki

I assume you read the .pdf files you posted. I did. Let me again quote myself:

"Solutions" to the "problem" are, in every case, ways to reconcile DCT with some other desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness).

This has been my position from the first post in this exchange. Please tell me which of your .pdf files disagrees with my conclusion. You trust the word of analytic philosophers, right?

First link: He could, for example, have commanded polygamy, slavery, and the killing of the over-50s. If divine command theory is true, then had he done so then these things would be morally good. That doesn’t seem right, though; even if God had commanded these things they would still be morally bad.

Second link: DCT is thus a kind of moral relativism: what's right or wrong is what one's God (like one's self or one's society) says is right or wrong--and there are no moral standards apart from this... If there is no standard of "being morally right" apart from God's commands, then God could literally command us to do anything and it would be right for us to do it by definition.

Third link: ...if God’s commands make right actions right, and there is no standard of morality independent of God’s commands, then that seems to make morality arbitrary. Thus, murder is not wrong because it harms someone unjustly, but merely because God forbids it...

All agree with me. In every case, the "problem" is not with DCT, but with reconciling DCT with other desirables. As in your previous post, you continue to reinforce my position.

I wouldn't defend that Continental quote because it's stupid. Continental philosophers sometimes argue stupid things. Analytic philosophers sometimes argue stupid things.

@dondon

I don't believe "logical DCT" is a thing. Regardless, it turns out that God told my neighbor your assessment of my argument was utterly incorrect. I suppose the will of God changed overnight!

Too bad. Hopefully God will communicate with you again, this time giving you some reasons for believing what you believe that you can share with all of us. I look forward to it.

You also do not know what "sound" means. If an argument is sound, everyone would take it seriously because it would be true.

[Chiki]

"Solutions" to the "problem" are, in every case, ways to reconcile DCT with some other desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness).

Everything you said in your wall of text was irrelevant apart from this (all I was arguing was that ED is the most important response to DCT). By saying this, do you realize that you've just admitted that your original position was wrong?

If the divine command theorist concedes that God's will is sufficient, the Dilemma poses no issue; claiming "ED is so bad for DCT" is a confusion. The problems with DCT (one of which you provided) have nothing to do with the Dilemma.

This is what you said. That ED has nothing to do with DCT. But you've just admitted that people try to solve the arbitrariness problem for DCT, and I've shown that ED was the one to raise that problem...

Edited June 16, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

My previous post was short apart from the quotes. "Wall of text" is an exaggeration. I try to be pithy.

Arbitrariness is not a problem for DCT. It is a problem for those who want to embrace DCT and want God's will to be non-arbitrary. I addressed this earlier:

"So who is the Dilemma a problem for?... It is a problem for those who are debating the merits of DCT and find the arbitrariness concession unpalatable. It is a problem for those who profess DCT with ignorance (i.e. they do not understand the full implications of the position). But it is not a problem for DCT itself."

Every link you have posted reaffirms this. Nowhere is the Dilemma presented as a "problem" for DCT except in relation to some desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness).

[Chiki]

Arbitrariness is not a problem for DCT. It is a problem for those who want to embrace DCT and want God's will to be non-arbitrary.

???????? Sorry, but this is literally nonsense. Uh... what? Do you understand what it means for an objection to be problematic for a view? If it's a problem for most people, then it's a problem. And it is a problem for most people:

Most advocates of Divine Command Theory do not want to be stuck with the implication that cruelty could possibly be morally right,

Honestly, the bolded part just sounds like the mysterious, overly evasive stuff Derrida would write: an overly evasive way to deny that ED is a problem for DCT.

A Persistent Problem: The Euthyphro Dilemma

That's the title of the entire section of the DCT article here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/divine-c/#H3

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj/papers/Euthyphro.pdf

The title of the paper:

CAN GOD’S GOODNESS SAVE THE DIVINE COMMAND THEORY FROM EUTHYPHRO?

First line:

The Euthyphro dilemma is often thought to present a fatal problem for the divine command theory (aka theological voluntarism).

What more do you want? Seriously, this is even more ridiculous than the debate I had with the autodidact. This is so stupid, I don't feel like I'm even doing philosophy at all. Just pointing out titles and opinions of various philosophers. I'm done here.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Chiki

[feplus]

I am surprised you consider this "evasive" or "mysterious." It is clear and succinct:

Nowhere is the Dilemma presented as a "problem" for DCT except in relation to some desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness).

I am asking for examples where this is not the case. Every link you've posted so far fits this description to the letter. I even went to the trouble of quoting your links and showing how, specifically, they fit that description.

You are focused on the titles of these papers while I am focused on the content.

[dondon151]

I don't believe "logical DCT" is a thing. Regardless, it turns out that God told my neighbor your assessment of my argument was utterly incorrect. I suppose the will of God changed overnight!

Too bad. Hopefully God will communicate with you again, this time giving you some reasons for believing what you believe that you can share with all of us. I look forward to it.

but god doesn't need reasons. he need only tell me what is true, and it is true because he wills it.

also, i know what a sound argument is. i typo'd isn't -> is in my previous post.

[feplus]

But God told my neighbor the opposite. Why trust your holy spirit transcription over his?

i typo'd isn't -> is in my previous post.

I don't know what this means.