-
ToothyMaw
1.3k
I recently watched this video, courtesy of Dennis Prager of PragerU, and formulated this response.
There are many examples of articles and videos that perpetuate the dichotomy between variations of divine command and skepticism about moral reality. For example, there is a YouTube video that has received hundreds of thousands of views that was released by the popular conservative channel PragerU titled “If There is No God, Murder Isn’t Wrong”. As the description of the video reads: “without God, all morality is opinion” (PragerU). The type of morality being provided as a foil for Divine Command Theory is moral relativism, or so Prager, the narrator of the video, claims, but it is not entirely clear because even according to moral relativism, murder could indeed be wrong according to one's attitude or those of one's culture.
The idea that ethics is a matter of opinion or that moral facts do not exist without god is more consistent with moral subjectivism and skepticism about moral reality. Prager posits that without god, moral facts do not exist and that morality is merely opinion, and, thus, murder, or any intuitively and morally reprehensible act, isn't objectively wrong. To represent it more formally: Prager appears to be saying that “if god does not exist, moral facts do not exist and thus no one has any objective grounds to condemn others’ actions or values, given actions flow from values.” This is somewhat odd because if divine command were true then morality would be just as arbitrary as the supposed moral facts that anybody might espouse in god's absence.
This is because correct moral norms would depend entirely upon god's will. These norms would not be absolute moral facts or laws and, thus, objective ground upon which to condemn other's actions and values or to develop moral inquiry would not exist. And for god's commands to be reasoned moral facts would have to exist as absolutes independent from god, and, thus, one would still be able to condemn other's actions or values or be condemned regardless of god's existence or one's beliefs.
I was hoping someone could read this and give me some feedback, might do something with it. -
DingoJones
2.8k
Under Divine Command theory whatever god says is moral, is objectively moral and not arbitrary by definition. You have ignored the objectivity of gods law in your counter-argument but Divine Command theory depends entirely on this premiss as part of its argument. Even if we humans cannot determine whats objective, an objective morality would still exist under divine command theory. -
PuerAzaelis
55There is no particular reason I can think of that an ethical "natural law" would require a deity to be its efficient cause. We do not doubt that the law of gravity can be "promulgated" in our discourse by those who are interested to learn about it. Likewise what reason do we have to think that moral imperatives need a deity in order for them to be promulgated in our discourse?
Both the law of gravity and the laws of morality presuppose that in order for us to know them there must be some kind of correspondence between the order of being and the order of our knowledge. Why the one but not the other? -
ToothyMaw
1.3kBut it seems that if the correctness of god's commands depends entirely upon god's will and not upon reasoned and thus absolute moral facts it is indeed arbitrary. Under divine command there is only god's will.
-
DingoJones
2.8k
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. -
ToothyMaw
1.3kFirst off when I say "reasoned" I mean "not arbitrary". And yes, I would indeed assert that all moral facts must be derived from some sort of reasoning or observation in order for them to be absolute. Otherwise the moral facts are correct merely because of god's will. And if this is the case god is neither just nor evil, and cannot be a perfectly good creator of values; he is just a creator.
-
tim wood
9.3kAn exercise in rhetoric that is more than a little disingenuous. It helps to define terms. Without that, it's easy to be mislead about what he is talking about. Or, rather, it's easier for him to be misleading - which I suspect is his purpose. In sum: pretty good sounding bulls**t, but bulls**t it is. How or why? Listen line-by-line and for each statement, ask yourself (on the fly) if he's made his case.
He starts (for example) with the question of the existence of good and evil. But he never clarifies "existence." His question becomes the fallacious question of false alternatives: e.g., do you walk to school or carry your lunch? Or, have you left off beating your wife?
And then there's the "separation of J-C values from secular values." Again, false alternative. And so on. And it's fair to ask if the man who is misleading you is the good man with your best interestss in his heart and mind. Aristotle says no. His arete, phronesis, and eunoia - his character, judgment, and good will - are all off. The substance, then, with respect to what is being claimed is a lie. And if there's anything good in itt, that's an accident. The "wrt" matters because many persuasive arguments - the best ones - are built on truths and half truths; the deception being what makes them so persuasive.
The Prager U. talks can be interesting, but take with salt. -
DingoJones
2.8k
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. -
ToothyMaw
1.3k
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. . -
ToothyMaw
1.3kFurthermore 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.
