Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An objection to the notion God's commands determines moral obligations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
    Wrong kind of reason. That's a reason of self-interest, not a moral reason.
    They are the same thing.

    And you've just gone the might makes right route, where one tries to account for moral reasons in terms of punishment.
    Absolutely. Might makes right is the only rational underpinning for morality. Anything else is irrational wishful thinking.

    And one can still disregard a command, even if one is punished for doing so. For example: people who disregard an authoritarians command to torture innocent people.
    One can disregard a command even if it is moral so "may" in this case means "it is morally permissible", which is not true.


    Not really. Wes Morriston understands divine command theory quite well. Hence him being one of the leading contemporary Christian critics of it. And one doesn't need to accept all the assumptions of a position in order to critique and understand a position.
    The issue is not the failure to accept but the failure to understand. In this case he does not understand Divine Command so he does not criticize Divine Command theory. AKA: it's a straw man.

    For example: I don't have to assume that every aspect of Young Earth creationism is true, in order to critique or understand Young Earth creationism.
    To use your analogy, he is criticizing Divine Command by assuming a premise that goes counter to DC. Of course in this situation you will conclude DC is wrong. But that's not an argument, it's an assertion pretending to be an argument.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
      God's commands do not determine moral obligations, that is a misrepresentation of divine command theory. God's nature determines his commands, and we are morally obligated to follow His commands. If God's nature could be different (which I'm not sure it could), and was different, then presumably His commands would be different, and therefore we would be morally obligated to follow those commands instead of the commands that we are subject to now.
      I think it's ok to say God's commands determine moral obligations because the obligations are derived from the commands rather than directly from God's nature.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Jichard View Post
        You didn't actually address the core of the objection. Here it is again:
        "Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God’s commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false (19)."

        That's a valid objection, that goes beyond just "providing a different viewpoint". It's an argument against divine command theory. You have not addressed it.
        It's an objection, but it is not valid, because it fails to recognize that the ultimate ground of moral obligation is God's nature, and not his commands. If God's nature was different then both His commands and our moral sensibilities would be diffferent from what they are now. This is why it makes no sense to say as you said in the other thread that the notion that I put forward about us being obligated to follow God's commands because we're His creations and live in His universe, and therefore have to play by His rules was flawed because:

        Source: Jichard


        On that position, we'd have a normative moral reason to follow the commands a vicious, psychopathic deity that commanded we rape, as long as we're that deity's creations and we're living in a world that deity created. You've basically fallen back to an implausible might makes right position, where if one is powerful enough to create the world and it's contents, then what one says is right. And that's wildly implausible.

        © Copyright Original Source



        http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post189486

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
          I think it's ok to say God's commands determine moral obligations because the obligations are derived from the commands rather than directly from God's nature.
          I'd say that we are morally obligated to follow God's commands, but that his nature determine what His commands are going to be, which makes His nature more fundamental to the question of what is morally obligatory. I don't think that our obligations are derived from God's commands, but rather from the fact that we are subjects in His universe and as such we are obligated to play by His rules/commands.

          Comment


          • #20
            I still have trouble seeing how God's nature must be the highest good. I can't tell the difference between that and saying pink is nice and therefore God is the most pink thing there is.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
              It's an objection, but it is not valid,
              It's logically valid.

              because it fails to recognize that the ultimate ground of moral obligation is God's nature, and not his commands. If God's nature was different then both His commands and our moral sensibilities would be diffferent from what they are now.
              First, you just moved from DCT. DCT proponents (like William Lane Craig) don't take the ground of moral obligation to be God's nature. They take it to be God's commands to be be grounds of moral obligation. People like Craig ground moral values (not moral duties / moral obligations) in God's nature.

              Second, you haven't addressed the objection. Here's the objection again:
              "Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God’s commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false (19)."
              The objection still goes through. For example, one can simply note that good reasons (not God's nature) are the grounds for moral commands.

              Third, unless you're resorting to moral subjectivism (in the form of a sensibility theory), pointing out that our moral sensibilities would have been different has no bearing on the truth or falsity of moral claims (such as claims regarding moral obligations). It'd be akin to pointing out that God could have made u with different capacities for forming mathematical judgments, as if that has any bearing on which mathematical statements were actually true. Just because God might have the power to manipulate humans into false mathematical and moral beliefs, doesn't mean that God somehow changes which mathematical and moral beliefs are true or false.

