"Is what is good commanded by god because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by god?"
The arbitrariness problem comes after the independence problem in that the divine commandment theorist has already decided that the first horn, that good exists independent of god, must be false. Therefore the second horn is the only possibility, in that what is good is good because god has commanded or willed it.
The problem is that accepting the second horn appears to render the content of the moral commands of god to be completely arbitrary. The reasoning is as follows:
-what is morally good is determined by the commands and willings of god.
-prior to any commandment of god the decision for such a commandment could not have been informed by any moral considerations, since prior to a commandment there is no moral law.
-if what is morally good is whatever is commanded by god to be good then they must be commanded by god prior to them being morally good.
-It must be that god has no prior moral considerations to base his commandments of morality on, therefore whatever god commands to be morally good is completely arbitrary.
-If there were moral facts that exist prior to god commanding them, then they would be independent of god and would not be dependent on the will of god. this outcome is already rejected by the divine commandment theorist.
-This means that whatever decision god makes about morality is equally as good as any other alternative that god could have chosen, since the decision is arbitrary.
One reply is that God's decisions are informed by other factors, such as if it maximizes utility [however utility should be defined] or that he does it for our well-being. But this doesn't escape the arbitrariness of the decisions made, since what is being considered as valid decision making criteria is still formed by the whim of God.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Euthyphro Dilemma: The Independence Problem
"Is what is good commanded by god because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by god?"
The independence problem derived from the first horn of the dilemma: "Is what is good commanded by god because it is good?" If what is morally good exists prior to God commanding it to be morally good, then what is morally good is independent of God. This means that God is not the creator of moral goodness, but merely the discoverer of the moral good. If this is true, then God is not a necessary condition for their being morality. This also raises the possibility of morality being known independent of God, which is something the divine command theorist does not wish to admit.
The conclusion that God isn't the source of morality or that morality exists independently of God leads the divine command theorist to the second horn, that what is good is good because it is commanded by god.
The independence problem derived from the first horn of the dilemma: "Is what is good commanded by god because it is good?" If what is morally good exists prior to God commanding it to be morally good, then what is morally good is independent of God. This means that God is not the creator of moral goodness, but merely the discoverer of the moral good. If this is true, then God is not a necessary condition for their being morality. This also raises the possibility of morality being known independent of God, which is something the divine command theorist does not wish to admit.
The conclusion that God isn't the source of morality or that morality exists independently of God leads the divine command theorist to the second horn, that what is good is good because it is commanded by god.
Euthyphro Dilemma: Revisted
The Euthyphro Dilemma is specifically aimed as a refutation for the divine command theory. It does this through the introduction of several problems that occur in the dilemma. They are;
The Independence Problem
The Arbitrariness Problem
The Emptiness Problem
The Problem of Abhorrent Commands
Divine command theory can be roughly defined as the set of all moral truths are contingent on the commandments of God, or the will of God. That is, what God commands or wills to be morally good is what is morally good.
The Euthyphro Dilemma poses a serious challenge in that it raises the above problems and that divine command theorists have a difficult time responding to it, especially without giving up any power to God.
Some popular responses are to 'bite the bullet', appeal to human nature, or to differentiate God's nature.
'Biting the bullet' means to accept that the commandments or willings of God are indeed arbitrary, and that if God commanded us to commit murder then we are morally obligated to commit murder. This response is usually viewed as unacceptable and appalling, as to believe that murder or rape could be morally good is intuitively repulsive.
Appealing to human nature is a response saying that when God created us, he instilled into us what is right and wrong for us. So drinking a poison will be bad for us, while eating nourishing food is good for us. Since it is simply a part of our nature, God cannot, on a whim, change such things. They try to point out that God could have made us different, but since God didn't, this is the way things are. This response is completely unsatisfactory in that it doesn't remove the arbitrariness from his actions, they just claim he can't change what he has done [which also limits his omnipotence, but we'll ignore that this time]. It also doesn't address the nature of God in his decision making process and whether or not he is subject to moral implications of his own.
Differentiating the nature of God is pretty much done by placing what is morally good as an attribute of God. So God isn't subject to external morality, he has internalized morality and it therefore is in his very fiber to be morally good. This doesn't answer the problems either, because it appears as though God cannot change his nature nor act as he wishes. In addition it seems to be arbitrary that we select God as the standard for moral behavior, or as the source of moral behavior. wouldn't an entity have to behave according to some moral standards in order to be considered moral?
There are many other objections to the divine command theory and there are no satisfactory defenses of the theory.
The Independence Problem
The Arbitrariness Problem
The Emptiness Problem
The Problem of Abhorrent Commands
Divine command theory can be roughly defined as the set of all moral truths are contingent on the commandments of God, or the will of God. That is, what God commands or wills to be morally good is what is morally good.
The Euthyphro Dilemma poses a serious challenge in that it raises the above problems and that divine command theorists have a difficult time responding to it, especially without giving up any power to God.
Some popular responses are to 'bite the bullet', appeal to human nature, or to differentiate God's nature.
