How do you determine whether something is "good"?

[ExodusMe]

@EightFootChild I do enjoy debate but I don't think you understand philosophy, so I will kindly move on. Thanks

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

@EightFootChild I do enjoy debate but I don't think you understand philosophy, so I will kindly move on. Thanks

Ok, have a nice life.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There is a reason why divine command theory isn't wildly accepted by philosophers.

It doesn't even seem to be particularly popular among apologists.

 

[zippy2006]

You can avoid the horns of the dilemma this way - by strictly identifying 'good' and 'god' with each other, interchangeably - but you've rendered the entire concept of 'god' superfluous in doing so.

Yours is just a common misunderstanding of exemplar causation. God is goodness itself, the highest good in which all other goodness necessarily participates. More than that, goodness is convertible with being and truth. God has created everything and everything is good (Genesis 1:31), for it participates directly in the goodness of its creator.

Creaturely goodness has an intrinsic relation to God and his own goodness.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yours is just a common misunderstanding of exemplar causation. God is goodness itself, the highest good in which all other goodness necessarily participates.

Doesn't really matter what you call it, including 'goodness itself', you are still describing a standard.

In fact, I think any attempt to split the horns of Euthyphro by appealing to some third option, X, will always reduce to the same set of questions - is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not in control of X? Meaning, you are right back where you started, and the horns remain the same.

You've taken the horn of independent standard, as any being which does not meet the requirement of 'highest good' cannot be called Yahweh. That necessarily implies a standard to which he is being compared. One that, if not met, disqualifies a being from godhood.

More than that, goodness is convertible with being and truth.

So, god equals goodness equals being equals truth.

Ok. I suppose I'll have to take it on faith that that makes sense to you somehow. I find conceptual distinctions to be useful, personally.

Creaturely goodness has an intrinsic relation to God and his own goodness. God has created everything and everything is good (Genesis 1:31), for it participates directly in the goodness of its creator.

I believe you believe that.

If that's what it takes to make sense of moral goodness for you, you're welcome to it. I derive no meaning from it at all.

 

[JoeP222w]

Thats essentially faith-based, and so, not objective.

Because something is faith based does not automatically mean it is not objective.

 

[durangodawood]

Because something is faith based does not automatically mean it is not objective.

For example...?

 

[JoeP222w]

For example...?

When you step into an elevator and press the button, you have faith that the elevator will go to the floor that you have selected (if the elevator is working properly). If the elevator moves correctly to the selected floor, it has done so independent of your faith that the elevator works properly. This is objective.

Not the best example, but it is what I thought of in the moment.

God's moral law is not dependent on people's faith (or lack of faith) in it, and is thus objective.

 

[durangodawood]

When you step into an elevator and press the button, you have faith that the elevator will go to the floor that you have selected (if the elevator is working properly). If the elevator moves correctly to the selected floor, it has done so independent of your faith that the elevator works properly. This is objective.

Not the best example, but it is what I thought of in the moment.

God's moral law is not dependent on people's faith (or lack of faith) in it, and is thus objective.

I thought my confidence in the elevator button is based on inductive reasoning from a thousand other elevator experiences, plus reasoning about capitalism, product design, building codes, etc.

 

[JoeP222w]

I thought my confidence in the elevator button is based on inductive reasoning from a thousand other elevator experiences, plus reasoning about capitalism, product design, building codes, etc.

Those may be factors, but it is still a step of faith to push the button and trust that the elevator will operate correctly.

Probabilities and statistics say that if you ride an elevator 100,000 times and it operates correctly every time, that is no guarantee that the 100,001 time you push that button, that that elevator is going to work correctly.

 

[durangodawood]

Those may be factors, but it is still a step of faith to push the button and trust that the elevator will operate correctly.

Probabilities and statistics say that if you ride an elevator 100,000 times and it operates correctly every time, that is no guarantee that the 100,001 time you push that button, that that elevator is going to work correctly.

The probabilities and statistics make faith irrelevant for elevator riding.

 

[zippy2006]

Doesn't really matter what you call it, including 'goodness itself', you are still describing a standard.

No I'm not. I'm describing God. God is not a standard.

In fact, I think any attempt to split the horns of Euthyphro by appealing to some third option, X, will always reduce to the same set of questions - is Yahweh in control of X, or is he not in control of X? Meaning, you are right back where you started, and the horns remain the same.

But your question doesn't even make sense given what I've said. You try to separate the third thing from God, perpetually failing to understand that God is Goodness itself, and that everything is good precisely by participating in God's own goodness.

"Is God good because he measures up to a standard, or is everything that God does arbitrary designated as 'good'?"

Answer: neither. God is the reality of goodness itself. He is not a standard, he is the source and principle of all that is good (and all that exists, and all that is true).

