Is divine command ethics demonstrable/falsifiable?

[muichimotsu]

I don't see that it does. Your logic fails.

Easy to explain. If existence is good then I can explain why.
If existence is not good, then I cannot explain.

With Creation, I can form thoughts.
With destruction, no one can.
Existence proves it's own value
by attempting to explain itself.

Your not seeing something is not a substantiation of an argument, it's fallaciously concluding that your inability to understand means that my claim is untrue because of that

I never claimed existence is not good, that's entirely misrepresenting my claim that death and destruction can have benefits to existence, they are not antithetical to existence as a whole

Existence and creation are not the same thing, you're equivocating one thing as a noun with another that is as much an act or process (creation or generation) rather than a cosmological status (existence)

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

But that's tautological in avoiding the consideration of the nature of good and just equivocating it to God, it's intellectually lazy, that's my point

It's not that they're saying morality is dependent on special revelation, they're saying the very nature of morality is conforming to God's commands, because they believe God is goodness

 

[muichimotsu]

So abortion is the moral alternative to illegitimate birth?

Way to make a false dichotomy of the situation and strawman someone as well, double whammy

 

[muichimotsu]

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

Well, if you want to condescend and dismiss because I demand you substantiate your claims instead of just making sweeping moralizing generalizations, that's your prerogative

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Not all homeless people or such are drug addicted, that's a generalization you don't have evidence to support in your claims.

And legitimacy of children is a damaging attitude that suggests an orphan or child born outside of particular socially appropriate institutions is somehow worth less rather than considering that their circumstances are not by their choice, giving them compassion instead of contempt

 

[muichimotsu]

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

The value of something in terms of existing does not make creation more beneficial or the only benefit, you're still equivocating a process and the essence of something, creation /=/ existence

 

[variant]

Not sure I'd agree. The only definition of 'goodness' that's really relevant is 'that which allows life to thrive'. A creator could create any number of species for whom 'goodness' is different - it's counter to goodness for humans to be set on fire (therefore being set on fire is 'bad') but a creator could make a species that thrives by being set on fire, therefore it's 'good' for them.

But that wouldn't change the fact that 'goodness' is still fundamentally whatever allows a particular species to thrive.

At best you might have some all-knowing entity with complete knowledge of exactly what the perfect recipe for human thriving was, and therefore knew what ultimate human goodness would be, but that's still besides the point that goodness is what allows for thriving.

Think bigger. Think about a being that can change the rules of how life works and what it is. Or, even make rules for creating sentience that don't depend on living systems.

The limit isn't my imagination or yours but possibility itself, whatever that boundary really is. Think about a universe that has different entropy. How energy and matter work. Anything.

Good can be defined differently according to the whims of such a creature. The idea that it would generally make the creature to FIT the definition doesn't seem like that much of a constraint.

You could even create a creature that thrives by trying not to thrive and self hating everything that is truly good for it and putting it in an opposite universe where every harmful action the creature would take to commit suicide made it instead thrive according to that God's plan.

If an entity tried to declare that something harmful and dangerous that detracted from human thriving was 'good', what exactly would be the motivation to care about what they have to say?

That we are the ones defining "good" according to our own experience seems evident to me, but I am giving credence to the idea that there could be a God that wanted it that way (for the sake of argument). So, I don't see how the dilemma resolves anything morally with regards to God, we can't demonstrate God's views on the matter aside from what we already know about the universe.

So, since there are no real constraints on the powers that God can have, I have no way of saying that God doesn't indeed define Good. The dilemma makes the mistake that "the good" is objective, and in a case where God can do as it wishes and has the power, it should also have the power and imagination to define it as it so chooses.

If God had created a universe where we would see good one way and it would see it another would put us at odds with such a creature and we would call it "evil" instead, and we quite funny enough would worship "the good" rather than the real god of our universe. We tend to never really imagine this possibility but it's also impossible to rule out.

So, simply put, God as a concept can't be too absurd to exist, our notions of absurdity are no standard for something we don't understand. A rationalist perspective on "the good" and it's relationship to "god" are no dilemma if we don't know how Gods operate and what they are, and they are free to be of any magnitude of power. It's simply sets us upon a fools path to grant the premise that God's must have a rational and direct relationship with our morality and reasoning.

 

[HTacianas]

Not all homeless people or such are drug addicted, that's a generalization you don't have evidence to support in your claims.

And legitimacy of children is a damaging attitude that suggests an orphan or child born outside of particular socially appropriate institutions is somehow worth less rather than considering that their circumstances are not by their choice, giving them compassion instead of contempt

You said in your original post:

"How can you justify any aspect of divine command theory without making appeals to either tautological ideas of God that are goalpost shifting to avoid confronting the essence of goodness without reference to God's nature or holy scriptures?"

I answered with facts, never mentioning God or holy scriptures. You then began arguing your own personal idealogy all the while never drawing on anything other than your own opinion.

Now please. Don't be a poser.

 

[muichimotsu]

You said in your original post:

"How can you justify any aspect of divine command theory without making appeals to either tautological ideas of God that are goalpost shifting to avoid confronting the essence of goodness without reference to God's nature or holy scriptures?"