-
DingoJones
2.8kI'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. -
DingoJones
2.8k7
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. -
DingoJones
2.8k
-
jorndoe
3.7kMy 2 cents on this fine Thursday evening.
the dichotomy between variations of divine command and skepticism about moral reality — Aleph Numbers
Depending a bit on what's meant by "moral reality", why would those two together be exhaustive?
FYI, Carrier has a few things to say about "Prager University" aka Dennis Prager.
If you can pass moral judgment on rules (and the like) in scriptures, then they don't define morals. Since you can, they don't. If you refuse to (or somehow can't) pass moral judgment on scriptural narratives, then choosing them as all-foundation wasn't a moral choice, but morally arbitrary. So, either way, scriptures themselves don't define morals. And, in any given situation you still have to personally decide if following them is the right thing to do; no manner of faith or stories themselves can absolve that.
Life (as an autonomous moral agent) isn't always easy, huh? :)
Regardless of whatever dictum you're told, it's still on you to decide whether following it is the right thing to do; Yahweh/Bible is redundant. Yahweh doesn't appear to tell us what the right thing to do is and why, anyway; Yahweh/Bible is useless in the matter. Scriptures and law books don't define morals, rather they're supposed to be moral.
Say, if, in your head, you have accountability to an imaginary friend rather than your fellow man, then what should others expect of you? This could be exemplified by the Slender Man stabbing in 2014 resulting in decades-long sentences, and is principally comparable to allegiance/accountability to someone/something rendered by faith and/or textual narratives alone. Fortunately, such folk are rarely entirely consistent (non-hypocritical) in such a sentiment, or they would have thoroughly forfeit autonomous moral agency.
Divine command theory (and theological voluntarism) is of no use and doesn't exemplify autonomous moral agency in the first place. (Along with the Euthyphro and the Epicurean problem, all this stuff quickly becomes purely academic-theological hand-waving.)
"Alexa, lights off" Zzz -
ToothyMaw
1.3k
The Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy.“Does God command this particular action because it is morally right, or is it morally right because God commands it?” It is in answering this question that the divine command theorist encounters a difficulty. A defender of Divine Command Theory might respond that an action is morally right because God commands it. However, the implication of this response is that if God commanded that we inflict suffering on others for fun, then doing so would be morally right. We would be obligated to do so, because God commanded it. This is because, on Divine Command Theory, the reason that inflicting such suffering is wrong is that God commands us not to do it. However, if God commanded us to inflict such suffering, doing so would become the morally right thing to do. The problem for this response to Socrates’ question, then, is that God’s commands and therefore the foundations of morality become arbitrary, which then allows for morally reprehensible actions to become morally obligatory.
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? -
Streetlight
9.1kAh, I was going to mention the Euthyphro dilemma, but I see it's already been brought up. I don't have much to add here because I'm not convinced that the terms of the argument - morality as 'subjective' or 'objective', or even as 'facts' - are particularly intelligible. On the other hand the question of arbitrariness is interesting, and does seem to me to be a fairly staunch objection to any kind of DCT. The objection, raised above by someone, that 'because God said it, it makes it non-arbitrary', is, of course, no less arbitrary. -
DingoJones
2.8kIt'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) -
alcontali
1.3k“If There is No God, Murder Isn’t Wrong”. As the description of the video reads: “without God, all morality is opinion” (PragerU). — Aleph Numbers
In fact, killing another person is never deemed wrong in absolute terms.
Just like wild dogs or hyenas, human traditionally hunt in gangs or packs.
This principle became extended to the mating season: humans do not attack other humans individually for resources and mating rights but always do that in group.
Hence, within the context of group-versus-group violent combat ("war"), killing another human is not only necessary but also deemed courageous and honourable.
Doing that outside the context of "war" is deemed mostly wrong, because you are generally only allowed to kill enemies, i.e. members of other groups, and not members of your own group. That kind of individual in-group violence is damaging to group cohesion and is therefore considered to be a reprehensible lapse in discipline, to be utterly disapproved.
The reason why murder is wrong for humans, is because it is also wrong for wild dogs or hyenas.
Note that if you fail to kill enemies in warfare, you will be deemed to be a despicable coward, possibly to be shot at dawn. In that case, it is the act of failing to kill other people that will lead to severe reprisals, in which you will be disavowed, repudiated, reprobated, and utterly condemned.