Similarly, God's actions aren't arbitrarily defined as "good." Goodness is being under the aspect of the desirable, and since God is the creator of all things, he is also the "creator" of all goodness. Droplets of water from a fountain have the same wetness as the fountain itself. There is no arbitrary designation of wetness being "whatever comes from the fountain." Wetness is well defined, just as goodness is well-defined. But in the case of God, He is the sole fountain of being and goodness, the pure spring from which all other waters flow.

So, god equals goodness equals being equals truth.

Ok. I suppose I'll have to take it on faith that that makes sense to you somehow. I find conceptual distinctions to be useful, personally.

Goodness is being under the aspect of the desirable, and truth is being under the aspect of the intelligible.

I believe you believe that.

If that's what it takes to make sense of moral goodness for you, you're welcome to it. I derive no meaning from it at all.

Welcome to classical theism 101.

 

[dclements]

As a Christian, this only becomes an issue when I begin to think about things like self defense. I have a gun in my home to point at bad guys if they break in. Would I ever shoot them? Not sure. I don't want to, but I think I could. Is it morally good for me to shoot that person? No. Is it morally good for me to defend my family? Yes. I think there are grey areas like this that are hard for Christian's to answer, but if it comes to something like "should I kill someone because they follow another religion" that would be absurd for a Christian to do and they would know that from scripture.

Since killing someone in self defense can be difficult even if one isn't a Christian I think it is a grey area in and of itself. IMHO if your family is at risk (and you know this beyond reasonable doubt) then you should do what needs to be done to protect them since their lives are at risk and not just your own. This is my opinion of course.

Not sure what text in the OT you are referring to, but I would be able to defend them on a case by case basis if you have references. Keep in mind that Israel also functioned in a separate manner than the Chuch does today. God used Israel to bring about the birth of Jesus. Further, He was always patient waiting for the people to repent before he executed judgement on them. For example, he waited some 400 years according to scripture before he brought judgement on the Canaanites. Moreover, we would have to evaluate in what sense God would be or would not be just in dispensing judgement on a people. According to Christian doctrine God is perfectly just/holy/righteous/morally perfect. Would God be evil for executing judgement on free creatures who chose to disobey him? I don't think so. IMO he is beyond patient with us.

IMHO doctrines of 'good'/'evil' apply equally to everyone no matter what their position is and if they don't such a situation creates a double standard. This is kind of complicated but it is kind of similar to in Dharmic religions they believe in Karma, but they realize that someone born as an untouchable has a more difficult time doing what people consider 'good' when compared to someone who was born in a position where it is easier to do good dead, or what people consider to be good deeds. Bottom line, if someone was born in a bad situation and kept getting reborn into that bad situation because they could never do better than anyone else born in such circumstances it would be hard to say that there is any justice in such a system.

Bottom line is that if a system of morality favors some people over others (ie. it undermine some people of certain groups and unjustly grants favors to others) it becomes difficult to explain the real 'morality' in such a system; even if God and/or his servants are the ones is being granted these favors.

An appeal to authority is saying that such and such is true because someone said so. If the other poster is simply saying that moral right and wrong is decided based on the commands of God, then that would not be an appeal to authority. I didn't read it so correct me if I am wrong. Thanks

Actually it is because it is really no different than other appeals to authority fallacies. You see every society has rules and some of these rules have rational explanations and other are followed just because that is the way things are. If there is no reason to follow them, they become difficult to explain to those who are not part of the group that adheres to them.

While the commandments from God could be argued using rational arguments (in which they are no longer just appeals to authority) they become appeals to authority when someone say they need to be followed because they come from God and/or in the bible. I know that this may be hard to fathom for some Christians, but if you are not a Christian you do not adhere to just this or that belief because it is in the bible but because it makes some rational sense to them (whatever that means to them). Another way to put it, any doctrine or dogma that is followed without because society/culture/peer group/religion/etc tells us to do it, it is likely either an appeal to authority fallacy and/or an appeal to antiquity fallacy which are pretty much the same thing .

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No I'm not. I'm describing God.

And in doing so, you necessarily imply a standard to which he is being measured. One that, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

But your question doesn't even make sense given what I've said.

Yes it does. For whatever third option X you choose, you will return to the same horns of the dilemma. It doesn't matter the value of X you try to plug in, nor does it matter if you rephrase it in terms of metaphor.

In fact, your own metaphor will make a point for me I've been meaning to get to. Suppose I rephrased Euthyphro this way,

Is water wet because it comes from the fountain, or does the fountain emit water because it is wet?

When put this way, it becomes absurdly, comically clear that there is no 'right' answer, because the question is loaded. 'Wetness' necessitates no basis in the fountain. But if I were to decree, a propos of nothing, that this is the 'sole fountain of wetness', you would not find that convincing.