'Biting the bullet' means to accept that the commandments or willings of God are indeed arbitrary, and that if God commanded us to commit murder then we are morally obligated to commit murder. This response is usually viewed as unacceptable and appalling, as to believe that murder or rape could be morally good is intuitively repulsive.
Appealing to human nature is a response saying that when God created us, he instilled into us what is right and wrong for us. So drinking a poison will be bad for us, while eating nourishing food is good for us. Since it is simply a part of our nature, God cannot, on a whim, change such things. They try to point out that God could have made us different, but since God didn't, this is the way things are. This response is completely unsatisfactory in that it doesn't remove the arbitrariness from his actions, they just claim he can't change what he has done [which also limits his omnipotence, but we'll ignore that this time]. It also doesn't address the nature of God in his decision making process and whether or not he is subject to moral implications of his own.
Differentiating the nature of God is pretty much done by placing what is morally good as an attribute of God. So God isn't subject to external morality, he has internalized morality and it therefore is in his very fiber to be morally good. This doesn't answer the problems either, because it appears as though God cannot change his nature nor act as he wishes. In addition it seems to be arbitrary that we select God as the standard for moral behavior, or as the source of moral behavior. wouldn't an entity have to behave according to some moral standards in order to be considered moral?
There are many other objections to the divine command theory and there are no satisfactory defenses of the theory.
Logic
This is a brief list of some basic definitions used in logic. These definitions come from "An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic" by Ian Hacking.
-Premises and conclusions are Propositions, statements that can either be true or false. AKA T/F statements.
-A logical argument is defined as "a point or series of reasons presented to support a proposition which is the conclusion of the argument."
-A Fallacy is an error in reasoning that is so common that logicians have noted it. An example is 'Affirming the Consequent'.
If A, then B
B
So:
A.
This is a very common fallacy in arguments where the consequent [B] is a premise and the arguer mistakenly assumes that it proves the andecedent [A]. To put it simply, only A would prove B, B can be proved through other means. An example is if A meant 'Jon wants a job' and B meant 'Will get his hair cut'.
If Jon wants a job, then he will get his hair cut
He will get his haircut
So Jon wants a job.
the reason this is false is that it could also be that Jon is going on a hot date that likes guys with nice orderly hair. so that means that it is incorrect to assume the andecedent based off the consequent.
-There are 2 ways to criticize an argument:
1) Challenge the premise - show that at least one of the premises are false
2) challenge the reasoning - show that the premises are not a good reason for the conclusion
-Validity has to do with the logical connections between the premises and the conclusion, it is not a statement about the truth value of them. A valid argument could have false premises and a true conclusion. Likewise, an invalid argument could have true premises and a true conclusion. A general idea is that the conclusion has to follow from the premises in order for the argument to be valid.
ex: If A, then C
A
So:
C
That is an example of a valid argument. What A and C are don't have to be true, it just has to follow that if you have A in a conditional statement then you have to have C.
-A Sound argument is an argument where all the premises are true and the argument is valid. Likewise, an unsound argument either has a false premise and/or the argument is invalid.
-A rough definition of inductive logic is "Inductive logic analyzes risky arguments using probablity ideas."
-There are deductive probabilities though: Using a 6 sided die
The probability of rolling any side is equal
There are 6 possibilities
So
Rolling a 4 is 1/6 probability.
That is a valid and deductive argument using probability.
These are just some rough definitions and ideas so that when you are analyzing/criticizing an argument you can use the logically correct definitions [such as validity and soundness].
-Premises and conclusions are Propositions, statements that can either be true or false. AKA T/F statements.
-A logical argument is defined as "a point or series of reasons presented to support a proposition which is the conclusion of the argument."
-A Fallacy is an error in reasoning that is so common that logicians have noted it. An example is 'Affirming the Consequent'.
If A, then B
B
So:
A.
This is a very common fallacy in arguments where the consequent [B] is a premise and the arguer mistakenly assumes that it proves the andecedent [A]. To put it simply, only A would prove B, B can be proved through other means. An example is if A meant 'Jon wants a job' and B meant 'Will get his hair cut'.
If Jon wants a job, then he will get his hair cut
He will get his haircut
So Jon wants a job.
the reason this is false is that it could also be that Jon is going on a hot date that likes guys with nice orderly hair. so that means that it is incorrect to assume the andecedent based off the consequent.
-There are 2 ways to criticize an argument:
1) Challenge the premise - show that at least one of the premises are false
2) challenge the reasoning - show that the premises are not a good reason for the conclusion
-Validity has to do with the logical connections between the premises and the conclusion, it is not a statement about the truth value of them. A valid argument could have false premises and a true conclusion. Likewise, an invalid argument could have true premises and a true conclusion. A general idea is that the conclusion has to follow from the premises in order for the argument to be valid.
ex: If A, then C
A
So:
C
That is an example of a valid argument. What A and C are don't have to be true, it just has to follow that if you have A in a conditional statement then you have to have C.
-A Sound argument is an argument where all the premises are true and the argument is valid. Likewise, an unsound argument either has a false premise and/or the argument is invalid.