The religious scriptures teach the believers the difference between individual and collective violence, in line with biological reality. In religious lingo: it is God who wanted this biological reality. Therefore, you are held to abide by its rules. Hence, it is indeed God's will that we shall shoot the cowards with a bullet through the back of their heads. -
ToothyMaw
1.3k
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. Maybe you can answer me a question: how is it that divine command theory is objective to believers? They might believe that they are following absolute moral laws but in reality they can't be unless absolute moral laws independent of god exist. Their belief is completely irrelevant. If I believe something hard enough does it make it the case? -
TheMadFool
13.8kI thought Euthyphro's dilemma settled the issue as far as the content of the video is concerned. The situation is exactly the opposite of what Dennis Prager claims. It's not that if god exists murder is wrong; it's if god exists, if he so commands it, then murder will be permissible, even an obligation. This being true only if what is good is what god commands. Surely, Prager will disagree and if he does then he is bound to the necessary existence of moral principles which god adheres to and puts a limitation on what he can command. If so, then what need is there for a god or gods? -
ToothyMaw
1.3k
On point. But he actually says that nothing he's saying applies to normative ethics; he is just making a claim about the objectivity of god's commands. This is, of course, false. Indeed I think that Dennis Prager would just bite the bullet on this one, being he's a nut. -
TheMadFool
13.8kOn point. But he actually says that nothing he's saying applies to normative ethics; he is just making a claim about the objectivity of god's commands. This is, of course, false. Indeed I think that Dennis Prager would just bite the bullet on this one, being he's a nut. — Aleph Numbers
I just realized, or likely misunderstood, something:
An essential defining quality of god is omnibenevolence. Ergo, it's impossible an immoral command would issue from faers person. Some may object that this doesn't imply that god doesn't have a set of principles fae refers to to guide faers commands. I agree but the point is god, being defined as omnibenevolent, has only to consult faerself i.e. god is morality itself; morality is not a set of principles separate from god as Euthyphro's dilemma leads us to believe. -
ToothyMaw
1.3k
Yes but if god is omnibenevolent and all that is good, and his moral commands are also defined as good then his commands would be: "God commands god." Which of course makes no sense; that's not a valid command. -
TheMadFool
13.8kYes but if god is omnibenevolent and all that is good, and his moral commands are also defined as good then his commands would be: "God commands god." Which of course makes no sense; that's not a valid command. — Aleph Numbers
That doesn't make sense. You're right. Does "god's command is moral" make sense? How different is "god's command is moral" from "god's command is god", given that god is morality? -
ToothyMaw
1.3k
Yes I believe its possible for god's commands to be moral, but one has to sacrifice the omnibenevolence bit. The now boring main issue is the arbitrariness. And I don't believe that there is a difference. -
ToothyMaw
1.3k
William Lane Craig has a seemingly worthy objection to my posts:
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-again?fbclid=IwAR0D-1TnBejeRSklINCFl-ZEI1s7YJukSQbdwOApsNAEdxuy2_AQuFaxpyk
Dr. Craig grounds the moral values in god's nature without making the claim that god is the definition of the word good. He says that divine command theory is an ontological argument. To say, however, that god's nature is good is to define it with a concept: the concept of goodness. Additionally to call god's commands good is to do the same thing. If good describes both of these things then this leads to the conclusion that God's commands are his nature. This renders god a non-person; a vehicle for arbitrary moral commands since his commands are not informed by his good nature but rather by whimsy.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!
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.
Categories
- Guest category
- The Lounge
- General Philosophy
- Metaphysics & Epistemology
- Philosophy of Mind
- Ethics
- Political Philosophy
- Philosophy of Art
- Logic & Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Religion
- Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Language
- Interesting Stuff
- Politics and Current Affairs
- Humanities and Social Sciences
- Science and Technology
- Non-English Discussion
- German Discussion
- Spanish Discussion
- Learning Centre
- Resources
- Books and Papers
- Reading groups
- Questions
- Guest Speakers
- David Pearce
- Massimo Pigliucci
- Debates
- Debate Proposals
- Debate Discussion
- Feedback
- Article submissions
- About TPF
- Help
More Discussions
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2024 The Philosophy Forum