But that's what you sound like when you declare Yahweh to be 'the sole fountain of goodness'. It is exactly as unconvincing, for exactly the same reason - 'goodness' necessitate no more basis in Yahweh than 'wetness' does in the fountain.

So yeah. If you're trying to illustrate a point, you chose a pretty bad metaphor.

 

[ExodusMe]

@zippy2006 that is a well formulated response. I think @Eight Foot Manchild is misunderstanding, because he is confusing moral ontology and more epistemology (i.e. he makes a claim about how we come to know morals and uses them as assertions about how morals exist). This is clear when he attempts to claim that morals are a standard, then he claims that they exist outside of God, then he tells you to impale yourself, etc...

You are right though so good job

@Eight Foot Child what are you arguing for? Are you saying that God cannot be the ontological basic of morals?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

@zippy2006 that is a well formulated response. I think @Eight Foot Manchild is misunderstanding, because he is confusing moral ontology and more epistemology (i.e. he makes a claim about how we come to know morals and uses them as assertions about how morals exist). This is clear when he attempts to claim that morals are a standard then he claims that they exist outside of God, then he tells you to impale yourself, etc...

Oh, are you back now? So nice to have you again.

The only place I mentioned epistemology, I've been clear in delineating the point of discussion - namely that ontology is only half the battle, because in the absence of an epistemological model for deriving our morals form Yahweh, we would be left to our own devices anyway. That's called introducing a relevant topic, not 'confusion'.

 

[ExodusMe]

Thanks man, glad to be back.

@Eight Foot Child what are you arguing for? Are you saying that God cannot be the ontological basis of morality? Show me your argument why not. All I hear is euthyphro this and that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

@Eight Foot Child what are you arguing for?

A few reasons.

Firstly, I consider the public scrutiny of ideas to be healthy for society, on both a person-to-person basis as well cumulatively, in the larger scale.

Secondly, because I enjoy it.

Are you saying that God cannot be the ontological basis of morality? Show me your argument why not.

No, I would not make any such argument. Rather, I would say I find the arguments that attempt to prove the positive case to be unconvincing.

All I hear is euthyphro this and that.

Yeah. As I've said before, Euthyphro is a response to the concept of theistic morality, it's not a positive defense of any particular moral philosophy.

As far as responses go though, I don't feel obligated to move past Euthyphro, in lieu of a convincing answer to it. All I've ever heard are answers that simply re-order it and collapse back into the same horns.

 

[ExodusMe]

A few reasons.

Firstly, I consider the public scrutiny of ideas to be healthy for society, on both a person-to-person basis as well cumulatively, in the larger scale.

Secondly, because I enjoy it.

I was asking what positive case are you making for the ontology of morality. It doesn't sound like you are making one, so moving on....

No, I would not make any such argument. Rather, I would say I find the arguments that attempt to prove the positive case to be unconvincing.

Yeah. As I've said before, Euthyphro is a response to the concept of theistic morality, it's not a positive defense of any particular moral philosophy.

As far as responses go though, I don't feel obligated to move past Euthyphro, in lieu of a convincing answer to it. All I've ever heard are answers that simply re-order it and collapse back into the same horns.

You lost me. You wouldn't make an argument against God as the ontological basis of morality, but you find the arguments unconvincing? What reasons do you have to show that God is not the ontological basis of objective moral values and duties?

 

[zippy2006]

And in doing so, you necessarily imply a standard to which he is being measured. One that, if not met, would disqualify him from godhood.

Nonsense. Provide an argument, something beyond mere assertion if you want to be taken seriously. There is no standard to which God is being measured.

Yes it does. For whatever third option X you choose, you will return to the same horns of the dilemma. It doesn't matter the value of X you try to plug in, nor does it matter if you rephrase it in terms of metaphor.

I already showed you that this is false. For a more detailed refutation, see my post here.

Is water wet because it comes from the fountain, or does the fountain emit water because it is wet?

Water is wet because it comes from the fountain (Speaking analogically of God). If you want a closer analogy, we can say that because it comes from the fountain, it is water.

But that's what you sound like when you declare Yahweh to be 'the sole fountain of goodness'. It is exactly as unconvincing, for exactly the same reason - 'goodness' necessitate no more basis in Yahweh than 'wetness' does in the fountain.

Atheists are generally bad at theology. You don't seem to be an exception. That's quite a strategy though: 1) raise Euthyphro dilemma, 2) invent bad theology to succumb to dilemma.

So yeah. If you're trying to illustrate a point, you chose a pretty bad metaphor.

Actually it was an analogy, and if you knew what that was you would also know that analogies are alike in some ways and unlike in others. Congrats, you found one of the unlikenesses, even though I already gave it away in my post.