I answered with facts, never mentioning God or holy scriptures. You then began arguing your own personal idealogy all the while never drawing on anything other than your own opinion.

Now please. Don't be a poser.

You don't have to appeal to God or holy scriptures to moralize and make absolute claims that are unassailable because you've conflated your convictions with the truth of them apart from belief but their merits instead.

Who's the poser: the one who insists they're using facts instead of exaggerated notions equivocating existence and goodness or the one who's questioning why you get to assume that in the first place?

 

[HTacianas]

You don't have to appeal to God or holy scriptures to moralize and make absolute claims that are unassailable because you've conflated your convictions with the truth of them apart from belief but their merits instead.

Who's the poser: the one who insists they're using facts instead of exaggerated notions equivocating existence and goodness or the one who's questioning why you get to assume that in the first place?

Honestly, you need to take your own advice.

 

[muichimotsu]

Honestly, you need to take your own advice.

I've actually substantiated my claim by pointing out that death and destruction are arguably beneficial in terms of keeping a sense of balance in the world (overpopulation, stabilizing growth) and I can give other examples, the same in terms of creation/generation not necessarily always being good. Cancer is a good example, it's generation of new cells but with warped aspects to them, but it's still something coming about, that doesn't make it always good, in the same vein as invasive species flourishing when it means that other things will needlessly suffer in their ecology or die out.

You've just kept equivocating and assuming your position is right without actually arguing why creation and generation are always right rather than establishing a reasonable standard for when they can be considered good. Being inflexible on such a dogmatic position leaves you no room for real growth, but just being a fundamentalist about some principle you hold to be unquestionably true.

 

[HTacianas]

I've actually substantiated my claim by pointing out that death and destruction are arguably beneficial in terms of keeping a sense of balance in the world (overpopulation, stabilizing growth) and I can give other examples, the same in terms of creation/generation not necessarily always being good. Cancer is a good example, it's generation of new cells but with warped aspects to them, but it's still something coming about, that doesn't make it always good, in the same vein as invasive species flourishing when it means that other things will needlessly suffer in their ecology or die out.

You've just kept equivocating and assuming your position is right without actually arguing why creation and generation are always right rather than establishing a reasonable standard for when they can be considered good. Being inflexible on such a dogmatic position leaves you no room for real growth, but just being a fundamentalist about some principle you hold to be unquestionably true.

In all of that you're never mentioned any divine command.

 

[muichimotsu]

In all of that you're never mentioned any divine command.

Because I'm not advocating for it, you very well could be even if you don't think you are. What is the nature of good to you in terms of this supposed life if not the god you believe in that sustains it? If you don't need to invoke your god, then what good is it in your worldview?

 

[HTacianas]

Because I'm not advocating for it, you very well could be even if you don't think you are. What is the nature of good to you in terms of this supposed life if not the god you believe in that sustains it? If you don't need to invoke your god, then what good is it in your worldview?

You asked about divine commands, etc.

Were you expecting me not to invoke divine commands? You asked me if they were falsifiable and I gave you examples of what happened if those divine commands -that you asked for- were ignored.

Lord have mercy.

 

[muichimotsu]

You asked about divine commands, etc.

Were you expecting me not to invoke divine commands? You asked me if they were falsifiable and I gave you examples of what happened if those divine commands -that you asked for- were ignored.

Lord have mercy.

You've failed to demonstrate that they are divine commands in the first place beyond you believing they are.

The nature of your "God" is unfalsifiable, so it's disingenuous to say you're invoking divine commands as if they are self evidently true and then claim that because you can falsify them (by shifting the goalposts to what would fit a simplistic view of "falsify") that your model is justified rather than undermined by you question begging, assuming God is already cogent from the start in the discussion

What you "falsified" was based in a false dichotomy as well, as if destruction and generation are polar opposites and clash rather than complement each other

 

[Lobster Johnson]

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.

It's a funny sense of charity, where you don't give to the needy. Or possibly make them work in exchange for food.

Thank goodness they couldn't fool you, and definitely won't get food or drugs, both of which would have at least alleviated their suffering somewhat, however minutely. I'm sure those derelict skeletons will turn their lives right around, in the face of such charity.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Think bigger. Think about a being that can change the rules of how life works and what it is. Or, even make rules for creating sentience that don't depend on living systems.

The limit isn't my imagination or yours but possibility itself, whatever that boundary really is. Think about a universe that has different entropy. How energy and matter work. Anything.

Good can be defined differently according to the whims of such a creature. The idea that it would generally make the creature to FIT the definition doesn't seem like that much of a constraint.

You could even create a creature that thrives by trying not to thrive and self hating everything that is truly good for it and putting it in an opposite universe where every harmful action the creature would take to commit suicide made it instead thrive according to that God's plan.



That we are the ones defining "good" according to our own experience seems evident to me, but I am giving credence to the idea that there could be a God that wanted it that way (for the sake of argument). So, I don't see how the dilemma resolves anything morally with regards to God, we can't demonstrate God's views on the matter aside from what we already know about the universe.

