Is divine command ethics demonstrable/falsifiable?

[HTacianas]

Well, there's a solution for that, but you were complaining about abortion too, so I don't know what you want. There's just no pleasing some people.

So abortion is the moral alternative to illegitimate birth?

 

[SkyWriting]

I can demonstrate destruction and death are...

"Demonstration" seems to be a valuable skill.
You claim it's not?

 

[Lobster Johnson]

So abortion is the moral alternative to illegitimate birth?

You could also encourage more homosexual sex, so you don't have to worry about children at all. But you seemed to be also complaining about that, so... see my previous point re. no pleasing some people.

 

[HTacianas]

You could also encourage more homosexual sex, so you don't have to worry about children at all. But you seemed to be also complaining about that, so... see my previous point re. no pleasing some people.

You're shoveling against the tide here.

 

[SkyWriting]

So abortion is the moral alternative to illegitimate birth?

Not as a hard rule. But there is no point in using "illegitimate" to describe a birth. Right?

 

[Lobster Johnson]

You're shoveling against the tide here.

Well, a rising tide sinks all ships.

Or something.

But there is no point in using "illegitimate" to describe a birth. Right?

Agreed. Pretty dehumanizing term, imo. Nothing about having parents who weren't officially married makes you less of a legitimate person.

 

[SkyWriting]

You could also encourage more homosexual sex, so you don't have to worry about children at all. But you seemed to be also complaining about that, so... see my previous point re. no pleasing some people.

Male partners tend to adopt....which reduces abortions.
Female partners can have babies just like any females who get fertility assistance.
(About 12% get assistance)

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Male partners tend to adopt....which reduces abortions.

Progress!

Female partners can have babies just like any females who get fertility assistance.
(About 12% get assistance)

Oh man, I hope those ladies got married first!

 

[SkyWriting]

Progress!
Oh man, I hope those ladies got married first!

I don't impose my rules or even ask.
Same as I don't ask any couple (Are ya'all married or any thing?")
If they say so, then they are.

 

[HTacianas]

Not as a hard rule. But there is no point in using "illegitimate" to describe a birth. Right?

You'll find with me that I defend my own sense of charity.

I see on the streets people with signs reading WILL WORK FOR FOOD or HUNGRY PLEASE HELP. They will not work for food and the only help they want is someone to pay for their next drug fix. But they will assault my conscience with lies.

Same with illegitimate children. Born of irresponsible conduct on the part of the parents yet I am assaulted for my language in describing them in the hope that I will subsidize bad behavior.

Illegitimate. It means a child born out of wedlock.

 

[muichimotsu]

Think I'll consider the death of people/pets I know and love, a bad thing, you can call it good for whatever reason you like.

I didn't say that was good, or certainly not absolutely good, but you're also selectively picking something that has particular implications rather than considering death and life as not diametrically opposed axiomatically

 

[muichimotsu]

Your ability to protest has value. This undermines your argument.
Unless you insist it has no value?

That's a non sequitur, that has nothing to do with the argument in regards to you claiming death is absolutely wrong and antithetical to goodness. My ability to protest is not pertinent to your argument, you don't seem to even understand a logical fallacy, but just deflect back to me instead of confronting the faulty reasoning you utilize

 

[muichimotsu]

Overthinking makes me suspicious.

It's often a way to reach a preferred end over a truethful one.

Truth is not merely what you find compelling, however convinced you are, it's often against mere sentimentality and pathos that motivates superstitious and religious thought like God existing and loving you

 

[SkyWriting]

That's a non sequitur, that has nothing to do with the argument ...

Again, your analysis has value or no? Which is it?
If ya's analysis has value, then good/creation wins!

You keep claiming that you have a valid point.
No creation = no claims.

 

[muichimotsu]

Sexual immorality in general and homosexuality specifically have always been prohibited. How many abortions are we up to now? How many illegitimate children are public wards with no fathers? How many dead from AIDS?

Yeah, it's easy to hyperbolize and exaggerate the impact of things you find personally wrong and make ridiculous correlations between things that aren't necessarily causatively connected beyond incidental inferences.

Sexual immorality has not been defined universally, neither has homosexuality even been a concept until the 1940s, before that sexuality was understood more in terms of behavior than orientation and will in regards to attraction and choices related to it.

Abortions wouldn't be a problem if certain groups weren't so fixated on sexual immorality to the point that they spread misinformation about sex in the first place that creates ignorance on proper birth control, etc.

HIV and AIDS are distinct things, first off and the contraction of HIV is not purely sexual in nature, to reduce it to some ridiculous idea that only gay people get it or that they're the primary people associated with it is myopic

 

[muichimotsu]

I think the liberal Christian perspective is more coherent, and doesn't reject humanistic learning- if God exists and is good, then we can use our rational minds to understand God's will viz a viz goodness, apart from religious authority. It's the fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, and Jews that Euthyphro skewers.

If God exists, it doesn't follow that God is good, that's equivocating and tautological thinking, already assuming too many things about an entity that's unfalsifiable by nature and relies on faith for any "knowledge" about it

 

[muichimotsu]

So does that mean we don't have a whole boatload of illegitimate kids?

That's tangential to other claims that are not nearly as demonstrable, nor is your hypothetical solution going to help them, because they're apparently just lose causes that you can't help and should focus purely on all the mere possible "children" you can save by illegalizing abortion or such

 

[HTacianas]

Yeah, it's easy to hyperbolize and exaggerate the impact of things you find personally wrong and make ridiculous correlations between things that aren't necessarily causatively connected beyond incidental inferences.

Sexual immorality has not been defined universally, neither has homosexuality even been a concept until the 1940s, before that sexuality was understood more in terms of behavior than orientation and will in regards to attraction and choices related to it.

Abortions wouldn't be a problem if certain groups weren't so fixated on sexual immorality to the point that they spread misinformation about sex in the first place that creates ignorance on proper birth control, etc.

HIV and AIDS are distinct things, first off and the contraction of HIV is not purely sexual in nature, to reduce it to some ridiculous idea that only gay people get it or that they're the primary people associated with it is myopic

I thought at first you had something valuable to say. I can tell now that I was wrong.

 

[muichimotsu]

Again, your analysis has value or no? Which is it?
If ya's analysis has value, then good/creation wins!

You keep claiming that you have a valid point.
No creation = no claims.

Creation is not the sole aspect of existence, you're oversimplifying metaphysics to fit your preconception and unjustified assertion that death and destruction are ultimately bad without actually stepping back and looking critically at the absolutist claim involved. And the fact that I exist is not a support for creation being absolutely good, you're focusing on the epistemological aspect and not recognizing what we're discussing, which is ontology and how it interacts with morality.

My analysis having value is irrelevant to creation as a whole being good or destruction being bad, because using your metaphor, me changing my analysis or worldview constitutes destruction of those old ideas, so if we'd remotely agree that change happens and it applies to all things we can generally consider, then destruction is necessarily going to overlap with good things, even if it can also associate with bad things.

 

[FireDragon76]

If God exists, it doesn't follow that God is good, that's equivocating and tautological thinking, already assuming too many things about an entity that's unfalsifiable by nature and relies on faith for any "knowledge" about it

God is usually said to be good, even apart from the question of whether God actually exists.

I only see Euthyphro being a problem for some Christians, ones that believe morality is dependent on special revelation.