              This is why it makes no sense to say as you said in the other thread that the notion that I put forward about us being obligated to follow God's commands because we're His creations and live in His universe, and therefore have to play by His rules was flawed because:

              Source: Jichard


              On that position, we'd have a normative moral reason to follow the commands a vicious, psychopathic deity that commanded we rape, as long as we're that deity's creations and we're living in a world that deity created. You've basically fallen back to an implausible might makes right position, where if one is powerful enough to create the world and it's contents, then what one says is right. And that's wildly implausible.

              © Copyright Original Source



              http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post189486
              What I said there follows straight-forwardly from what you said. You said that:

              Well, if God's commands would be authoritatively binding if we're his creations and we're living in a world he creates, then anyone's commands would be authoritatively binding if we're their creations and we're living in a world they create. To say otherwise is just special pleading. It's akin to saying "Sam's house would be square because it has fours sides", yet vigorously objecting if someone said "Laura's house would be square because it has four sides".

              Now, what I did was show how implausible your position was by substituting in a vicious, psychopathic deity as the creator. That's just might makes right nonsense. So if you can recognize why such a deity's commands would not be authoritatively binding just because it created us and the world we live in, then you should be able to recognize why God's commands would not be authoritatively binding just because it created us and the world we live in.
              "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                I still have trouble seeing how God's nature must be the highest good.
                Because God is omnipotent so He decides who ultimately prospers and who doesn't.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Because God is omnipotent so He decides who ultimately prospers and who doesn't.
                  But that has nothing to do with 'good'. That just means He's the biggest bully on the block.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                    But that has nothing to do with 'good'.
                    Sure it does.

                    Is it morally good for a surgeon to save someone's life? If so, why?
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Sure it does.

                      Is it morally good for a surgeon to save someone's life? If so, why?
                      Is it morally good to kill someone because you don't like their face simply because you can? Power has no relationship to virtue and more power need not equate to more virtue.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                        Is it morally good to kill someone because you don't like their face simply because you can? Power has no relationship to virtue and more power need not equate to more virtue.
                        Can you answer my question instead of going off on wild tangents?
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          Can you answer my question instead of going off on wild tangents?
                          Certainly. It is morally good for a surgeon to save a life because saving lives is a good thing. Not sure where that gets us and how it helps explain your thought journey from omnipotence ultimate good.

                          My question was aimed at showing that power is not related to virtue.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
                            Certainly. It is morally good for a surgeon to save a life because saving lives is a good thing.
                            That's nonsensical. "It's good because it's good". What does that even mean?

                            Not sure where that gets us and how it helps explain your thought journey from omnipotence ultimate good.

                            My question was aimed at showing that power is not related to virtue.
                            But it doesn't do that since whether I like someone's face or not has nothing to do with power.
                            Last edited by Darth Executor; 04-24-2015, 06:58 AM.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                              Well, if God's commands would be authoritatively binding if we're his creations and we're living in a world he creates, then anyone's commands would be authoritatively binding if we're their creations and we're living in a world they create. To say otherwise is just special pleading. It's akin to saying "Sam's house would be square because it has fours sides", yet vigorously objecting if someone said "Laura's house would be square because it has four sides".

                              Now, what I did was show how implausible your position was by substituting in a vicious, psychopathic deity as the creator. That's just might makes right nonsense. So if you can recognize why such a deity's commands would not be authoritatively binding just because it created us and the world we live in, then you should be able to recognize why God's commands would not be authoritatively binding just because it created us and the world we live in.
                              Jichard, don't you see how silly this sounds? If the Christian God exists you are accountable to Him, whether you think that He has the authority or not. And even if it is not might makes right, in this case might does define right. In other words God has the ability to enforce His moral view. I mean really, people like Richard Dawkins already think the God of scripture is psychopathic. A meaningless opinion, except when it comes to the fate of his own soul.
                              Last edited by seer; 04-24-2015, 08:08 AM.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                                "Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God’s commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false (19)."
                                Like Chrawnus, I think God's reasons are due to His nature: omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. Surely an all-good and all-knowing God would have good reasons for His commands? As those reasons are grounded in God's knowledge and goodness.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                207 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,518 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X