So, since there are no real constraints on the powers that God can have, I have no way of saying that God doesn't indeed define Good. The dilemma makes the mistake that "the good" is objective, and in a case where God can do as it wishes and has the power, it should also have the power and imagination to define it as it so chooses.

If God had created a universe where we would see good one way and it would see it another would put us at odds with such a creature and we would call it "evil" instead, and we quite funny enough would worship "the good" rather than the real god of our universe. We tend to never really imagine this possibility but it's also impossible to rule out.

So, simply put, God as a concept can't be too absurd to exist, our notions of absurdity are no standard for something we don't understand. A rationalist perspective on "the good" and it's relationship to "god" are no dilemma if we don't know how Gods operate and what they are, and they are free to be of any magnitude of power. It's simply sets us upon a fools path to grant the premise that God's must have a rational and direct relationship with our morality and reasoning.

No, I think I got it. I covered that sort of extreme thing with my 'set on fire example'. We could imagine any type of living being - music-based extradimensional, living math equation, synthetic networked intelligence that uses black holes for processing nodes in a pan-galactic supercomputer - whatever the case, there will be circumstances underwhich they thrive. This will always constitute 'goodness', for that life, whatever the variety of life and circumstance.

I can't think of any definition of 'goodness' that's better than 'what causes life X to thrive', at least not one that 'life X' has any incentive to care about.

A creator can create any variety of life they wish - that life will inevitably have circumstances under which they thrive, and therefore there will be a concept of 'goodness' for that life. It's a necessary side-effect of that life existing in the first place, as far as I can tell.

Any creator that proposes a different definition of goodness other than 'that which causes life to thrive' is proposing something that life has no incentive to respect or follow. No matter how powerful they are or how they set up the system or what life they create, the fundamental definition of 'goodness' will remain. Deviating from that definition would, by necessity, be both counter to the well-being of whatever life they are proposing goodness for, and grounds for that life to disregard them - why care what a creator wants you to consider 'good' if it isn't good for you?

The only reason to respect a creator's proposal of goodness would be if they are using the definition of 'that which causes life to thrive'. A creator who is especially intelligent might well have the best way to achieve that goodness. But it's got nothing to do with them being a creator, with their inherent nature as a 'higher being' or whether they are a 'god' or whatever, but everything to do with the definition they are following - the same one we humans are generally striving to follow as well when we strive for 'goodness'.

 

[FireDragon76]

But that's tautological in avoiding the consideration of the nature of good and just equivocating it to God, it's intellectually lazy, that's my point

I don't see it as equivocation, no. I don't know many liberal or progressive Christians that believe it's impossible to think of good in the abstract, just because they believe in God.

You seem to be looking at justifying belief only in terms of logical positivism or verificationism, and I don't think those are the only potential grounds for justifying a belief. At the very least, justifying belief in things we can only know through verification seems to be a very limiting worldview because it discounts a great deal of human experience.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't see it as equivocation, no. I don't know many liberal or progressive Christians that believe it's impossible to think of good in the abstract, just because they believe in God.

You seem to be looking at justifying belief only in terms of logical positivism or verificationism, and I don't think those are the only potential grounds for justifying a belief. At the very least, justifying belief in things we can only know through verification seems to be a very limiting worldview because it discounts a great deal of human experience.

It still borders on equivocation if that's how you're defining God, sort of a stumbling block in cataphatic theology, because you're working on known concepts that don't necessarily require reference to the deity as much as tradition and history suggested to the thinkers. If good can be thought of in the abstract, then it would seem to suggest it and God can be fundamentally separate in essence, even if one tries to make a sequential link between them or such

I wouldn't use that term remotely for my epistemology, but falsifiability can be applied without it having to be purely empirical in terms of rational consideration of the proposed idea, particularly abstract aspects. Categorical imperative isn't necessarily empiricist, though Kant was more rationalist, iirc.

Discounting human experience isn't what I'm doing, I'm skeptical of claims that are rooted in sentimentality and not actually looking deeper into it because of some notion that they're ineffable in nature or we can only make minute approximations at best

The meta ethical theory of divine command may not be the only one, but it certainly seems to have elements that come about even if a person may not be aware that it's aligning with that when God is so fundamental that everything ties back into it for their worldview. It's ethical subjectivism and merely reducing the scope of the ethical perspective to an absolute entity to avoid claims of anything like moral relativism in the justification aspect, versus semantics

 

[FireDragon76]

It still borders on equivocation if that's how you're defining God, sort of a stumbling block in cataphatic theology, because you're working on known concepts that don't necessarily require reference to the deity as much as tradition and history suggested to the thinkers. If good can be thought of in the abstract, then it would seem to suggest it and God can be fundamentally separate in essence, even if one tries to make a sequential link between them or such

I don't think seeing equivocation as the only possibility is fair to the Christian tradition. For instance, are you considering Aquinas' analogia entis, that there is only an analogical relationship between notions such as "good", and God's essence?