-A rough definition of inductive logic is "Inductive logic analyzes risky arguments using probablity ideas."
-There are deductive probabilities though: Using a 6 sided die
The probability of rolling any side is equal
There are 6 possibilities
So
Rolling a 4 is 1/6 probability.
That is a valid and deductive argument using probability.
These are just some rough definitions and ideas so that when you are analyzing/criticizing an argument you can use the logically correct definitions [such as validity and soundness].
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Power of Prayer: Fail Story
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32191966/?GT1=43001
Summary of the story: 11 year old dies from undiagnosed diabetes because her family believed that the healing power of prayer would cure her. She believes that sickness is caused by sin and can be cured by God. she didn't believe her daughters lifelessness was something serious that she wouldn't come out of by praying more.
Seriously? what sin would an 11 year old commit that would cause diabetes? Too much tv?
Summary of the story: 11 year old dies from undiagnosed diabetes because her family believed that the healing power of prayer would cure her. She believes that sickness is caused by sin and can be cured by God. she didn't believe her daughters lifelessness was something serious that she wouldn't come out of by praying more.
Seriously? what sin would an 11 year old commit that would cause diabetes? Too much tv?
Monday, July 6, 2009
Amputee Prayers
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
The question is simple, why doesn't God answer the prayers of amputees? The website leads to many well articulated criticisms of the power of prayer and the existence of God. But it pretty much boils down to this:
People believe that the power of prayer to heal wounds is real. The bible also makes claims in many different places [sited on the website] that a sincere prayer from someone that truly believes will lead to it being answered.
There must've been at least one sincere amputee who truly believes in God that has asked for a limb to be restored.
There has never been a case that a limb has been restored.
Either God has an odd divine plan for amputees that hasn't been revealed or god does not exist.
The question is simple, why doesn't God answer the prayers of amputees? The website leads to many well articulated criticisms of the power of prayer and the existence of God. But it pretty much boils down to this:
People believe that the power of prayer to heal wounds is real. The bible also makes claims in many different places [sited on the website] that a sincere prayer from someone that truly believes will lead to it being answered.
There must've been at least one sincere amputee who truly believes in God that has asked for a limb to be restored.
There has never been a case that a limb has been restored.
Either God has an odd divine plan for amputees that hasn't been revealed or god does not exist.
Counterfactuals
Some of the arguments that I will be using are written in the form of a counterfactual. This is pretty much just saying that I will be using "what if" or "were it the case that" in front of the assumptions in an argument. most of them will be "were it the case that god were real, then this is what follows."
Many of the arguments have been thoroughly covered by many theologians and religious scholars. They may even have many different solutions that the religious community will accept. I understand that as I write them. The reason I still write them out is to demonstrate that even if there are several solutions to an argument, the solutions will tend to not agree with each other. Some will answer that God can do anything, or that there is a limit and that's fine. This demonstrates to the observer that the people that are providing the solutions are creating solutions to the issue at hand without any actual facts or knowledge to support the claims in their solutions. They are just attempting to weasel out of the contradiction in a superficial manner. If two theologians/religious scholars can come to two distinct and mutually exclusive conclusions about their deity and the supernatural realm, then is there any actual knowledge or method of obtaining supernatural knowledge that they are using that they can back up their claims with?
This shows that they possess no actual knowledge whatsoever about any actual limitations, abilities, or even any characteristic of the deity they believe in. Whatever claim they have about the true state of their deity will change to suit the contradictions and arguments given at that time period. Given that they can't obtain any facts about their deity, anytime they claim that their deity has a certain property they are just fabricating the details.
I hope that the counterfactuals i have written out illustrate this point. If there was a true solution to any of the problems, then it would have to be uniform. It could not vary, for a perfect deity cannot vary. Or can it?
Many of the arguments have been thoroughly covered by many theologians and religious scholars. They may even have many different solutions that the religious community will accept. I understand that as I write them. The reason I still write them out is to demonstrate that even if there are several solutions to an argument, the solutions will tend to not agree with each other. Some will answer that God can do anything, or that there is a limit and that's fine. This demonstrates to the observer that the people that are providing the solutions are creating solutions to the issue at hand without any actual facts or knowledge to support the claims in their solutions. They are just attempting to weasel out of the contradiction in a superficial manner. If two theologians/religious scholars can come to two distinct and mutually exclusive conclusions about their deity and the supernatural realm, then is there any actual knowledge or method of obtaining supernatural knowledge that they are using that they can back up their claims with?
This shows that they possess no actual knowledge whatsoever about any actual limitations, abilities, or even any characteristic of the deity they believe in. Whatever claim they have about the true state of their deity will change to suit the contradictions and arguments given at that time period. Given that they can't obtain any facts about their deity, anytime they claim that their deity has a certain property they are just fabricating the details.
I hope that the counterfactuals i have written out illustrate this point. If there was a true solution to any of the problems, then it would have to be uniform. It could not vary, for a perfect deity cannot vary. Or can it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
